ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Brendan Eich , gay marriage , mozilla

Reply
Old 5th April 2014, 12:17 AM   #121
Dessi
Species Traitor
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 3,614
Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams View Post
A gay person can marry any consenting adult that a straight person can marry. The fact that a gay person might not be attracted to anyone he can marry does not make opposition to gay marriage discriminatory. A gay man is treated exactly the same as a straight man. Sounds non-discriminatory to me.
"Gays and straights have equal rights... rights that can only be exercised and enjoyed in any meaningful manner exclusively by straight people."

Equal treatment by itself is not sufficient to show that gays and straights have equal rights. Equal rights also demands that groups be equally able to exercise their right, without some groups being unfairly burdened more than others -- and I can guarantee you that the demand that gay people marry someone of the opposite sex is such a substantial burden which does not apply to straight people.

Likewise, denying gays and lesbians their preferred choice of marriage partner, but not straight people's choice of partner, ostensibly discriminates against gays. I can't fathom how you could come to any other conclusion.

In my head, I picture a political cartoon of two runners on a race track; one runner physically chained to the ground, while the other, being free to move unrestricted, explains how the race is completely fair since they both cross the same finish line. I think that captures your argument for what it really is: a childish word game which thinly veils discrimination under the guise of "equality".
__________________
>^.^<

Last edited by Dessi; 5th April 2014 at 01:36 AM.
Dessi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2014, 02:35 AM   #122
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16,068
I support everybody's right to hold whatever views they wish.

I support everybody's right to express those views.

I support everybody's right to donate to whatever political cause they wish.

I support every company's right to employ people with any opinion, who have voiced any opinion, and who have donated to any political cause.

I support everybody's right to think whatever they want about another person's opinion.

I support everybody's right to boycott any product they want for whatever reason they want.

I support everybody's right to publicly declare their boycott and voice the reasons for said boycott.

I support everybody's right to voice their boycott and their reasons for said boycott to the company in question.

I support the right of any person to step down from any role in any company, if their continued presence in that role would (continue to) cost the company money and reputation.

Is there anything there that anybody in this thread particularly disagrees with?
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2014, 05:40 AM   #123
sunmaster14
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 9,895
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post

<snip>

Is there anything there that anybody in this thread particularly disagrees with?
Well, given that you're making statements about yourself, about whom I have no knowledge, I can't disagree. Also, depending upon the definitions of the words "support" and "right," I may even be able to make (truthfully) the same statements about myself. Which is why those statements aren't interesting until you define those words.

There are two points I would like to make which I haven't seen made yet (at least not clearly):

(1) I believe it is wrong to equate opposition to SSM with hate or bigotry or evil. Basically, it's too soon. Social opinion has changed so rapidly on this in the last 10 years - in fact, in the last 5 years - that many perfectly well-meaning, loving, and good people have been caught off-sides. If you have not met these people, then you have been living in a bubble. Many people do not think about legal marriage (as I do) as a basket of government benefits and that therefore denying legal recognition is an issue of discrimination.

(2) My understanding is that the release of information about donors to Proposition 8 was illegal. I could be wrong about this, but if it's true, then Eich had reason to expect anonymity, and he has been wronged by having his donor information released. Even though this is not a judicial proceeding, I would extend to him similar protections and would move to preclude the evidence against him as inadmissible.
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2014, 06:19 AM   #124
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16,068
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
(1) I believe it is wrong to equate opposition to SSM with hate or bigotry or evil.
It may not be fuelled by hate or "evil", but it is bigotry.

Quote:
Basically, it's too soon. Social opinion has changed so rapidly on this in the last 10 years - in fact, in the last 5 years - that many perfectly well-meaning, loving, and good people have been caught off-sides. If you have not met these people, then you have been living in a bubble.
So? Just because my grandmother's racism is typical of her generation doesn't make the things she says less racist.

Quote:
Many people do not think about legal marriage (as I do) as a basket of government benefits and that therefore denying legal recognition is an issue of discrimination.
The issue of discrimination is not a question of government benefits, but a question of not being allowed to marry the person you want to, purely due to their gender. Even if there were no financial benefits to being married, denying gay people this right would still be discriminatory.

Quote:
(2) My understanding is that the release of information about donors to Proposition 8 was illegal. I could be wrong about this, but if it's true, then Eich had reason to expect anonymity, and he has been wronged by having his donor information released. Even though this is not a judicial proceeding, I would extend to him similar protections and would move to preclude the evidence against him as inadmissible.
Regardless of whether he has been wronged by the release of this information, this information is out there and people are free to act on that information as they should wish, within the confines of the law. That's what has happened.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2014, 06:28 AM   #125
Grizzly Adams
Graduate Poster
 
Grizzly Adams's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,114
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
To what end do the opponents of gay marriage seek to prevent homosexuals from marrying each other? Spite or to change their beliefs?
That's not an answer.

Quote:
What a strange comment to make in light of the fact that this particular situation worked out exactly as the boycotters desired.
Yeah, they got their wish in their temper tantrum: Eich is no longer CEO. But does he now support gay marriage? Does anyone now support gay marriage who didn't before as a result? Probably not. In fact, there's quite possibly more people now who resent the "gay mafia" for hitting Eich. That's the part that's counterproductive.

Quote:
But I remain unclear why some people seem to think they should be free from the consequences of their actions.

The only persons I've ever known to harbor that expectation are spoiled children.
I haven't suggested anything of the sort. My point has been that this consequence is not productive as a means to achieve a more tolerant society.

Last edited by Grizzly Adams; 5th April 2014 at 06:30 AM.
Grizzly Adams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2014, 06:34 AM   #126
Grizzly Adams
Graduate Poster
 
Grizzly Adams's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,114
Originally Posted by Redtail View Post
... In 1967 Virginia, a non-racist person could marry any consenting adult that a racist person could marry. The fact that a non-racist person might not be attracted to anyone he can marry does not make opposition to interracial marriage discriminatory. A racist man is treated exactly the same as a racist man... How does that sound?
Less convincing that you think.

Quote:
To protect their rights.
Oh. So now gay people can marry because Eich isn't CEO anymore?
Grizzly Adams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2014, 06:37 AM   #127
Grizzly Adams
Graduate Poster
 
Grizzly Adams's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,114
Originally Posted by PinkRabbit View Post
Actually, that's a fair question in light of some people's stances. As I said, I freelance. Over the years, I've had a few clients that wanted my services (sometimes quite badly), but who I did not wish to work with owing to certain of their positions. I refused the contracts because, simply put, I don't like working with bigots just like I don't like giving them my money.

Now I'm wondering if I'm a horrible, free speech killing villain for not wholeheartedly supporting them (okay, not really, but it's an interesting philosophical question in light of some views).
Interesting that you bring this up. The Supreme Court just heard oral arguments a couple weeks ago in the case of Elaine Photography, in which a freelancer elected not to accept a job photographing a gay wedding because she did not believe in it. You support her freedom to refuse work based on the positions of her prospective clients, right?
Grizzly Adams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2014, 06:57 AM   #128
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 21,048
Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams View Post
Yeah, they got their wish in their temper tantrum: Eich is no longer CEO. But does he now support gay marriage? Does anyone now support gay marriage who didn't before as a result? Probably not. In fact, there's quite possibly more people now who resent the "gay mafia" for hitting Eich. That's the part that's counterproductive.
I disagree; firstly, the point of the boycott is not to get Eich to change his views. It would have been a nice bonus, but there's likely not a single person who expected anything like that to happen. And secondly, if Eich and others who dislike gay marriage or gays in general continue to do so as a result of this incident, that's not a negative impact, it's a net change of zero.

Meanwhile, with Eich gone, Mozilla wins because the people who didn't like Eich are no longer boycotting. That's certainly a productive change for Mozilla.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2014, 07:12 AM   #129
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,431
Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams View Post
Less convincing that you think.


Oh. So now gay people can marry because Eich isn't CEO anymore?
Part 1-why?
Part 2-the idea behind the boycott was not to get Eich to like gays, but to get a better CEO. I am glad you have realized that this is hardly a punishment for Eich, who is both very wealthy and will probably find a high paying job elsewhere. Come on, we are not talking about depriving a poor supermarket clerk of a job! Many people could be CEO of Firefox but would be inappropriate for various reasons. This is one of them.

The CEO of this company probably has 5 to 10% of the employees under his supervision, if not more, as gay. He is in charge of promotions, salary, etc. Should a bigot who sees gays as not having the same rights as other people be in charge of these employees?

Anyone can become more enlightened over the years. But has Eich even said that he has?

Finally, the same things you said about the effect of boycotts on the views of the population were said about the boycotts against racism. I was there and saw it! Are people more or less racist today? Are there more or less secregated fountains today?

Last edited by Giordano; 5th April 2014 at 07:14 AM.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2014, 07:23 AM   #130
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,431
Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams View Post
Interesting that you bring this up. The Supreme Court just heard oral arguments a couple weeks ago in the case of Elaine Photography, in which a freelancer elected not to accept a job photographing a gay wedding because she did not believe in it. You support her freedom to refuse work based on the positions of her prospective clients, right?
This is not the same at all: I never opened a public business and agreed to serve people whether they were black, or gay, or Jewish. Are you saying this is the same as what business I can deal with? Clearly I can legally go to, or put my money in any business I wish. If someone doesn't like it, they can not invite me to dinner, or boycott me.

By the way: businesses now can refuse to serve Eich for any reason, including his political views. A business can refuse to serve any individual they don't like they just cannot refuse to serve a legally protected class of people, like blacks and Jews. Oddly in many states they still legally refuse to serve all gays, simply because they are gay.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2014, 07:30 AM   #131
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,541
Originally Posted by Christian Klippel View Post
<snip>
However, this is _not_ what was the case here, no matter how much some people want to paint it as mere opinion. I draw the line when it no longer is an opinion or view, and becomes an active doing/effort to discriminate against a group and/or take away their rights. Especially so if that group already had gained the rights.
Originally Posted by Neally View Post
So you have no problem with an employer firing and employee that has campaigned against the rights guaranteed by the second amendment?
Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
Could you explain what in this thread has led you to that bizarre conclusion ?
Originally Posted by Neally View Post
See the quote that I replied to.
Yes, I see it. Where does it mention firing people ?

No one got fired. You keep attacking a straw man about firing people.

You also ignore that public opinion of a CEO is a factor in his job.

This issue has little to do with free speech - that's a red herring.
TheL8Elvis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2014, 07:34 AM   #132
332nd
Penultimate Amazing
 
332nd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,114
Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams View Post
Less convincing that you think.
Why? (Besides the typo)

Quote:
Oh. So now gay people can marry because Eich isn't CEO anymore?
No because that was just one step on that path, but it was a step.
__________________
The poster formerly known as Redtail

Last edited by 332nd; 5th April 2014 at 07:41 AM.
332nd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2014, 07:36 AM   #133
Grizzly Adams
Graduate Poster
 
Grizzly Adams's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,114
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
I disagree; firstly, the point of the boycott is not to get Eich to change his views. It would have been a nice bonus, but there's likely not a single person who expected anything like that to happen.
So the motivation is spite. Got it.

Quote:
And secondly, if Eich and others who dislike gay marriage or gays in general continue to do so as a result of this incident, that's not a negative impact, it's a net change of zero.
Don't you think there's a middle ground between gay marriage opponents and proponents? People on the fence? I don't see this tactic as bringing people down on our side of the fence. I see it as being more likely to push people to the other side.
Grizzly Adams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2014, 08:20 AM   #134
sunmaster14
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 9,895
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
It may not be fuelled by hate or "evil", but it is bigotry.
Although opposition to SSM may be fueled by bigotry, it is not bigotry per se. Here's the wiki definition (emphasis added):

Quote:
Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust or hatred on the basis of a person's opinion, ethnicity, evaluative orientation, race, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics.
Failure to consent to a change in the thousands of years old, worldwide understanding of marriage does not rise to the level of bigotry. Perhaps in a decade or two, after the new understanding has taken root, a desire to revert back to the old definition could fairly be described as bigotry. But not yet. All IMHO obviously.


Quote:
So? Just because my grandmother's racism is typical of her generation doesn't make the things she says less racist.
It is not the age of any individual which is relevant. It is the number of years since societal norms changed. Your grandmother has had plenty of opportunity and time to see that discrimination based on race is wrong. She should have acclimated her views by now.


Quote:
The issue of discrimination is not a question of government benefits, but a question of not being allowed to marry the person you want to, purely due to their gender. Even if there were no financial benefits to being married, denying gay people this right would still be discriminatory.

What do you mean by "not being allowed to marry" if it is not a question of how the government treats your marriage under the law? I can't think of any state which would deprive two gay people of the right to live together or even to have a wedding ceremony. The fight is about receiving government recognition of the marriage, with all of the advantages (and, by the way, not inconsiderable disadvantages) that that entails.


Quote:
Regardless of whether he has been wronged by the release of this information, this information is out there and people are free to act on that information as they should wish, within the confines of the law. That's what has happened.
The reason the law excludes illegally obtained evidence from criminal trials is to provide a disincentive to obtain evidence illegally. I think the same reasoning applies here.

And your constant harping about how everybody is "free" to do whatever they want within the confines of the law is neither helpful nor interesting. People are free to fart in elevators too. It doesn't mean I wouldn't teach my children not to fart in elevators.
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2014, 08:31 AM   #135
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,605
Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams View Post
That's not an answer.
If you really want an answer to your question, you'd have to ask those who called for and participated in the boycott. But if I were to hazard a guess, I'd say their motivation had something to do with fighting back against those who seek to discriminate for no better reason than rank bigotry.

And that you are less concerned with the motives of bigots than you are with those pointing out their bigotry speaks volumes.

Quote:
Yeah, they got their wish in their temper tantrum: Eich is no longer CEO.
Perhaps if Eich hadn't thrown in with goose-stepping purveyors of hate and oppression, this wouldn't have happened to him.

Using inflammatory hyperbole is fun.

Quote:
But does he now support gay marriage? Does anyone now support gay marriage who didn't before as a result? Probably not.
I don't know if Eich now supports gay marriage. You'd have to ask him. But to suggest that somehow exposing bigotry such as his doesn't promote a more tolerant society is ludicrous.

You should check the polls on this issue and see which way the numbers have been moving in the last few years. The bigots are losing.

Quote:
In fact, there's quite possibly more people now who resent the "gay mafia" for hitting Eich. That's the part that's counterproductive.
Yes, your completely manufactured theory of negative consequences would be counterproductive.

You let us know just as soon as that happens in any meaningful way.

Quote:
I haven't suggested anything of the sort. My point has been that this consequence is not productive as a means to achieve a more tolerant society.
Again, you should check to see which way the polls are moving on this issue.
johnny karate is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2014, 08:40 AM   #136
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 21,048
Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams View Post
So the motivation is spite. Got it.
Not necessarily; although it must be said that "spite" is a 100% valid and morally permissible personal reason for not giving someone your business.


Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams View Post
Don't you think there's a middle ground between gay marriage opponents and proponents? People on the fence? I don't see this tactic as bringing people down on our side of the fence. I see it as being more likely to push people to the other side.
There's likely a middle ground; but I suspect that it's rather small and consists mostly of people who are apathetic rather than undecided about the issue. But no, I don't see why this incident would be more likely to bring people off the fence on any particular side. Certainly not reasonable individuals - "Eich was compelled to resign over his position on gay marriage, therefore gay marriage is wrong/right" is a non sequitur.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2014, 08:44 AM   #137
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,605
And by the way, conservative groups do this thing all the time:

http://www.dumpstarbucks.com/

http://dumpgeneralmills.com/

http://action.afa.net/Detail.aspx?id=2147501669

http://onemillionmoms.com/issues/gap...%27-billboard/

http://onemillionmoms.com/issues/mac...end-customers/

http://onemillionmoms.com/issues/avo...ather%27s-day/

I'm sure the people in this thread criticizing the Mozilla boycott can point to numerous posts they have made on this forum decrying these other boycotts, because they are totally not hypocritical closet homophobes.
johnny karate is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2014, 08:59 AM   #138
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 10,823
I'm still trying to get this straight,
As a person whose opinion actually counts, because he is in a position to actually cause things to happen, it is OK to oppose something and deny rights to a certain class of individual by voting to a law to that effect.
As an individual who merely holds an opinion, and has no power to change anything directly, it is absolutely not OK, and is possibly criminal, to contribute money to anyone or any group who might actually have the power to deny those rights to that self-same class of individuals.
The first class of person can be forgiven if he's outwardly sorry about it later. The second can never be forgiven.
Do I have it right?
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2014, 08:59 AM   #139
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 10,379
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
I guess you have no idea how a company works. Not even a CEO can capriciously hire and fire people. Hiring and firing is not typically her primary role.
However, it's commonplace for the attitudes of a CEO to permeate a company.

If I were a LGBT Mozilla employee, I'd have a big problem working for a CEO/bigot who actively attempted to take away my rights, and I would want that person canned. Does that seem reasonable?
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2014, 09:04 AM   #140
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 39,517
Originally Posted by ravdin View Post
Strange that Barack Obama also opposed gay marriage back in 2008 and it didn't stop him from becoming elected president. I strongly disagreed with that position then and still do now, but I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that Obama should resign over it. The crusade of political correctness can be oddly selective.
He didn't exactly campaign for prop 8 though. If this guy was privately against gay marriage it would be different from donating money to fight It.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2014, 09:07 AM   #141
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by PinkRabbit View Post
I find it interesting that to some Brendan Eich's freedom of speech to express his dislike for gay marriage is utterly sacrosanct, but my right to criticize him for that stance is not only unimportant, it's a bad, free speech destroying thing.
Uh....no, that's one of the rather pervasive straw men that the poster who are defending the boycott are building. No-one has ever claimed that Eich was above criticism. What was being questioned, however, was the rather dishonest equation between criticism of one's political views and forcing one out of one's job as a way of expressing disagreement.
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2014, 09:41 AM   #142
332nd
Penultimate Amazing
 
332nd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,114
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
I'm still trying to get this straight,
As a person whose opinion actually counts, because he is in a position to actually cause things to happen, it is OK to oppose something and deny rights to a certain class of individual by voting to a law to that effect.
As an individual who merely holds an opinion, and has no power to change anything directly, it is absolutely not OK, and is possibly criminal, to contribute money to anyone or any group who might actually have the power to deny those rights to that self-same class of individuals.
The first class of person can be forgiven if he's outwardly sorry about it later. The second can never be forgiven.
Do I have it right?
No.
__________________
The poster formerly known as Redtail
332nd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2014, 09:53 AM   #143
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16,068
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
Although opposition to SSM may be fueled by bigotry, it is not bigotry per se. Here's the wiki definition (emphasis added):
We can play at duelling definitions, if you choose. I'll go with the OED. Not really sure how any of that helps the conversation move forwards. But you can try to define prejudice out of existence, if you like.

Quote:
Failure to consent to a change in the thousands of years old, worldwide understanding of marriage does not rise to the level of bigotry.
Wanting to maintain an inequality is bigotry, no matter how well-establshed that inequality is.

Quote:
It is not the age of any individual which is relevant. It is the number of years since societal norms changed. Your grandmother has had plenty of opportunity and time to see that discrimination based on race is wrong. She should have acclimated her views by now.
So racial segregation in the past wasn't discrimination or bigotry because everybody was doing it?

Quote:
What do you mean by "not being allowed to marry" if it is not a question of how the government treats your marriage under the law? I can't think of any state which would deprive two gay people of the right to live together or even to have a wedding ceremony. The fight is about receiving government recognition of the marriage, with all of the advantages (and, by the way, not inconsiderable disadvantages) that that entails.
It's not about the financial benefits, it's about equality.

Quote:
The reason the law excludes illegally obtained evidence from criminal trials is to provide a disincentive to obtain evidence illegally. I think the same reasoning applies here.
How so?

Quote:
And your constant harping about how everybody is "free" to do whatever they want within the confines of the law is neither helpful nor interesting. People are free to fart in elevators too. It doesn't mean I wouldn't teach my children not to fart in elevators.
You can teach your children whatever you like.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

Last edited by Squeegee Beckenheim; 5th April 2014 at 09:57 AM.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2014, 09:58 AM   #144
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,072
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
I guess you have no idea how a company works. Not even a CEO can capriciously hire and fire people. Hiring and firing is not typically her primary role.
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
... not that it matters because this whole argument of discrimination is, as I said, a distinction without a difference
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
Eich had pledged he would not interfere on these matters, and there's no reason to believe otherwise
I don't know why you're acting like potential discrimination in the workplace is an irrelevant issue, unworthy of attention. I'm going go crank it up to 11, so brace yourself if you're the reactionary type:

Imagine if, instead of donating to Prop 8, Eich had donated to the Send The Negroes Back To Africa Where They Belong campaign. Or, perhaps, the Let's Finish What Hitler Started fund. Are black/Jewish employees supposed to take Eich at his word when he says that his support of these political issues is not going to effect personnel matters at Mozilla? I wouldn't trust him. Not for a second.

Originally Posted by Cain View Post
For some reason, I think it's a relative waste of time and energy to ****-can someone who poses approximately zero-point-zero future threat to gay rights, but then again, I'm also the kind of person who loathes identity politics.
As much as you'd like to pretend otherwise, this was not a witch hunt. In reality, this was people deciding that they didn't want to use the browser while the company was being presided over by a CEO opposed to gay rights. The consequence being a deleterious effect on Mozilla's ability to do business (in direct conflict with a CEO's role), so it makes perfect sense for him to step down.

The fact remains that this has nothing to do with Eich personally. I don't think anyone really cares what happens to him after this. If he were to spend the rest of his days on a private island sipping piña coladas, you would never hear about it.

For the sake of contrast, this is a witch hunt.
I Am The Scum is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2014, 10:00 AM   #145
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,072
Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams View Post
A gay person can marry any consenting adult that a straight person can marry. The fact that a gay person might not be attracted to anyone he can marry does not make opposition to gay marriage discriminatory. A gay man is treated exactly the same as a straight man. Sounds non-discriminatory to me.
Then it is gender discrimination.

Bob wants to marry Steve. Bob is not allowed to do this. If, instead, Bob were Karen, then it would be allowed.

Bob is being denied a right based on his gender.

Your move.
I Am The Scum is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2014, 10:06 AM   #146
PinkRabbit
Critical Thinker
 
PinkRabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 438
Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams View Post
Interesting that you bring this up. The Supreme Court just heard oral arguments a couple weeks ago in the case of Elaine Photography, in which a freelancer elected not to accept a job photographing a gay wedding because she did not believe in it. You support her freedom to refuse work based on the positions of her prospective clients, right?
Actually, yes, I do.

Now, mind you, I don't want to hear anybody whine when they refuse business and find out that there's a cost to their choice (like all the bad PR and other lost clients and such), but no, I don't think anyone should be forced to take business. I just think that the people they've ill treated should broadcast their jackassery to the world and make the cost as high as possible.

Any other questions?

Last edited by PinkRabbit; 5th April 2014 at 10:10 AM.
PinkRabbit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2014, 10:09 AM   #147
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 54,924
Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade View Post
So, by that logic, if you say something the government doesn't like and they lock you up, you still have free speech! (Please keep in mind that "free speech" and the First Amendment are two different things.)
But, just to keep us on the straight, accurate and narrow: free speech simply means (in the US) that you legally cannot be stopped/prevented from saying (writing, publishing, etc. something prior to you doing so. If it falls afoul of any of a number of regulations, laws you can be arrested for it immediately after saying, publishing (etc.) it. In no place of which I am aware are you free to say or publish anything you wish to without any possibility of consequences.
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2014, 10:17 AM   #148
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 54,924
Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade View Post
So, by that logic, if you say something the government doesn't like and they lock you up, you still have free speech! (Please keep in mind that "free speech" and the First Amendment are two different things.)
But, just to keep us on the straight, accurate and narrow: free speech simply means (in the US) that you legally cannot be stopped/prevented from saying (writing, publishing, etc. something prior to you doing so. If it falls afoul of any of a number of regulations, laws you can be arrested for it immediately after saying, publishing (etc.) it. In no place of which I am aware are you free to say or publish anything you wish to without any possibility of consequences.
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2014, 10:22 AM   #149
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,605
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
What was being questioned, however, was the rather dishonest equation between criticism of one's political views and forcing one out of one's job as a way of expressing disagreement.
Yes, clearly that's the issue here.

Because as we have seen when things like this have happened before, the very same people criticizing the Mozilla boycott in this thread flooded the forum with their outrage.
johnny karate is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2014, 10:28 AM   #150
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 54,924
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
But, one side supported human rights for everyone, Another other side excluded human rights from some people. Again, it was not a political choice between vanilla and chocolate. He supported denying people a basic human right. If he had supported a basic human right, then people wouldn't be as upset. If he was forced out of office because he supported a basic human right, I would call foul for good reason. What you bring up is not symmetrical.
They have no comprehension of that point. That side believes that giving other sides freedom to exist and function means they are losing their rights to exist and function. Our side does not operate that way. We may not believe in the religions, but absent torture, inquisitions,child sex and killing heretics we accept their right to exist - but they do not -and try to make/keep it law- often accept the rights of others. And they act like they are the victims.
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2014, 10:33 AM   #151
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,431
Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams View Post
So the motivation is spite. Got it.
No, as I explained, my motivation is not revenge (I don't care what Eich thinks on his own) but to remove a CEO who is prejudiced from the control of a company and of other people's lives who might be affected by his prejudice. This includes employees.

I try to interpret actions as if they were anti-Semitic rather then anti-gay (ironically I don't believe in religion, but most people would still see me as Jewish). I do not want any one as CEO of a company on record as believing Jews should not marry in civil ceremonies. It would be a company in which I would be very uncomfortable working. What would happen if a Jew and were competing for a Vice-President position?

I do not want any one as CEO of a company on record as believing gays should not marry in civil ceremonies. This is directly related to his job, not to his personal opinions. He can butter the toast left to right, instead of right to left, for all I care. He can vote Republican for all I care. But he cannot say that whole groups of people should be legally excluded from the legal rights everyone else has because of how they were born.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2014, 10:48 AM   #152
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Yes, clearly that's the issue here.

Because as we have seen when things like this have happened before, the very same people criticizing the Mozilla boycott in this thread flooded the forum with their outrage.
Hmmm...seems that the same case for "hypocrisy" could be made for the supporters of the Mozilla boycott: Why were they critcial of the groups boycotting JC Penny? Why should JC Penny be immune from critcism of who the pick as their spokesperson?

Except...oh, yeah...the critics of the JC Penny boycott who supported the Mozilla boycott–not the imaginary people who defended the JC Penny boycott and criticized the Mozilla boycott–would actually be displaying hypocrisy.
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2014, 10:48 AM   #153
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,431
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
Although opposition to SSM may be fueled by bigotry, it is not bigotry per se. Here's the wiki definition (emphasis added):



Failure to consent to a change in the thousands of years old, worldwide understanding of marriage does not rise to the level of bigotry. Perhaps in a decade or two, after the new understanding has taken root, a desire to revert back to the old definition could fairly be described as bigotry. But not yet. All IMHO obviously.

Small point: so one definition you found of bigotry does not list one of my key definitions: prejudice against an entire group of people because of how they were born. Other dictionary definitions include mine. Call you what you want, it is not a positive trait in a CEO, or in anyone for that matter.

As for changing the thousand year old definition of marriage: how long has multiple marriage been illegal in the US? Decades? One hundred years? Until the 1960s marriage in many US states was legally defined as being among the same race; I could not legally marry a black person in Alabama. Hasn't our thousand year old definition of marriage already been changed? Multiple times?

How recently did we abolish slavery? Wasn't slavery a thousand year old institution? It is even in the US Constitution and was regulated by a complex set of State and Federal laws.

Sorry: it took me awhile to see it, but opposition to gays marrying who they love is just as based on bigotry.

Last edited by Giordano; 5th April 2014 at 11:07 AM.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2014, 10:56 AM   #154
PinkRabbit
Critical Thinker
 
PinkRabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 438
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
Uh....no, that's one of the rather pervasive straw men that the poster who are defending the boycott are building. No-one has ever claimed that Eich was above criticism. What was being questioned, however, was the rather dishonest equation between criticism of one's political views and forcing one out of one's job as a way of expressing disagreement.
The problem with that is that the boycott only drew attention to the subject. It's the mass of criticism that scared Mozilla. Companies don't like bad PR (and he brought them a ton of it...among their user base) and they really don't like huge amounts of it. Boycotts are no big deal. Companies face them every day (for example, A Million Moms has at least a dozen going at any given point in time), and mostly they don't work because mostly there aren't enough people who care about the topic to make the company notice.

This time enough people cared for it to matter. At that point, it was a numbers game. And quite literally, the only way for Eich to maintain his position was for those masses to shut up and not express their unhappiness so that Mozilla thought the numbers weren't there.
PinkRabbit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2014, 11:02 AM   #155
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,431
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post


What do you mean by "not being allowed to marry" if it is not a question of how the government treats your marriage under the law? I can't think of any state which would deprive two gay people of the right to live together or even to have a wedding ceremony. The fight is about receiving government recognition of the marriage, with all of the advantages (and, by the way, not inconsiderable disadvantages) that that entails.

Yes, we are talking very much about how the government treats people under law. The fight is very much about receiving government recognition for the gay marriage, both positive and negative. I would be just as opposed if the negative outcomes were excluded from an entire group of people based on their gender, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. I would be opposed to a law that parking tickets did not apply to gay people.

By the way: I think that most gay people are born that way, but I don't agree with any concept that we should not discriminate against them because "they can't help it, poor souls." It is not bad or in any way worse off ethically to be gay, just probably more difficult in our current society. People chose their religion; they don't biologically inherit it. Yet most people do not favor discriminating against people because of their religion. I think sexual orientation is even a more basic part of a person than religion, and neither is the business of the government.

By the
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2014, 11:03 AM   #156
Stellafane
Village Idiot.
 
Stellafane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,596
I'm kind of surprised this thread has managed to last so long, considering how simple and straightforward the issues are. This has nothing to do with free speech. One can exercise free speech to one's content -- but one also has to accept the possibility that in doing so one may end up pissing off a lot of people. This can become especially problematic when one is a CEO of a company whose success depends on public goodwill. Because guess what? Remember those people you pissed off? They have every right to take their business elsewhere. And guess what? When they do, your company has every right to say "Hey Brendan, 'free speech good' and all that. But on the whole we'd rather not have a CEO who drives away thousands and thousands of our paying customers."

Really, what else is there to say about this?
__________________
Another Shameless Googlebomb Plug for www.stopsylvia.com
Stellafane is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2014, 11:04 AM   #157
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,431
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
I'm still trying to get this straight,
As a person whose opinion actually counts, because he is in a position to actually cause things to happen, it is OK to oppose something and deny rights to a certain class of individual by voting to a law to that effect.
As an individual who merely holds an opinion, and has no power to change anything directly, it is absolutely not OK, and is possibly criminal, to contribute money to anyone or any group who might actually have the power to deny those rights to that self-same class of individuals.
The first class of person can be forgiven if he's outwardly sorry about it later. The second can never be forgiven.
Do I have it right?
I just repeating this post because I agree with it so much.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2014, 11:18 AM   #158
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,431
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
I guess you have no idea how a company works. Not even a CEO can capriciously hire and fire people. Hiring and firing is not typically her primary role.
.
Do you really think that a CEO can't say, "Fire (or hire) that person" and it will not happen? Yes HR handles the day-to-day business, but do you really think that the CEO has no influence? Do you really think that if the CEO is prejudiced against me I have exactly the same chance of promotion to a Vice-President job as someone else?

Maybe I can hide as a custodian and thereby not catch the attention of the CEO. Maybe I have laws that would prevent him from actually firing because I was Jewish and thus part of a protected group(not true in most States if I am Gay, by the way). But if he disliked me for whatever reason and knew of me, I am sure my life in that company would not be the same as if he liked me.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2014, 11:29 AM   #159
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,431
Originally Posted by Stellafane View Post
I'm kind of surprised this thread has managed to last so long, considering how simple and straightforward the issues are. This has nothing to do with free speech. One can exercise free speech to one's content -- but one also has to accept the possibility that in doing so one may end up pissing off a lot of people. This can become especially problematic when one is a CEO of a company whose success depends on public goodwill. Because guess what? Remember those people you pissed off? They have every right to take their business elsewhere. And guess what? When they do, your company has every right to say "Hey Brendan, 'free speech good' and all that. But on the whole we'd rather not have a CEO who drives away thousands and thousands of our paying customers."

Really, what else is there to say about this?
You misunderstand. Free speech is having no consequences to your words, no matter how disturbing. In fact, everyone has to like you as a person, no matter what you say, invite you to dinner, and do business with you.

Of course, even if you accept this ridiculous statement, we are really asking: is Eich the best CEO possible? What if he announces that 2 plus 2 = 5? That is free speech, but it is not good accounting for a CEO. What if he says he makes business decisions based on radio transmissions from Venus? That is free speech, but it is not good planning for a CEO. What if you view 5-10% of your employees and customers as not to be allowed the same legal rights as other people? That is free speech, but it is not good leadership on the part of a CEO.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2014, 11:48 AM   #160
Quinn
Breathtakingly blasphemous.
 
Quinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,309
Originally Posted by Stellafane View Post
I'm kind of surprised this thread has managed to last so long, considering how simple and straightforward the issues are. This has nothing to do with free speech. One can exercise free speech to one's content -- but one also has to accept the possibility that in doing so one may end up pissing off a lot of people. This can become especially problematic when one is a CEO of a company whose success depends on public goodwill. Because guess what? Remember those people you pissed off? They have every right to take their business elsewhere. And guess what? When they do, your company has every right to say "Hey Brendan, 'free speech good' and all that. But on the whole we'd rather not have a CEO who drives away thousands and thousands of our paying customers."

Really, what else is there to say about this?

This summarizes my thoughts perfectly. I see this as a case where everything happened exactly as it should have -- everyone involved acted within their rights, and things played out accordingly. Then again, I felt the same way about last year's Duck Dynasty brouhaha, and that dragged out for way longer than this has (so far).
__________________
It's not a matter of living life without mystery or wonder. It's a matter of living life without the approval of people who ignorantly assume that by rejecting the irrational, I experience no mystery or wonder. And frankly, I do just fine without that.
Quinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:36 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.