I don’t think the second word in your sentence words what you think it words.
Mea culpa. The quote I was working off of from another site was incomplete. Honestly, with that, I think anyone who continued to have a problem with him really did think he should be fired for his beliefs. His actions supporting Prop 8 in the past only mattered in as much as he’d be likely to do something like that in the future.
I don’t agree with any idea that he should have “freedom of speech” from his company. And I agree that people have the right not to do business with a company for even unimportant things. But I am starting to understand why some people lament his firing.
I don’t think someone can be forced to change their beliefs, and yet actually changing his beliefs seems to be the only way the guy could have kept his job. Thus it was completely impossible for the guy to keep his job. He was therefore punished for something he couldn’t control, which bothers me.
Well, I guess he could have lied and said he’d changed his mind. But I’d trust a truthful homophobe over a liar any day. Lying is directly related to the ability to trust someone.
If it would affect no one, there would be no point in wanting to have it. Legal SSM means that all married people, same sex or not, have to be treated the same in all situations other than social. That’s the equality you are fighting for, right?
Every person in the country is affected by legal same sex marriage. You can argue that the effect is minimal, and I would agree for most people. But claiming no effect is silly.
And I support same sex marriage, precisely because of the effects.
Magellan’s argument seems to be that, if you can be against homophobia even if it doesn’t affect you, then others can be for homophobia without it directly affecting them. This is exactly the same as abortion: single men have the right to be either pro-life or pro-choice, even when it doesn’t directly affect them.
He takes issue with the idea that anyone against SSM must have “an ideological axe to grind,” and cannot have an honest (if misguided) opinion on the subject.
Unless they felt the statement was insincere and that he wasn’t actually doing anything or acknowledging their concerns in a substantial way.
I don’t think you understood what I wrote. I asked how a marriage affects people other than the people who are getting married. If the state recognizes the marriage of Joe and Frank, that obviously matters to Joe and Frank in all sorts of ways. That’s why they want to get married. I’m asking how their marriage affects Mark, a third party who doesn’t want to marry Joe or Frank. Joe and Frank’s marriage might convey the same legal benefits as Mark and Alice’s marriage, but it doesn’t affect their marriage in any way. Mark and Alice don’t lose any rights or benefits. Mark being offended by the idea of Joe marrying Frank doesn’t count.
magellan01 appears to take issue with the idea that opponents of SSM should butt out because SSM doesn’t actually affect them in any way. The comparison to abortion doesn’t work. Abortion rights are relevant even to single men; someone else’s marriage isn’t relevant to you even if you’re offended by it.
I agree that phrase needs to be defined. I’m not quite sure what wolfpup was going for there. But of course it’s an ideological matter.
I am one of the more vocal LGBT equality proponents on the board and I find this whole affair very troubling. I found it troubling before I read this thread and I find even more worrying now that I’ve read Eich’s own statement (thank you for posting that, magellan.) All we ever knew about him was that he made one anti-gay donation in 2008. That was a million years ago in terms of marriage equality. We’re not talking about Orson Scott Card.
It’s not that we hate the anti-gays, we just don’t feel it is holy and pure when they act out on their anti-gay feelings in open society. Love the sinner but hate the sin, y’know?
But Prop 8 was so very reprehensible. It wasn’t simply a matter of not supporting SSM, it was an active attempt that engaged in lies and fear mongering to treat homosexuals as second class citizens. They portrayed homosexuals as some kind of deviants who were out to destroy American society and tried to support that view with the law. Monetary support for that vile movement isn’t something that just simply goes away.
I’ll also add that he also donated to Pat Buchanon and Ron Paul, so I don’t think the donation to Prop 8 is merely a blip in an otherwise stellar donation career.
That’s true, but also misses the point. How often do you go through other peoples’ donation records? Eich was basically the victim of bad luck. There are probably a hundred CEOs who’ve given more to worse causes but nobody is making a peep. Off the top of my head, the only ones I can think of are the Hobby Lobby guys (who have been pretty open about their views), the Chik-fil-A guy (same), and the dude that used to own Domino’s (same again.)
I think it has to do less with Eich’s views in isolation and more his interest and ability in communicating with people after this came to light. That’s how it comes off in the article Measure for Measure linked to, anyway.
I’m not sure the "other CEO’s are as bad, if not worse, is very convincing to me.
And each corporation has to deal with the views of their CEO’s. Mozilla seems to think it has more to lose by a policy of exclusion than Hobby Lobby, Domino’s, or Chik-fil-A. Especially because it’s a non-profit.
Anyone who reads that statement and sees insincerity is the one with the problem. Plus, when you weigh it, and the reputation he has with his coworkers against one donation back in 2008, it’s crazy that you come up with “HOMOPHOBE!!!”
The lack of insight here is breathtaking. We all share the same society. And the decisions we make today will shape that society and be the ones the future generations grow up in. Marriage has been a cornerstone of our society. You believe that the changes to it you favor will not have negative consequences. Good for you. But not everyone is bound to agree with your prognostications. Nor mine.
And I’m going to go out on a limb and call bullshit and you and anyone else who is now championing the notion that the only people who should care about how gays are treated ion society are gays. Just think about what strides would NOT have been made if people gluing to the ballot box shared such a position.
Ah, how nice, a moment of self-awareness. Perhaps then you shouldn’t be so quick to jump up and answer for someone else when a question is asked of them. And then get all huffy. The fact that you did so and finally admit here that you don’t know what wolfpup meant indicates that you should lay off the Red Bull Double Espressos.
How do you know that? Isn’t is possible that people inside the company have more perspective on this than you do?
Same question.
I asked you a very straightforward question about the effects of SSM on other people. This is a content-free substitute for an answer.
Nobody said this. The comment was about same-sex marriage specifically, not the treatment of gays in general. Of course that was already explained a couple of times. And it’s really bizarre that you’re making this argument in favor of people’s ability to oppose gay marriage. That’s some kind of deep philosophical incoherence.
I’m talking about the combination of the statement AND the what people inside the company thought. There was not one claim of anything resembling homophobia or that he was not embracing of equality. It was the one donation. If you have knowledge to the contrary, perhaps you’d like to share it.
Same answer.
Nice try, but I gave you an answer. One that addresses the point and doesn’t hijack the thread. Now if you’d like a more detailed answer, use the search function. You’re a Mod, more familiar with the workings of the board than most, maybe you’re good at that. Never works for me, but I don’t have those special skills you have.
HA! So, why don’t you indicate where those lines should be drawn for me. Where is the treatment of gays a valid subject for non-gays and where is it solely for the gay community?
Let’s dial that back a bit, Magellan. Don’t make it personal.
I noticed something about his statement, or didn’t notice. Namely anything to suggest that his financial support of Prop 8 was the wrong choice.
He also seems to think that people give a shit about Mozilla’s hiring practices. He helped fund a proposition that denied rights to hundreds of thousands of people, and I’m supposed to be worried about the Lesbian in Accounting not getting a promotion?
It’s that cognitive disconnect where the anti-SSM folks really can’t understand why people are mad at them.
He absolutely needed to address that stuff. People may not have been satisfied with his statement, but given the controversy he did need to say that people who worked for him weren’t going to be discriminated against.
I hope OKCupid has the decency to only use its newfound power to alter reality through login page statements for good.
Sure. We can start with the kinds of answers one always hears out of homophobic theocrats like Rick Santorum when asked questions about SSM directly. I’ve heard Santorum try to address the issue and it always turns on something like, if it’s tolerated it will become mainstream – do you want this kind of thing taught in schools, to our children? In other words, it’s a circular argument that begins with the assumption that the thing is intrinsically evil, and obviously Evil must must be opposed. QED. There is no rationality there. You make a similar statement yourself when you say that such decisions will determine the future direction of society. Of course they will. That’s why we have to make the right decisions based on rationality and not religious fervor or some vague knee-jerk feeling that SSM is “disgusting”.
To the extent that any tangible reason at all has ever been offered for objection to SSM, it seems to hinge on “the sanctity of marriage”. I’m tempted to make a snide comment about how the “sanctity of marriage” is often promoted by the same crowd who support hikers of the Appalachian trail or serial adulterers like Newt Gingrich, but that isn’t even an important point. You’re quite right – marriage really is a cornerstone of society. And this is indeed why a Supreme Court of Canada decision some years ago prohibited bans on SSM; the reasoning was that it relegated gays to the status of second-class citizens, expressing a social disapproval that undermined their fundamental human right to family and household. Meanwhile, in stark contrast, some US states in which SSM is already illegal have seen fit to hold referendums to double down on the illegality by passing a constitutional amendment prohibiting it, an entirely symbolic move that seemed intended to send a loud and clear message to gays that they were not wanted. The only thing more they could have done is actively start an anti-gay pogrom and burn down their houses.
You seem to confuse “ideology” with lack of sincerity. I’m sure that most people opposed to SSM are quite sincere. They are also wrong, because discrimination is discrimination, and discrimination is actively hurtful and harmful.
As I said, I have no vested interest in SSM, and I admit at one point I was, if not opposed to such things, at least indifferent to them. What has made me feel a lot more strongly about it was meeting gays in the course of everyday life and realizing that they’re just normal people with the same wants and fears and vulnerabilities as all the rest of us, and how hurtful discrimination can be, especially to the young. Indeed there is hardly anything worse than a young person struggling with their sexual identity being harassed and bullied and shunned, and it has driven many to suicide.
In my area, the students in a high school recently tried to set up, on their own initiative, an anti-bullying club that would seek to promote tolerance and help to normalize the view of gays. But it happened to be a school that was part of the separate Catholic school system, and the Catholic board expressly prohibited the club on principle when they found out the focus was on protecting gays from discrimination. A Catholic bishop wrote a thundering editorial endorsing the board’s decision and denouncing the “sin” of homosexuality. The supposed love professed by his religion was nowhere to be found. The end result of this is going to have harmful and hurtful consequences to students throughout that school system. It might cost some their lives, but will certainly rob them of dignity and self-respect. There is no upside to it that I can fathom. Perhaps this might give you a better idea of what I mean by “ideology”.
I was reading a book recently about the heroes of Bletchley Park, the famous British codebreaking institution that did so much to help the allies in WW2. One of the most prominent contributors was the brilliant Alan Turing, who was also a major computer pioneer. I had forgotten that in 1952, Turing was convicted of “indecency” for having a homosexual affair, and subjected to hormone treatments to “cure” him that had horrific side effects. Two miserable and despondent years later, in June 1954, the man who had helped save his country was found dead, of self-administered poison. In 2009, Prime Minister Gordon Brown delivered a public apology. Later a formal pardon was proposed, and in 2013, faced with the possibility of some minor opposition, the government bypassed debate under the royal prerogative of mercy, and in December 2013 Queen Elizabeth signed the official pardon, putting an end to the most publicized shameful episode of homophobic discrimination in the UK, but certainly not the only one. We’ve come a long way since the 50’s but not yet far enough. Discrimination in any form is an ugly, ugly thing. And that is another example of what I mean by “ideology”.
If you work for Mozilla (and the lion’s share of backlash was internal) you sure as hell do.
Speaking of…
Oops: