Gay Rights: Is it time to Boycott Firefox?

[Penumbra]

Does tolerating intolerance end up decreasing or increasing freedom in a society, compared to being intolerant specifically to forms of intolerance?

Say that five times fast.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Update: The CEO of Mozilla resigned this week.

So this was an eye for an eye for you.

 

[esmith]

Does tolerating intolerance end up decreasing or increasing freedom in a society, compared to being intolerant specifically to forms of intolerance?

Say that five times fast.

From what I understand his stance on rights of everyone including the gays and lesbians was very open. All he did was contribute to a group that was opposed to same sex marriage. If you think that by doing this he can not be CEO of a public company. Do, those that supported this hereby disqualify all those whose religious belief that marriage is only between a man and a woman. Do you hereby say that they can not support their First Amendment rights and their freedom of religion and be a CEO of a private company? Just wondering.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Does tolerating intolerance end up decreasing or increasing freedom in a society, compared to being intolerant specifically to forms of intolerance?

Say that five times fast.

Lol, then we would be pressuring a lot of people to be out of a job. I know I would.

 

[Penumbra]

From what I understand his stance on rights of everyone including the gays and lesbians was very open. All he did was contribute to a group that was opposed to same sex marriage. If you think that by doing this he can not be CEO of a public company. Do, those that supported this hereby disqualify all those whose religious belief that marriage is only between a man and a woman. Do you hereby say that they can not support their First Amendment rights and their freedom of religion and be a CEO of a private company? Just wondering.

The First Amendment grants freedom from government intervention on these types of matters.

This was a brief free market opinion followed by swift internal company decisions.

I see a lot of times people get upset about some public person getting fired or just criticized for something they said or did, and people mentioning the First Amendment as though it's relevant at all. People seem to mix up government action, and actions between people. The First Amendment doesn't protect people from consequences of what they do or say; it protects them from the government.

 

[esmith]

The First Amendment grants freedom from government intervention on these types of matters.

This was a brief free market opinion followed by swift internal company decisions.

I see a lot of times people get upset about some public person getting fired or just criticized for something they said or did, and people mentioning the First Amendment as though it's relevant at all. People seem to mix up government action, and actions between people. The First Amendment doesn't protect people from consequences of what they do or say; it protects them from the government.

I wasn't exactly saying that his Constitutional rights were violated, since as you point out he wasn't stopped from doing what he did by a governmental agency (police for example). What I was attempting to point out, in an roundabout way, was that pressure was brought against a company for the personal action by a person that did not directly involve the company other than him being the CEO of said company. This pressure was brought against said company even though he as CEO has supported and insured that the policies of said company did not infringe on anyone's rights or beliefs. In other words those people have objected to the persons rights to have his own opinion even though his opinion did not directly affect other people working at the company.

We also know that there are religious sects that believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman and other policies against homosexuals. Now, using this CEO's actions as a guideline would not any member of an organization, whether it be religious or not that was opposed to any or all homosexual activities, be held to the same standards as this CEO?

In other words I say as long as a persons own personal beliefs are concerned should not be used against them as long as it does not directly affect another. In other words if I was against same sex marriage and was in a position of control over employees my opinion should not be held against me as long as I did not force my opinions on them or hold their beliefs against them

 

[Father Heathen]

It's a double standard.
Tolerance is great when it's towards people we like.
But when we don't like'm, it's another story.

While we should respect people's right to hold homophobic, misogynistic, or racist views, we shouldn't feel obliged to respect such views themselves.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Does tolerating intolerance end up decreasing or increasing freedom in a society, compared to being intolerant specifically to forms of intolerance?

Say that five times fast.

The philosophical stance I have always taught and see in accordance to is "Tolerance is, in function, a state of intolerance towards intolerance. To tolerate intolerance would therefore be an act of intolerance." - Unknown

 

[dust1n]

Even a civilian thought police is thuggish.

I'm not quite sure I understand what a civilian thought police is. No one was charged with a crime? I don't disagree with the notion that there are thuggish civilian forces. I certainly know discussing communism at my job probably wouldn't be the grandest of ideas. The media can certainly sway people against one another in a thuggish type manner. I don't particular condone it. But it seems a far bit from thought police status.

I say that a company should be able to hire workers whose personal beliefs & activities (which don't direct the
company) are diverse, eg, pro-gay, anti-gay, atheist, believer, capitalist, commie.

Don't you also maintain that they should be able to fire them?

So I'm boycotting OKcupid.

:Collective sigh of relief:

 

[dust1n]

So what good will a boycott accomplish?

Apparently, it (or something) accomplished exactly what it was set out to do before it ever really happened at all.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not quite sure I understand what a civilian thought police is. No one was charged with a crime? I don't disagree with the notion that there are thuggish civilian forces. I certainly know discussing communism at my job probably wouldn't be the grandest of ideas. The media can certainly sway people against one another in a thuggish type manner. I don't particular condone it. But it seems a far bit from thought police status.

I find repugnant the idea that activists would threaten a company to coerce them
to fire a worker whose personal views & legal activities they dislike, particularly
when the company remains friendly to the activists' larger goals.

Don't you also maintain that they should be able to fire them?

Of course...but this isn't about the right of the company to fire someone, but rather
about their being coerced into firing someone who doesn't deserve to be fired.

:Collective sigh of relief:

I'll do my gay dating elsewhere!
Egay, Brozilla, or Slamazon

 

[fantome profane]

"First they came..."

I find it very interesting that you would reference this.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.
​

So what do you think is the moral behind this? What should we do? Does this mean that we should do nothing?

There are still places where homosexuals are not allowed equal rights. And there are still those who are trying to take away equal rights from gays where they do have them.

I really don't know what the right answer is in this case. I should let you know I am right at this moment using Firefox to post this very message. I was out of the loop on this one and did not hear about it till after this person resigned. I honestly don't know what I would have done. I don't know what the right thing to do would be. But I don't think "nothing" would be the right thing to do.

 

[dust1n]

I find repugnant the idea that activists would threaten a company to coerce them
to fire a worker whose personal views & legal activities they dislike, particularly
when the company remains friendly to the activists' larger goals.

Well, I think the last statement was too be seen. That's left to speculation at this point.

I don't disagree that the notion that random consumers have might be an overexertion, but when the companies own employees are threatening to walk, it would be simply a bad business decision to lose seasoned employees, in a randomly started PR thing where either way the company is going to get flack. But nothing illegal happened here. The dude stepped down, presumably with his own volition.

As far as I can tell, this is the free market at work in all of its glory.

Of course...but this isn't about the right of the company to fire someone, but rather
about their being coerced into firing someone who doesn't deserve to be fired.

Hmm... are you of the opinion that consumers should not be able to coerce companies to act one way or another by simply refusing to purchase goods or services?

 

[YmirGF]

Today, users of the dating website OKcupid were asked not to access the website using Mozilla Firefox. OKCupid told users: "Mozilla’s new CEO, Brendan Eich, is an opponent of equal rights for gay couples," the message reads. "We would therefore prefer that our users not use Mozilla software to access OkCupid."

I, for one, shall switch to chrome! For Freedom!

I find the intolerance of the former CEO's contributions to be deeply offensive. It's almost as if people do not have a right to their own opinion any more without someone getting hysterical.

 

[Apex]

...But nothing illegal happened here. ...

I do not think anyone is saying otherwise. What is being said is that this behavior is unethical, immoral, and just plain duchebagery. IMO, it is stooping to the exact same level as the anti-gay rights activists.

You do not fight intolerance with more intolerance.

 

[Apex]

I find it very interesting that you would reference this.
So what do you think is the moral behind this? What should we do? Does this mean that we should do nothing?

There are still places where homosexuals are not allowed equal rights. And there are still those who are trying to take away equal rights from gays where they do have them.

I really don't know what the right answer is in this case. I should let you know I am right at this moment using Firefox to post this very message. I was out of the loop on this one and did not hear about it till after this person resigned. I honestly don't know what I would have done. I don't know what the right thing to do would be. But I don't think "nothing" would be the right thing to do.

I was not advocating we do nothing. Nor was it a response to the OP. It was in response to freethinker's suggestion that bigots be exterminated from society. I was pointing out the slipper slope aspect of such a (repulsive) suggestion.

 

[Sunstone]

You do not fight intolerance with more intolerance.

Sure you do. For instance, you fight racism in part by deciding not to tolerate it. Where do you get the notion that you do not fight intolerance with more intolerance?

 

[Revoltingest]

As far as I can tell, this is the free market at work in all of its glory.

I don't dispute that this is free market activity.
What I find objectionable is the coercion which needlessly hurts workers.

Hmm... are you of the opinion that consumers should not be able to coerce companies to act one way or another by simply refusing to purchase goods or services?

I'm not addressing what people are legally able to do.
I'm talking about an ethical lapse by OKcupid.

 

[dust1n]

I do not think anyone is saying otherwise. What is being said is that this behavior is unethical, immoral, and just plain duchebagery. IMO, it is stooping to the exact same level as the anti-gay rights activists.

You do not fight intolerance with more intolerance.

Welcome to the free market.

 

[Apex]

Sure you do. For instance, you fight racism in part by deciding not to tolerate it. Where do you get the notion that you do not fight intolerance with more intolerance?

I see what you are saying, but I do not quite agree. We fought racism by making certain practices illegal. Which in a way is not tolerating it. But, you can still be a racist and hold racist views. Society still must tolerate certain forms of racism. I see it as a fine line that must be walked carefully.