Mozilla CEO "resigns"

Will Absolute said:
Unnecessary to invoke the "laws of nature", common sense will suffice.

Strand 1000 male homosexuals on a paradisiacal South Sea island, complete with all the requirements to sustain comfortable life, and a gay minister to perform marriage ceremonies.

Come back in 100 years.

Uninhabited island.
Click to expand...

Your experiment is flawed. If you put 1000 male heterosexuals on an island you'd get exactly the same outcome. Probably a similar amount of bumming will have happened as well.
 
Only in US, a company's CEO is made to resign because he had donated some money to anti gay bill and there are a few CEO's in office who don't want to pay for company's insurance specifically for abortion and contraceptives because they are 'pro-life'
 
naturalized said:
I assure you, we most definitely do not. Are you referring to the Rite of Holy Matrimony/Rite of Marriage, which sets out that "the matrimonial covenant... is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring?" It's about as relevant to us as the kinds of laws you read about in "World's Strangest Laws" lists, like those banning the walking of elephants in the street and such. It's a historical relic.

Anyone whipping out the "marriage is for making babies!" line is most likely doing so just to justify his or her own homophobia. They don't - at least I hope they don't - go back home and make love to their spouses with the monotony of a factory worker trying to complete a particularly complicated widget.
Click to expand...

Are you Irish? Do you live in Ireland? Have you come across dozens of Irish Catholics who sneer at anyone who doesn't want to have kids, because shure that's what God wants?

You can disregard it as irrelevent all you like, but there's plenty of Catholics I come across in daily life who'd disagree with you. Marriage is for making babies, and the next generation of Catholics. If you're gay, you don't get to get married, because you can't make babies. If you're straight and get married with no intention of having babies, then you're doing it wrong and we'll judge you.
 
Will Absolute said:
From my previous post: that homosexual relationships are not biologically or socially equivalent to heterosexual relationships. That they're not integral to the existence of human beings as hetero relationships are, and don't have the same meaning, purpose or status.
Click to expand...

Are you playing the "it's against nature"? Because if so homosexual behaviour is very common in nature.

Socially homosexual partners are a social equivalent in the non-neanderthal parts of society and they certainly should have the same legal status. Having a problem with homosexual marriage means you should have a problem with older heterosexuals getting married as they can't reproduce either. Perhaps we should also ban the infertile from marrying? or does that sound stupid perchance?
 
Will Absolute said:
Unnecessary to invoke the "laws of nature", common sense will suffice.

Strand 1000 male homosexuals on a paradisiacal South Sea island, complete with all the requirements to sustain comfortable life, and a gay minister to perform marriage ceremonies.

Come back in 100 years.

Uninhabited island.
Click to expand...

I want to visit a 'paradisiacal' island.
 
Is marriage really that important? The only reason I would want to get married is because its a must in my religion. If it wasn't, would happily live the rest of my life unmarried. Dunno why people make such a big deal out of it.
 
Not sure what the fuss is about. If he made a contribution to an organization that promotes racism, there would be a similar outcome.
 
Raoul said:
Not sure what the fuss is about. If he made a contribution to an organization that promotes racism, there would be a similar outcome.
Click to expand...

If you're racist on your own time without it impacting your work or your colleagues, no-one has the right to question you.
 
crappycraperson said:
Homosexuals and others who are for same rights for everyone have every right o boycott any product or company to help their cause. It is not about just one person, it is the CEO of the company, the man who wields most power in day to day operations. There is no way you can be certain that he does not discriminate against homosexual employees given his actions. Infact it is more likely he does since he does not believe they should have same rights as straight people.
Click to expand...

You buy products for use. I don't think anyone checks for CEO characterestice before buying a product. He became CEO for this technical and leadership skills to make the company better. CEO probably has quite few influence in day to day operations. Maybe the COO, but CEO is more on strategy, horizon ventures etc. I don't think any CEO actually influences the HR policy on his own. Yes, he may influence but I don't think he can do it without getting caught quick, seeing the number of other people invovled. Not a dictatorship.

I don't think any CEO is a paragon of sainthood and we should not expect them to be. If consumers want to ignore buying..feel free.
 
Interval Level said:
If you're racist on your own time without it impacting your work or your colleagues, no-one has the right to question you.
Click to expand...

That's not how it works. If you're racist on your own time and you work in the public eye, you will be identified and ostracized into conforming with social norms or else find yourself disgraced and unemployed. See the Paula Deen situation as an example. She was ostracized into submission for something she did many years ago.
 
Raoul said:
That's not how it works. If you're racist on your own time and you work in the public eye, you will be identified and ostracized into conforming with social norms or else find yourself disgraced and unemployed. See the Paula Deen situation as an example. She was ostracized into submission for something she did many years ago.
Click to expand...
Even if that's the way it "works" it still isn't the right way. You can't be ostracizing people for their opinion if it isn't harming anyone. That like saying "comply to our social norms" or perish.
 
Interval Level said:
Even if that's the way it "works" it still isn't the right way. You can't be ostracizing people for their opinion if it isn't harming anyone. That like saying "comply to our social norms" or perish.
Click to expand...

I think it is the right way. If you espouse views that society deems deeply immoral, then they aren't obliged to buy your products. The simple fact is that in today's society, you can't be racist, homophobic, sexist, etc without paying a price. Its not as if we're discussing sacking someone whose favorite color is yellow rather than blue. These are subjects that evoke a tremendous amount of pain for those who have experienced them, so it shouldn't come as any surprise that they and society at large, are quite vocal in rejecting people who in 2014, continue to espouse such views.
 
Raoul said:
I think it is the right way. If you espouse views that society deems deeply immoral, then they aren't obliged to buy your products. The simple fact is that in today's society, you can't be racist, homophobic, sexist, etc without paying a price. Its not as if we're discussing sacking someone whose favorite color is yellow rather than blue. These are subjects that evoke a tremendous amount of pain for those who have experienced them, so it shouldn't come as any surprise that they and society at large, are quite vocal in rejecting people who in 2014, continue to espouse such views.
Click to expand...
You think its the right way? So essentially YOU get to decide whats acceptable and whats not? Is it okay if in Iran, the majority ostracize an organization which is against women stoning since they believe that is the right thing?
 
Interval Level said:
You think its the right way? So essentially YOU get to decide whats acceptable and whats not? Is it okay if in Iran, the majority ostracize an organization which is against women stoning since they believe that is the right thing?
Click to expand...

We're talking about a situation in western society - not Iran.

In this case its not me who is deciding, but rather an accepted social norm that rejects discrimination based on one's sexual orientation.

I just happen to think its spot on.
 
Raoul said:
We're talking about a situation in western society - not Iran.

In this case its not me who is deciding, but rather an accepted social norm that rejects discrimination based on one's sexual orientation.

I just happen to think its spot on.
Click to expand...

You're advocating discrimination based on a person's personal opinion. However fecked up it may be, as long as it doesn't translate into action which harms anyone, it must be respected.
 
Interval Level said:
You're advocating discrimination based on a person's personal opinion. However fecked up it may be, as long as it doesn't translate into action which harms anyone, it must be respected.
Click to expand...

I'm laying out reality, which is that opinions that are deeply offensive to society are not immune from a backlash. Its not a particularly difficult concept to grasp.
 
Raoul said:
I'm laying out reality, which is that opinions that are deeply offensive to society are not immune from a backlash. Its not a particularly difficult concept to grasp.
Click to expand...

If you believe that, this conversation is pointless. Because society as a whole may be wrong. Society as a whole, in the past, has believed in things which would be considered shocking today. YOU are noone to decide what another person's opinions should be. Trying to force people to accept your way of thinking is... how Hitler Germany began!
 
Interval Level said:
If you believe that, this conversation is pointless. Because society as a whole may be wrong. Society as a whole, in the past, has believed in things which would be considered shocking today. YOU are noone to decide what another person's opinions should be. Trying to force people to accept your way of thinking is... how Hitler Germany began!
Click to expand...

This isn't a discussion about me deciding what other people's opinions should be. Its a discussion whether someone in the public spotlight should be immune from public scrutiny irrespective of what they believe. Homophobia may be the case here, it may be paedophilia in another, and advocating against interracial marriage in another. In each instance, the person has a right to their view, but they don't have a right to expect public opinion to be silent or on their side.
 
Love it when the argument is that intolerance of someone's intolerance is intolerable. It seems to be pertinent in this issue particularly, as maybe it was on issues of race before I can remember. It seems as if people, particularly from the religious right, are able to say and espouse any view they want on gays but if there's a response from the homosexual community it is suddenly they who are discriminating.

It's people wanting their cake, wanting to eat it and wanting to keep the receipt for a money-back refund

You're allowed to criticise and campaign against gay rights
Gays are not allowed to criticise your criticism or to patronise a non-discriminatory business
You're allowed to criticise gays that do criticise those who campaign against gay rights
Gays are not allowed to criticise those who criticise those who criticise those who campagin against gay rights.

It's an odd version of equality that, surely?

It's 2014 and bigotry doesn't go unchecked or unnoticed. I'd kinda get used to it.
 
naturalized said:
I assure you, we most definitely do not. Are you referring to the Rite of Holy Matrimony/Rite of Marriage, which sets out that "the matrimonial covenant... is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring?" It's about as relevant to us as the kinds of laws you read about in "World's Strangest Laws" lists, like those banning the walking of elephants in the street and such. It's a historical relic.

Anyone whipping out the "marriage is for making babies!" line is most likely doing so just to justify his or her own homophobia. They don't - at least I hope they don't - go back home and make love to their spouses with the monotony of a factory worker trying to complete a particularly complicated widget.
Click to expand...

While you, individually may think that I'm fairly sure the Vatican has a different take on it and does see procreation as part of marriage. I've had a quick search on their website but its god awful to navigate. I'm happy to be proven wrong but I'm going to need more than jut taking your word for it.

I'll have another look later this afternoon in lunch break.
 
Interval Level said:
You're advocating discrimination based on a person's personal opinion. However fecked up it may be, as long as it doesn't translate into action which harms anyone, it must be respected.
Click to expand...

It really shouldn't. Made illegal? Not necessarily but respected, no.

And what do you mean by harm?
 
Trigg said:
While you, individually may think that I'm fairly sure the Vatican has a different take on it and does see procreation as part of marriage. I've had a quick search on their website but its god awful to navigate. I'm happy to be proven wrong but I'm going to need more than jut taking your word for it.

I'll have another look later this afternoon in lunch break.
Click to expand...

It sure does. Procreation is a duty I believe.
 
Plugsy said:
Love it when the argument is that intolerance of someone's intolerance is intolerable.
It's 2014 and bigotry doesn't go unchecked or unnoticed. I'd kinda get used to it.
Click to expand...

If you're referring to me, then you're wrong, because I'm as pro-gay rights as the person I was replying to. Whether I feel that "liberals" are being too forcible in their viewpoint on a lot of matters? Yes I do.

Wibble said:
It really shouldn't. Made illegal? Not necessarily but respected, no.

And what do you mean by harm?
Click to expand...

By harm, I mean negatively impact. It needn't be respected. But to threaten the person with consequences in way that it affects their life isn't acceptable.

I think of it as two types of responses you can give to a person whose views differ from yours.

"Hey guys, I think women should be stoned to death for cheating on their man"

A correct response to that would be - "You're a dickwad. But your opinion. So be it. Hope you grow out of it. You try to do that, we'll ensure you rot in jail"

Response here seems - "How thoroughly backward. Your employer must fire you for this and you can't buy your rations anywhere in this town"
 
Plugsy said:
Love it when the argument is that intolerance of someone's intolerance is intolerable. It seems to be pertinent in this issue particularly, as maybe it was on issues of race before I can remember. It seems as if people, particularly from the religious right, are able to say and espouse any view they want on gays but if there's a response from the homosexual community it is suddenly they who are discriminating.

It's people wanting their cake, wanting to eat it and wanting to keep the receipt for a money-back refund

You're allowed to criticise and campaign against gay rights
Gays are not allowed to criticise your criticism or to patronise a non-discriminatory business
You're allowed to criticise gays that do criticise those who campaign against gay rights
Gays are not allowed to criticise those who criticise those who criticise those who campagin against gay rights.

It's an odd version of equality that, surely?

It's 2014 and bigotry doesn't go unchecked or unnoticed. I'd kinda get used to it.
Click to expand...

No one is arguing that gays cant criticize him, just the fact that him getting fired over this is a bit silly.
 
MJJ said:
No one is arguing that gays cant criticize him, just the fact that him getting fired over this is a bit silly.
Click to expand...

If your views negatively impact the business, your position is untenable. It's not like the discrimination we see at World Vision who refuse to employ those in same-sex marriages or the Scout movement where being gay can lead to your expulsion or the increasing number of states in the US where a gay person can be refused service on the basis of 'religious objection'.

This is a guy whose personal views and past actions were negatively impacting the company he headed so he either resigned or was asked to. If we found out the head of BT was a raging racist or the CEO of Sky sexist and as a result customers shunned that company, I wouldn't see the fuss and if that happened their 'resignation' would be inevitable.
 
Plugsy said:
If your views negatively impact the business, your position is untenable. It's not like the discrimination we see at World Vision who refuse to employ those in same-sex marriages or the Scout movement where being gay can lead to your expulsion or the increasing number of states in the US where a gay person can be refused service on the basis of 'religious objection'.

This is a guy whose personal views and past actions were negatively impacting the company he headed so he either resigned or was asked to. If we found out the head of BT was a raging racist or the CEO of Sky sexist and as a result customers shunned that company, I wouldn't see the fuss and if that happened their 'resignation' would be inevitable.
Click to expand...

His views had nothing to do with his performance though. He got sacked because a dating agency felt that a donation made six years ago warranted a boycott of the company. So he got sacked due to external factors, not just his performance.
 
MJJ said:
His views had nothing to do with his performance though. He got sacked because a dating agency felt that a donation made six years ago warranted a boycott of the company. So he got sacked due to external factors, not just his performance.
Click to expand...

No he got went because customers and partners were openly boycotting the product during his tenure. His "performance" over the last few weeks probably saw a very significant fall in customers/partners.

Are you saying a company has to tolerate a haemorrhaging of custom and bad publicity on the basis they shouldn't dismiss someone because of their personal views?
 
Plugsy said:
No he got went because customers and partners were openly boycotting the product during his tenure. His "performance" over the last few weeks probably saw a very significant fall in customers/partners.

Are you saying a company has to tolerate a haemorrhaging of custom and bad publicity on the basis they shouldn't dismiss someone because of their personal views?
Click to expand...

Nope, am saying that the boycott should never have occurred due to the personal views of an employee.
 
MJJ said:
Nope, am saying that the boycott should never have occurred due to the personal views of an employee.
Click to expand...

So the personal views of the employee take precedent over the personal views of those who took part in the boycott. On what basis?
 
Interval Level said:
By harm, I mean negatively impact. It needn't be respected. But to threaten the person with consequences in way that it affects their life isn't acceptable.
Click to expand...

Holding bigoted views does impact those you hate either directly or indirectly.

I think of it as two types of responses you can give to a person whose views differ from yours.

"Hey guys, I think women should be stoned to death for cheating on their man"

A correct response to that would be - "You're a dickwad. But your opinion. So be it. Hope you grow out of it. You try to do that, we'll ensure you rot in jail"
s
Response here seems - "How thoroughly backward. Your employer must fire you for this and you can't buy your rations anywhere in this town"
Click to expand...

I will boycott what I want, when I want to. If the companies react to that then more power to the people. If is is a stupid boycott based on, say religious views, then they will pick up as many customers as they will lose by telling the boycotters to sod off. It is their business decision.
 
Wibble said:
Holding bigoted views does impact those you hate either directly or indirectly.

I will boycott what I want, when I want to. If the companies react to that then more power to the people. If is is a stupid boycott based on, say religious views, then they will pick up as many customers as they will lose by telling the boycotters to sod off. It is their business decision.
Click to expand...
And who gets to decide what views are stupid and what aren't? I feel that bigotry arises from non-acceptance of other people's views and forcing opinions down people's throats, even if it is the correct one. Gay Marriage issue was up for debate and he took a side. It was wrong, but so what? OKCupid should've taken the moral high ground by allowing him his opinion. Like I said earlier, its like you HAVE to believe what popular society does else you can't be CEO is the message you're sending. And that is a dangerous ground to tread on.

Anyways, I sense this is going to go round in circles.
 
Interval Level said:
And who gets to decide what views are stupid and what aren't? I feel that bigotry arises from non-acceptance of other people's views and forcing opinions down people's throats, even if it is the correct one. Gay Marriage issue was up for debate and he took a side. It was wrong, but so what? OKCupid should've taken the moral high ground by allowing him his opinion. Like I said earlier, its like you HAVE to believe what popular society does else you can't be CEO is the message you're sending. And that is a dangerous ground to tread on.

Anyways, I sense this is going to go round in circles.
Click to expand...

So again he's allowed his opinion but OKCupid not allowed theirs?

What compels a company to do business with another?

If, for whatever reason, Nick Griffin gets a job on the boar of a company, would you consider no longer using that company or would you think you had no right to boycott based on personal views/actions of senior employees?

Deep down I think there's very much an element of people trying to dismiss the feelings of gay people. Someone is entitled to donate money to restrict their rights but they shouldn't boycott a company that employs someone who did that as a CEO?

He's the CEO not Phil from accounts.
 
Interval Level said:
And who gets to decide what views are stupid and what aren't? I feel that bigotry arises from non-acceptance of other people's views and forcing opinions down people's throats, even if it is the correct one. Gay Marriage issue was up for debate and he took a side. It was wrong, but so what? OKCupid should've taken the moral high ground by allowing him his opinion. Like I said earlier, its like you HAVE to believe what popular society does else you can't be CEO is the message you're sending. And that is a dangerous ground to tread on.

Anyways, I sense this is going to go round in circles.
Click to expand...

I do of course. When it comes to deciding what to boycott. When enough people feel this way things like racism start to be legislated against and things like gay marriage start to be legally allowed.
 
Interval Level said:
And who gets to decide what views are stupid and what aren't? I feel that bigotry arises from non-acceptance of other people's views and forcing opinions down people's throats, even if it is the correct one. Gay Marriage issue was up for debate and he took a side. It was wrong, but so what? OKCupid should've taken the moral high ground by allowing him his opinion. Like I said earlier, its like you HAVE to believe what popular society does else you can't be CEO is the message you're sending. And that is a dangerous ground to tread on.

Anyways, I sense this is going to go round in circles.
Click to expand...

OKCupid did take the moral high ground. They politely asked their customers that they'd appreciate them not using Firefox to access their site because he goes against the what they stand and in their opinion a good way to show that is to boycott the web browser.

No one was forced to do anything and no views were forced upon anyone.
 
MJJ said:
On the basis that his personal views dont reflect the personal views of mozilla.
Click to expand...

If a CEO of any company espouses racial, sexual or homophobic discrimination, people are perfectly within their right to boycott that company because of it. The CEO isn't the same as a receptionist or even senior middle management. If you walked by a Tesco Metro where the manager of the store had erected 'VOTE BNP' signs in the window would you:

a) Decide not to shop in that store, or
b) Think "well these views aren't those of the company at large, so I'll pop in for a pint of milk"

I'm kind of guessing you'd go for b). I don't see the difference.
 
Plugsy said:
If a CEO of any company espouses racial, sexual or homophobic discrimination, people are perfectly within their right to boycott that company because of it. The CEO isn't the same as a receptionist or even senior middle management. If you walked by a Tesco Metro where the manager of the store had erected 'VOTE BNP' signs in the window would you:

a) Decide not to shop in that store, or
b) Think "well these views aren't those of the company at large, so I'll pop in for a pint of milk"

I'm kind of guessing you'd go for b). I don't see the difference.
Click to expand...

Thats different though, in that case I would do the same as A. But if someone told me the manager is a member of the BNP and it doesnt affect the quality of service am offered while shopping, I wouldnt give a feck.
 
Wait.. I never said OkCupid has no right to opinion. But SHOULD'VE just understood that poeople are allowed their opinions however bigoted they are as long as it is within the realms of the law. If Mozilla employees had complained of discrimination - that's when you appeal. And that according to me is the right thing to do.
 
MJJ said:
Thats different though, in that case I would do the same as A. But if someone told me the manager is a member of the BNP and it doesnt affect the quality of service am offered while shopping, I wouldnt give a feck.
Click to expand...

So you'd have to be told "it's fine to shop here" by the company, before you' shop there?

You'd trust the impartiality of the business owner who have a vested interest in you not boycotting the store, if they don't you that you had no reason to boycott?
 
Interval Level said:
Wait.. I never said OkCupid has no right to opinion. But SHOULD'VE just understood that poeople are allowed their opinions however bigoted they are as long as it is within the realms of the law. If Mozilla employees had complained of discrimination - that's when you appeal. And that according to me is the right thing to do.
Click to expand...


It's a patently ridiculous argument to on the one hand complain that someone's intolerance isn't being tolerated whilst at the same time thinking you can dictate who a company does business with.

You are essentially saying he had the right to donate the money to the anti-gay group but others don't have a right to judge him or to choose not to do business with the company he heads as a result of it. This 'being allowed opinion' thing works both ways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.