Gay Rights: Is it time to Boycott Firefox?

[dust1n]

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

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

That's just how it goes, eh?

 

[Apex]

Welcome to the free market.

Is this supposed to be a critique of those who support a total free market with no regulation? If so, I am not one of those people...

 

[dust1n]

Is this supposed to be a critique of those who support a total free market with no regulation? If so, I am not one of those people...

You support a free market with no regulation, in this instance, no? Or do your prefer laws that prohibit companies and people from releasing inconvenient facts about a particular executive or company?

 

[Revoltingest]

That's just how it goes, eh?

Aye...perhaps we'll see balkanization of businesses, some of whom won't hire anti-gay
workers, some of whom won't hire pro-gay workers, some of whom......on & on it goes.
I don't think it will get that out of hand though.

 

[Sunstone]

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.

That's an interesting distinction. While I would be for the legal tolerance of racist beliefs and views, I'm not sure how that translates into prohibiting me from being intolerant of those beliefs and views as a private citizen.

 

[Apex]

That's an interesting distinction. While I would be for the legal tolerance of racist beliefs and views, I'm not sure how that translates into prohibiting me from being intolerant of those beliefs and views as a private citizen.

Legally, it does not prohibit you from being intolerant as a private citizen (it is another story if you are acting as an employer or in a place of work, of course). But my point is not about legality. It is about what is ethical. Something can be perfectly legal, but not ethical. We all have the right to be ********, bigots, and duchebags. The first amendment is a big player in this. My point is that these protesters exercised their right to be bigots as private citizens. I am asserting that what they did was wrong on ethical grounds, not legal grounds. The man in the OP exercised his right to donate to a particular political agenda. From what I understand, he did so as a private citizen, outside of any leadership role he may of had and before he took the position referenced in the OP. It does not appear he was planning on enforcing his agenda in the workplace either. In this context, I see the actions of those calling for a boycott to be (while still fully falling under the 1st amendment) an act of bigotry comparable to the same bigotry they claimed to be opposed.

Essentially, both the actions of the (ex) CEO and the boycotters in the OP were legal. Yet, both were equally unethical.

 

[Revoltingest]

Legally, it does not prohibit you from being intolerant as a private citizen (it is another story if you are acting as an employer or in a place of work, of course). But my point is not about legality. It is about what is ethical. Something can be perfectly legal, but not ethical. We all have the right to be ********, bigots, and duchebags. The first amendment is a big player in this. My point is that these protesters exercised their right to be bigots as private citizens. I am asserting that what they did was wrong on ethical grounds, not legal grounds. The man in the OP exercised his right to donate to a particular political agenda. From what I understand, he did so as a private citizen, outside of any leadership role he may of had and before he took the position referenced in the OP. It does not appear he was planning on enforcing his agenda in the workplace either. In this context, I see the actions of those calling for a boycott to be (while still fully falling under the 1st amendment) an act of bigotry comparable to the same bigotry they claimed to be opposed.
Essentially, both the actions of the (ex) CEO and the boycotters in the OP were legal. Yet, both were equally unethical.

I get the impression that this practice is OK with many simply because it has adverse consequences
only for workers who are anti-gay. But I wager your left jewel that they'd scream bloody murder if
groups used the same tactic to target companies for hiring anti-capitalist workers, anti-theist workers
or anti-gun control workers.

 

[dust1n]

Aye...perhaps we'll see balkanization of businesses, some of whom won't hire anti-gay
workers, some of whom won't hire pro-gay workers, some of whom......on & on it goes.
I don't think it will get that out of hand though.

I doubt it as well, but I could see it happening from time to time. The peculiar way information spreads about on the internet has all sorts of chaotic effects.