When I say "anti-homosexual", I mean in effect not intention. Restricting human rights undeniably has a negative affect on those who are restricted. If the best defense for these people is to claim ignorance...
Mozilla CEO "resigns"
- Thread starter Interval
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
When I say "anti-homosexual", I mean in effect not intention. Restricting human rights undeniably has a negative affect on those who are restricted. If the best defense for these people is to claim ignorance...
The "hateful" legislation was done in due process. I don't know about the details of Proposition 8, but it was voted on and passed into law by a majority of California's population. He donated to an organization that lobbyied and campaigned for the bill passing. He's not donating to groups that illegally discriminate. I'm asking you if you would be ok with a board forcing a CEO to leave because it was revealed that he voted for Proposition 8?
The Mozilla board had every right to pressure him to resign, in line with public pressure. I feel it was a very reactionary decision; the public's attention span is very short, and this would have blown over after a week. Companies answer more to shareholders. And I don't see hipsters abandoning Firefox regardless of who is in charge there.
It wouldn't be a legal termination, he'd sue them up shits creek.
I think gay couples should have all the rights and privileges of legal marriage in their jurisdiction. Churches are not public institutions, so they are well within their rights to deny marrying gay couples.
To play Devil's advocate for a moment, why is it a restriction of human rights to deny a same sex marriage when the very idea of the ceremony is based on a religious ceremony between a man and a woman?
So was the Fugitive Slave Act. So was Plessy v Ferguson. So were poll taxes. He donated to a group that directly opposed the states values of the company he runs.
If it was revealed that he voted for it, I think the board could pressure him to resign, like they did here. He wasn't fired. He got a (presumably generous) compensation package.
That's not the idea of the ceremony in 21st century America. If it was, we wouldn't allow atheists to get married.
The ceremony is separate from marriage. Different religions and cultures have very different ceremonies, and you can get married without a religious ceremony.
I don't have any problem with that, that is fair enough.
This.
Though a less popular boycott, I had the same view when some people did not like the Dixie Chicks politics and decided to boycott them. I fully supported the Dixie Chicks absolute right to both have and express their opinions and even agreed with their problems with then President Bush. But at the same time I was okay with people who decided that they would not buy or listen to the Dixie Chicks music anymore, afterall they were just expressing their opinion also, even if it was an opinion I did not agree with.
So same thing here if this Eich guy is anti-gay rights, well then he has a right to express that opinion. Just as then people who oppose his position are absolutely within their rights to not do business with his company. Obviously Eich could run into legal issues if a business he ran was discriminatory, but that does not seem to be the case here.
But there is a fine line that I am not sure where exactly it lies, because carried too far this could have a real chilling effect on free speech and people rights to employment. Not that I think we are anywhere near that line.
I don't agree with that. If you want to deny gay people the same rights as straight people, then you are anti-gay.
You can't defend opposition to equal marriage (be that interracial marriage or gay marriage) as a mere issue of tradition.
But nobody's saying that to my knowledge.
You can get married in a registry office. Why does a priest (who will more than likely not agree with such an act) have to perform the service? That will not take away any human rights, the piece of paper will still mean the exact same thing. He could be against homosexuality or against people of such preference getting married in a place of worship. If that is the case then he is within his rights to donate and oppose to such a bill/law.
I think prop 8 was about banning gay marriage, not gay marriage in a church. Churches have the right to deny gays to get married as far as I know.
That's fair enough, marriage has adapted and changed along with a large part of western society detaching itself from religion. There are now two definitions of marriage in the UK, one recognised by the Church of England and the State, and one definition recognised by the state, but not by the church. It's a bit of a fudge, because they can have civil ceremonies anyway which equate to the same thing.
My Devil's Advocate argument asked if it really equates to a human rights issue though, based on the traditional idea of marriage. Especially given the fact that Gays can have civil ceremonies that are essentially marriages in all but name. They've basically gained access to a new word to describe their status.
I'm not sure if he should lose his job over his personal views, but I can see why the company would want to distance itself from any bad publicity.
As I understand it, that wasn't what the law was about. But anyway, no one is claiming he did anything that wasn't 'within his rights'.
If that is the case then he shouldn't have been fired. This hasn't been specified but could be a potential thought process.
Ah, I wasn't sure of the details. So um, yeah I'm against Prop 8, but I'll defend to the death the right of Brendan Eich to donate money to an organization fighting for Prop 8. Or something like that.
Gay people can't do that here. Two weeks ago, a judge in Michigan struck down the restriction on a Friday. Hundreds of couples got married over the weekend in the offices of sympathetic county clerks before a stay could be issued. Gay people aren't trying to force priests to do something they oppose. They just want to get married to the people they love.
Huh? You can lose your job for doing something 'within your rights'.
He also wasn't fired.
I understand that and appreciate it. They could create such places where that would be acceptable and not impose on any ones beliefs, though. I'm of the opinion that people are free to do what they like when it comes to love/relationships but also agree that religious people can be against gay marriage being performed in their place of worship.
Of course you can. I didn't say anything to the contrary.
Nobody said anything about interracial marriage.
I don't think it's quite as straight forward as anti gay marriage = anti gay. It's not about denying Gay people rights if your religious beliefs dictate that the only people that have a right to be married are a man and a woman. I think it's quite feasible to be opposed to Gay marriage on religious grounds, yet take a live and let live attitude to homosexuality.
It can't be easy for religious people to accept Gay marriage, they've had the traditional marriage values preached to them for years so I wouldn't brand them anti-gay for opposing it.
Regardless of how he came to the conclusion that same sex couples shouldn't be able to marry, I still think it makes him at least a little bit anti-gay don't you?
How is it any different to being opposed to, say, racial integration but taking a 'live and let live' attitude to race? Seems just as nonsensical to me. Some people tried to defend apartheid on 'traditionalist' grounds, but they were still racist, however they came to be so.
To me, if you are anti-gay marriage then you are anti-gay by definition.
Well, I don't know his personal beliefs, therefore I find it hard to label him as anti-gay. On the basis of his donation without any background knowledge, it does appear anti gay on the surface.
I don't know him, but I'm judging him on his actions. I don't think I'm being unfair in doing so either.
You're basically comparing religious beliefs to racist beliefs. I don't believe in God, but even I think that's a bit wrong.
More like anti gay rights. Which is just as bad. It's like I don't mind blacks, I just don't want them to vote or feck white girls.
The Mormon Church discriminated against black people as part of their official doctrine for years, but just because it was religiously inspired it didn't make it any less racist.
I am equating homophobic beliefs to racist beliefs. Whether they are derived from religious doctrine or tradition is irrelevant to me.
I think he's saying that if you have racist beliefs and/or homophobic beliefs, regardless of where they come fro, it's wrong and you can't excuse it. Even if its based on a tradition or religious teachings it's no excuse.
Edit: Or what he actually said, teach me for not replying quicker!
Well, I'm not religious, racist or gayist. I support the right for Gay people to get married. Equally, I support the Religious institutions and their followers in their refusal to allow Gays to marry in their religious buildings as it goes against their beliefs.
I still don't think that believing it's God's will that marriage is between a man and a woman makes the Church and its followers anti-gay by default. There are openly gay Reverends in the UK, so there must be some sort of balance that can be found.
I just think it's another example of religion evolving far slower than society in general, but it doesn't necessarily make them all homophobes by default. They're just caught between the bible and state law.
I agree with that.
I think it's anti-gay by definition - how can it not be? That doesn't mean I think opponents of gay marriage should be seen in the same light as people who are violently homophobic. Just as I don't think that someone who gets nervous at the idea of their child marrying a person of another race should be seen in the same light as an active member of a racist group.
There are varying degrees of bigotry.
The essence of marriage is that it's not merely personal. Few would oppose homosexuals entering into any voluntary contractual obligations to each other they chose. The point of the gay marriage campaign is the wish of homosexuals to have their relationships ratified by society as biologically and socially equivalent to heterosexual relationships. Which they clearly are not.
gayistSorry, just to be clear - are you saying that they aren't viewed as such or are you saying that they are not equal in the "laws of nature"?
I agree.
I'm just sensitive to the possibility that there is a conflict between having religious beliefs drummed into your head from an early age, only for society to evolve to a point where your beliefs are outdated. People could find themselves believing some principles of the bible, such as marriage is for men and women, yet mixing with Gay people socially and/or in a working environment. As I said before, there are openly Gay religious figures in the UK so I can't believe they'd represent the Church if they thought it was anti-gay by default. I think the Church leaders need to sit down and find a way to update some of the rules/regs or risk losing even more relevance.
Look at how far society has come in the last 30 years in terms of clamping down on racism and homophobia and tolerance of other peoples beliefs, then compare that to how old religious texts are. It's obviously going to cause issues.
Anyway, I thought I'd give the Mozilla monster the benefit of the slim doubt by assuming that he wasn't an outright bigot, then I dabbled in a bit of Devil's advocacy and then we somehow got here!
Religion.
It's the way forward, far better than "homophobic"
The problem I have with this is that he was actually really very good at his job, wasn't he? Didn't he basically author Firefox along wit something else (I forget) that we all use and take for granted now?
Fair enough, he's got an opinion I don't agree with but good god, he shouldn't be forced to retire because of it. If OKCupid want to boycott his company's software, fair enough but if I were Mozilla I'd put out a statement saying the views of an employee obviously don't reflect the views of the company and let that be the end of it.
Fair enough, he's got an opinion I don't agree with but good god, he shouldn't be forced to retire because of it. If OKCupid want to boycott his company's software, fair enough but if I were Mozilla I'd put out a statement saying the views of an employee obviously don't reflect the views of the company and let that be the end of it.
I guess he must have been persuaded to retire because they daren't fire him for his beliefs. To play devil's advocate, presumably if you are pro-gay marriage in California you are supporting an illegal activity, so I doubt the company could get him on a company reputation clause.
As for OKCupid, they can feck right off. I may not agree with that guy's views but who are they to tell me whose software I should or shouldn't use?