Gay Rights: Is it time to Boycott Firefox?

[Penumbra]

First let me say that I am neither for or against same sex marriage as far as this post goes.
Now to the question:

Brendan Eich's donation to CA prop 8 was in 2008 and there are those that say he is not suited to be CEO of Moszilla because of this. Yet in 2004, 2008, and 2010 Obama was against same sex marriage, yet I did not hear a call from the gay/lesbian community and others that he was unfit to be president. Seems to be a little hypocrisy here. Or is it that some people are more equal than others?
Timeline of Obama’s ‘Evolving’ on Same-Sex Marriage - ABC News

Now, I have read all the post on this issue and I think that the following fairly well sums up what I think.
How did people find out that Mozilla’s CEO donated to support Prop 8? « Hot Air

Obama didn't donate money to a political campaign that took away rights of gay people.

Eich did.

 

[Revoltingest]

Obama didn't donate money to a political campaign that took away rights of gay people.
Eich did.

Obama's anti-gay marriage opinion carried far more weight than Eich's measly contribution though.
This seems a bit like presidents pursuing pointless wars. There were protests against Dubya when he did it,
but they evaporated when Obama did it. People are often fickle, thoughtless & partisan in their outrage.

 

[Falvlun]

I think people should boycott whatever they want to.

Well, of course. But that doesn't mean that some boycotts aren't a bit less reasonable than others.

If there are two tea shops around here and the owner of one is unlikable or is involved in the community in ways I don't like, then naturally I'll avoid that store and go to the other one, if they're otherwise similar. I'd rather do business with people I like. And if people keep going to that other person's store, it'll support her or his continued role in the community either financially or with social capital, so it makes sense that people might not want to support that person through the store.

Personal preferences and decisions are a bit different than a boycott, though. A boycott is getting other people to join you in avoiding the business you don't like.

So why not apply that to the larger scale? If a company directly contributes to things I don't like, or if the founder/owner makes a ton of money from the business and then uses all that personal cash technically outside of the company to contribute to things I don't like, then I'll definitely boycott. If it's smaller like this, where the contribution was small and he probably isn't making as much money as CEO because it's a non-profit, the desire to boycott isn't as strong but it doesn't mean it's not there. If the most visible and highly paid employee of an organization is currently or potentially going to use some of that income for things that I think are pretty terrible, why not use another brand, especially if it's a negligible or nonexistent cost to me to do so?

That's a fair point. But I still find it thought-policeish.

 

[Revoltingest]

Some interesting news about boycotts & just who is a bigot....
New York Senate passes anti-boycott bill | Crescent City Jewish News

The legislation approved Tuesday in a 56-4 vote bans state funding to colleges that fund organizations boycotting “countries that host higher education institutions chartered by the Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York.”

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Next we will have some advocating for boycotting businesses for their political views. Of course that just might improve the economy. Just think, we would have business that support one political philosophy and the same type business established that supported the other political philosophy. Wow then we would have a large number of the same type business requiring more employees. Take clothing stores for instance progressive, conservative, libertarian, anarchist, socialist, communist, never-on-a-Sunday. Just think we could really expand the job force by having businesses that cater to every possible religion, political, ethnicity, hair color (natural or dyed), music choice, web-search engine, cat lovers, dog lovers..........

I've known of many Right-leaning groups that have boycotted companies for being pro-gay, pro-Muslim, pro-immigrant or pro-environment. And if you did read the thread, several members clearly stated that personal statements are not worth boycotting, but when personal interests become company policy is when a boycott is appropriate.

If bigotry has no place in society, doesn't it seem reasonable to also say that bigots have no place in society?

That problem with that thinking is it is a very dangerous, very steep, and very slippery slope. And forcing people in compliance may not be "bigoted" in your dictionary, but in mine it is just that. It doesn't mean you have to cater to them and be concerned about their bigotry, but it does mean you should stoop to their level and show them intolerance.

It could be argued that tolerating bigotry is bigotry. It would be similar to how much accountability an enabler has in an addicts life.

No, tolerating bigotry, up to a point, means I honor the first amendment and see it as a valid right that each individual should exercise. Eich practiced his first right on a personal level. I'd rather live in a world where he can do that, because if he can't there is precedent to take ours away should we disagree with something that many others agree with.

 

[Apex]

I think it would do several posters in this thread good to watch V for Vendetta.

 

[Drolefille]

I think it would do several posters in this thread good to watch V for Vendetta.

And for those of us who HAVE seen it, perhaps elaborating on your point?

 

[technomage]

I think it would do several posters in this thread good to watch V for Vendetta.

I think you continue to make a false equivalency.

Eich was not punished for his thoughts or for his speech. He was punished (and that informally, by public reaction) for his actions.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think you continue to make a false equivalency.
Eich was not punished for his thoughts or for his speech. He was punished (and that informally, by public reaction) for his actions.

The threat was to punish the company where he worked because of his personal advocacy, even though the company is gay friendly. This smacks of thought police who would prevent companies from hiring anyone with non-PC views. It's reminiscent of the 50s commie scare, wherein employees with improper views were screened out. The thought police are always popular with those who agree with their agenda.
Ref: Post #58

 

[esmith]

Still waiting for the Obama supporters and Eich detractors to support their inconsistent and hypocritical views. Of course that will never happen; Obama can do no wrong it their eyes!

 

[Drolefille]

Still waiting for the Obama supporters and Eich detractors to support their inconsistent and hypocritical views. Of course that will never happen; Obama can do no wrong it their eyes!

Very mature.

It couldn't have anything to do with the options being between Obama who was "evolving" (and who many suspected was OK with marriage equality privately) and McCain or Romney who were against it all together, could it?

Also just because you didn't hear criticism of Obama for his beliefs doesn't mean it didn't exist. It was out there rather strongly if you're in the LGBT community and read/participate in dialogue within the community. I'm going to assume you're not.

 

[Falvlun]

Also just because you didn't hear criticism of Obama for his beliefs doesn't mean it didn't exist. It was out there rather strongly if you're in the LGBT community and read/participate in dialogue within the community. I'm going to assume you're not.

From what I recall, he lost quite a bit of support because of his weak stance.

 

[Penumbra]

Still waiting for the Obama supporters and Eich detractors to support their inconsistent and hypocritical views. Of course that will never happen; Obama can do no wrong it their eyes!

Obama's anti-gay marriage opinion carried far more weight than Eich's measly contribution though.
This seems a bit like presidents pursuing pointless wars. There were protests against Dubya when he did it,
but they evaporated when Obama did it. People are often fickle, thoughtless & partisan in their outrage.

We had a gay member here that became extremely angry after a little while with Obama as president because he didn't make any progress for gay rights, and then he left RF around the same time.

I don't see the Eich/Obama comparison at all, though. Eich contributed money to a campaign to ban gay marriage in California, which was ultimately successful until the courts intervened.

In contrast, as early as 2004 and before, Obama was in favor of at least strengthening gay rights with civil unions, being on the progressive side of the debate, compared to where the issue was nationally at the time. He criticized DOMA in 2004, and he voted against a Senate push to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage in 2006. He had his administration stop legally defending DOMA in 2011. He said personally he was for strong civil gay unions rather than marriage but said the states should decide, and then in 2012 came out directly in favor of gay marriage.

My personal opinion was that Obama was probably just cowardly riding the numbers taking the safe position of being more progressive on gay rights than the current position was nationally, making the obligatory reference to religion, and saying to leave it for the states, while directly opposing GOP measures to ban it nationally- I'm not aware of him taking any actions negatively on the matter of gay rights; all of his actions were in favor of gay rights. His switch to explicitly supporting gay marriage happened roughly when the American public crossed the 50% mark in favor of gay marriage, and of course after Biden went ahead and spoke frankly about his views. Statements by Obama in 2004 and earlier had him comparing gay rights to 20th century progress on civil rights, saying that you have to do it steps at a time.

This isn't a comparison.

 

[technomage]

The threat was to punish the company where he worked because of his personal advocacy, even though the company is gay friendly.

Boycotts are primarily intended to put pressure on a company, not to punish it. And again, you're comparing apples to oranges. Eich was not rejected because of his _views_, but because of his _activism_.

 

[esmith]

Boycotts are primarily intended to put pressure on a company, not to punish it. And again, you're comparing apples to oranges. Eich was not rejected because of his _views_, but because of his _activism_.

So, you would not have a problem with a group advocating for boycotting a business that supported rhetoric and donations to say for example anti-gun groups?

 

[dust1n]

So, you would not have a problem with a group advocating for boycotting a business that supported rhetoric and donations to say for example anti-gun groups?

Are you suggesting people don't already?

Boycott List of Anti-gun companies, corporations and celebrities | National Liberty Federation

 

[Flankerl]

He's one of the founders of the company IIRC - he really didn't lose his livelihood, simply his position, and he chose to resign from the position.

CEOs are kind of unusual because most contracts will include language about their public image - because that's part of the job. Having a negative public image is very much a detriment to the company. Particularly a company that relies (in part) upon funding from donations.

Now, maybe in 2011 he didn't think that his donation would be part of a negative public image, but he was aware that it was public information due to CA's laws.

We are talking about 1000 US Dollar.

Oh my what a donation. Thats probably half of the votes in all of California. What an evil man.

 

[Drolefille]

We are talking about 1000 US Dollar.

Oh my what a donation. Thats probably half of the votes in all of California. What an evil man.

You're aiming at the wrong target here. I really didn't care, and used Chrome throughout because I prefer it.

I never said he was evil, simply that public image is relevant to a CEO's job. Also that he really didn't lose his livelihood.

 

[technomage]

So, you would not have a problem with a group advocating for boycotting a business that supported rhetoric and donations to say for example anti-gun groups?

I wouldn't anyway on that grounds--I'm pro gun.

 

[Revoltingest]

This isn't a comparison.

Sure there's a comparison. Obama opposed gay rights with his inaction on DADT,
waiting til Congress made the change, & he signed the bill....leading by following.