Can A Decent Man Achieve Success In This...
Society & Culture16 mins ago
Should Mozilla’S Firefox Boss Have Lost His Job?
70 Answers
http://
Are the gay rights movement taking thing too far, this gay conservative seems to think so?
/// Sullivan, a gay conservative, concluded: “If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us.” ///
http://
Are the gay rights movement taking thing too far, this gay conservative seems to think so?
/// Sullivan, a gay conservative, concluded: “If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us.” ///
http://
Answers
If one read's the news articles they find that Sullivan donated his $1,000 to the support of California's Proposition 8, which was a vote by the citizen's of that State to ban gay marriage in 2008! It's especially important to understand that Prop 8 (as it's known)was passed by a large majority of Californians
13:37 Sat 05th Apr 2014
he resigned, he wasn't sacked. If the company wants to appeal to gays and doesn't want to spend its time attracting unwelcome publicity, then he was the wrong man for the job.
I got an email days ago inviting me to boycott Firefox (by switching to Google Chrome!) but I didn't. I'm not that bothered by what CEOs - as distinct from the companies they lead - do with their spare time and money.
I got an email days ago inviting me to boycott Firefox (by switching to Google Chrome!) but I didn't. I'm not that bothered by what CEOs - as distinct from the companies they lead - do with their spare time and money.
If one read's the news articles they find that Sullivan donated his $1,000 to the support of California's Proposition 8, which was a vote by the citizen's of that State to ban gay marriage in 2008! It's especially important to understand that Prop 8 (as it's known)was passed by a large majority of Californians…(later overturned by the Supreme Court) and it's equally important to understand that Sullivan donated his money as a private citizen… he was not, then, employed by Mozilla.
Many of us here in the U.S. are becoming even more concerned that the LGBT organizations can hound a person out of their job at the same time decrying supposed discrimination and intimidation of free speech against[i them.
Look, regardless of one's position on the matter, few people I know that are against changing the institution of marriage based on a preferred lifestyle are against homosexuals [i]per se]. Live and let live. For many years homosexuals have had the right to engage in civil unions, which grants them nearly all the legal rights of marriage. The best estimates of the homosexual population, at least here is around 2% to 3%.
Curiously enough, in 2008 just before President Obama's run for President, his position was exactly the same as Sullivan's, as was Hillary Clinton's. But nothing is said about their previous (now "evolved") beliefs.
Jno is usually level headed and spot on (using a borrowed Brit term) but just how far do we go along the path of demanded political purity based on a preferred behavior?
Many of us here in the U.S. are becoming even more concerned that the LGBT organizations can hound a person out of their job at the same time decrying supposed discrimination and intimidation of free speech against[i them.
Look, regardless of one's position on the matter, few people I know that are against changing the institution of marriage based on a preferred lifestyle are against homosexuals [i]per se]. Live and let live. For many years homosexuals have had the right to engage in civil unions, which grants them nearly all the legal rights of marriage. The best estimates of the homosexual population, at least here is around 2% to 3%.
Curiously enough, in 2008 just before President Obama's run for President, his position was exactly the same as Sullivan's, as was Hillary Clinton's. But nothing is said about their previous (now "evolved") beliefs.
Jno is usually level headed and spot on (using a borrowed Brit term) but just how far do we go along the path of demanded political purity based on a preferred behavior?
-- answer removed --
two points, Clanad - one is that gay marriage is now legal here (only a few days old, though) and has very widespread support. So British ABers can probably be expected to take a more liberal line (though a few certainly will not).
The other is that companies, in the US as here, need to protect their brands. If they feel their bosses are bringing them bad publicity, they need to do something about it. As I said, I have no personal beefs about what CEOs do as private citizens; but the companies they run are entitled to think otherwise. How long ago it was may have some bearing on it - I suspect if he'd just said "Sorry, I've changed my mind since then" there would have been no further fuss. But presumably he hasn't changed his mind; so they had to decide how his values matched up against theirs. I think most companies would decide their corporate values came first. That looks as if it's what happened here. It sounds like normal commercial behaviour to me - a field in which individual rights often come second.
And thanks for the compliment!
The other is that companies, in the US as here, need to protect their brands. If they feel their bosses are bringing them bad publicity, they need to do something about it. As I said, I have no personal beefs about what CEOs do as private citizens; but the companies they run are entitled to think otherwise. How long ago it was may have some bearing on it - I suspect if he'd just said "Sorry, I've changed my mind since then" there would have been no further fuss. But presumably he hasn't changed his mind; so they had to decide how his values matched up against theirs. I think most companies would decide their corporate values came first. That looks as if it's what happened here. It sounds like normal commercial behaviour to me - a field in which individual rights often come second.
And thanks for the compliment!
Clanad. What is called for here is tolerance all round. I have never understood why religious people are so obsessed about other people' sex lives. I couldn't give a flying ferkin what people do in bed.
If a chap gets married to another chap, what business is it of anybody else, let alone the boss of a major IT company ?
Sullivan has been caught out as a bigot, that is why he lost his job.
If a chap gets married to another chap, what business is it of anybody else, let alone the boss of a major IT company ?
Sullivan has been caught out as a bigot, that is why he lost his job.
Those activists campaigning for equal rights under the law have every right to do so, don't they? And since when has it been a crime to boycott a service or a CEO of a service if you feel that the ethics of the company providing that service do not match your own? This is capitalism in action. The company made a commercial decision that their brand would be damaged by keeping him in post, and so he resigned. Tough, that's how it goes sometimes. If, as a private individual, you wish to publicly exercise your right to free speech, or protest, or wish to support a cause, you are fully at liberty to do so- but all such actions will have consequences should you gain a public profile, because your views and actions will be looked at under the microscope.
Last time I checked, it was not heterosexuals who have been vilified, ostracised, bullied and more over their sexual orientation. I really cannot understand why people seem to feel threatened by activists lobbying only to be treated as equal under the law. If homosexuals gain marriage rights, or greater and more open recognition of equality- how exactly does it hurt you?
This question has been asked so many times, and not a single person has ever been able to give a satisfactory answer, in my view - exactly how does same-sex marriage invalidate or threaten heterosexual marriage?
This man not only presumably exercised his free speech options to protests against same-sex marriage, he also donated several thousands in cash in support of Proposition 8 - a bill later struck down as unconstitutional ( is that right, Clanad? Cannot find any direct references). And I would not say it passed with a large majority, incidentally, Clanad - 52% versus 48% wasn't it?
So he felt strongly enough that he donated substantial cash in defence of heterosexual marriage and opposing same-sex marriage, which is why I assume he has come to the attention of the activists.
There are examples of the other side of the coin, too ; Chick-fil-A and Hobby Lobby are both very publicly taking positions against same-sex marriage and elements of health cover they might be expected to offer their employees on grounds of the CEO ideology. Presumably they have made the decision that such a decision will not substantively harm their business.
Last time I checked, it was not heterosexuals who have been vilified, ostracised, bullied and more over their sexual orientation. I really cannot understand why people seem to feel threatened by activists lobbying only to be treated as equal under the law. If homosexuals gain marriage rights, or greater and more open recognition of equality- how exactly does it hurt you?
This question has been asked so many times, and not a single person has ever been able to give a satisfactory answer, in my view - exactly how does same-sex marriage invalidate or threaten heterosexual marriage?
This man not only presumably exercised his free speech options to protests against same-sex marriage, he also donated several thousands in cash in support of Proposition 8 - a bill later struck down as unconstitutional ( is that right, Clanad? Cannot find any direct references). And I would not say it passed with a large majority, incidentally, Clanad - 52% versus 48% wasn't it?
So he felt strongly enough that he donated substantial cash in defence of heterosexual marriage and opposing same-sex marriage, which is why I assume he has come to the attention of the activists.
There are examples of the other side of the coin, too ; Chick-fil-A and Hobby Lobby are both very publicly taking positions against same-sex marriage and elements of health cover they might be expected to offer their employees on grounds of the CEO ideology. Presumably they have made the decision that such a decision will not substantively harm their business.
LG says "...Last time I checked, it was not heterosexuals who have been vilified, ostracised, bullied and more over their sexual orientation. I really cannot understand why people seem to feel threatened by activists lobbying only to be treated as equal under the law. If homosexuals gain marriage rights, or greater and more open recognition of equality- how exactly does it hurt you? Fair question but one so often repeated it's become a cliche.
Problem is it really isn't true, since the true agenda of the militant homosexual agenda is to achieve a goal of making any criticism of the homosexual life style illegal and labeled as hate speech. That's already happened in spades here in the U.S. One example… a small family bakery refused, on moral grounds, to bake and decorate a wedding cake for two lesbians who were soon to be married. The small bakery offered to have the cake provided by another bakery at it's own cost, but the agenda became crystal clear when the resulting lawsuit resulted in legal costs (and property damage due to the militants spray painting their small building with terrible words and slogans) caused them to go out of business. This isn't a unique example…
The corollary to the question proposed by LG and hinted at by mikey and others is… how does it harm heterosexual marriage. Actually, that question has been answered… over and over. But, out of all the ways it does harm normal marriage and society is the redefining of the language and the historical meaning of words, such as "marriage". One source says it better than I can…. "By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.
In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.
In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect all people who have an alternate view to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order…"
Finally, the reference to Chik Fila' and Hobby Law is entirely incorrect. Both of those businesses (both with a Christian basis) have said nothing about homosexual marriage but have objected to the imposition of 'Obamacare' which requires the employer to provide health insurance (which both already do) that requires the providing the employee birth control. Again, both entities don't necessarily object to that provision (I do, however!) but 'Obamacare' demands the birth control include providing abortifacients such as the "morning after pill", thereby violating their religious beliefs that life is sacred from conception.
By the way, Proposition 8, in California was approved by majority of the citizens as a State Constitution Amendment. The over turning Judge thereby single handily repealed a valid amendment to the Constitution approved by a majority of the citizens… this harmed everyone of those citizens immensely...
Problem is it really isn't true, since the true agenda of the militant homosexual agenda is to achieve a goal of making any criticism of the homosexual life style illegal and labeled as hate speech. That's already happened in spades here in the U.S. One example… a small family bakery refused, on moral grounds, to bake and decorate a wedding cake for two lesbians who were soon to be married. The small bakery offered to have the cake provided by another bakery at it's own cost, but the agenda became crystal clear when the resulting lawsuit resulted in legal costs (and property damage due to the militants spray painting their small building with terrible words and slogans) caused them to go out of business. This isn't a unique example…
The corollary to the question proposed by LG and hinted at by mikey and others is… how does it harm heterosexual marriage. Actually, that question has been answered… over and over. But, out of all the ways it does harm normal marriage and society is the redefining of the language and the historical meaning of words, such as "marriage". One source says it better than I can…. "By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.
In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.
In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect all people who have an alternate view to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order…"
Finally, the reference to Chik Fila' and Hobby Law is entirely incorrect. Both of those businesses (both with a Christian basis) have said nothing about homosexual marriage but have objected to the imposition of 'Obamacare' which requires the employer to provide health insurance (which both already do) that requires the providing the employee birth control. Again, both entities don't necessarily object to that provision (I do, however!) but 'Obamacare' demands the birth control include providing abortifacients such as the "morning after pill", thereby violating their religious beliefs that life is sacred from conception.
By the way, Proposition 8, in California was approved by majority of the citizens as a State Constitution Amendment. The over turning Judge thereby single handily repealed a valid amendment to the Constitution approved by a majority of the citizens… this harmed everyone of those citizens immensely...
"Problem is it really isn't true, since the true agenda of the militant homosexual agenda is to achieve a goal of making any criticism of the homosexual life style illegal"
Why do you feel it necessary to criticize it? It is their sexual orientation.What they get up to in their own bedrooms is surely up to them. Why is it necessary to criticize anyones sexual orientation?
The reason that It is a fair question, and has become a cliche is because it is true.
The anecdote you offered to illustrate a point - was it this one, from Oregon?
"According to the decision, the bakery does not constitute a “religious institution” under law, regardless of the Kleins’ beliefs. Thus, they are a business and public accommodation just like any other and are required by law to provide equal service on the basis of sexual orientation.
The discrimination took place last February, when Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman sought out a wedding cake from Sweet Cakes for their impending nuptials. Though the Kleins were willing to sell the couple regular baked goods, they insisted that they could not produce a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage because it would violate their religious beliefs. Cryer and Bowman filed a complaint alleging unlawful discrimination."
If you are offering a business and a service, rather like if you are offering B&B facility in a secular society, you simply cannot choose to discriminate against your customers based around your own beliefs. Sorry, but there it is.
Most responsible adults would take the view that marriage is an excellent institution, good for society, good for the couple in the marriage. So - why would you wish to deny gay people that institution too? You still have not offered any compelling reason to deny them this, beyond simple dislike of a sexual orientation.
"By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval"
And this is ultimately why I view the sentiment expressed in this paragraph as a good thing.
As for kids being exposed - it is not a disease that can be caught, like a virus of something. Surely you would want your kids to be brought up in a tolerant society where people can be gay without prejudice? I mean, what would you do if one of your own kids was gay?
Wikipaedia appears to disagree with you somewhat as well, especially with regard to Chik Fil-A
http://
And once again, organisations are trying to legislate to curtail heath coverage for their employees because of their own religious principle. Why do they not just keep those religious principles to themselves, rather than forcing it by fiat on their employees.
This is a semi-serious question, Clanad, and it is not really equivalent, I know - but, do you believe that a shop or whatever could deny service to someone simply because they were of a different race, or because they were female or something? If not - how is this any different, really?
Why do you feel it necessary to criticize it? It is their sexual orientation.What they get up to in their own bedrooms is surely up to them. Why is it necessary to criticize anyones sexual orientation?
The reason that It is a fair question, and has become a cliche is because it is true.
The anecdote you offered to illustrate a point - was it this one, from Oregon?
"According to the decision, the bakery does not constitute a “religious institution” under law, regardless of the Kleins’ beliefs. Thus, they are a business and public accommodation just like any other and are required by law to provide equal service on the basis of sexual orientation.
The discrimination took place last February, when Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman sought out a wedding cake from Sweet Cakes for their impending nuptials. Though the Kleins were willing to sell the couple regular baked goods, they insisted that they could not produce a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage because it would violate their religious beliefs. Cryer and Bowman filed a complaint alleging unlawful discrimination."
If you are offering a business and a service, rather like if you are offering B&B facility in a secular society, you simply cannot choose to discriminate against your customers based around your own beliefs. Sorry, but there it is.
Most responsible adults would take the view that marriage is an excellent institution, good for society, good for the couple in the marriage. So - why would you wish to deny gay people that institution too? You still have not offered any compelling reason to deny them this, beyond simple dislike of a sexual orientation.
"By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval"
And this is ultimately why I view the sentiment expressed in this paragraph as a good thing.
As for kids being exposed - it is not a disease that can be caught, like a virus of something. Surely you would want your kids to be brought up in a tolerant society where people can be gay without prejudice? I mean, what would you do if one of your own kids was gay?
Wikipaedia appears to disagree with you somewhat as well, especially with regard to Chik Fil-A
http://
And once again, organisations are trying to legislate to curtail heath coverage for their employees because of their own religious principle. Why do they not just keep those religious principles to themselves, rather than forcing it by fiat on their employees.
This is a semi-serious question, Clanad, and it is not really equivalent, I know - but, do you believe that a shop or whatever could deny service to someone simply because they were of a different race, or because they were female or something? If not - how is this any different, really?
Oh, and from the judges summary when striking down proposition 8
""Although Proposition 8 fails to possess even a rational basis, the evidence presented at trial shows that gays and lesbians are the type of minority strict scrutiny was designed to protect," Walker ruled.
"Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize plaintiffs' objective as "the right to same-sex marriage" would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy -- namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages."
"Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians, including: gays and lesbians do not have intimate relationships similar to heterosexual couples; gays and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals; and gay and lesbian relationships do not deserve the full recognition of society."
Seems fair enough to me. And yes the proposition was passed by a majority, but only 52 to 48% so hardly an overwhelming majority, was it?
""Although Proposition 8 fails to possess even a rational basis, the evidence presented at trial shows that gays and lesbians are the type of minority strict scrutiny was designed to protect," Walker ruled.
"Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize plaintiffs' objective as "the right to same-sex marriage" would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy -- namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages."
"Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians, including: gays and lesbians do not have intimate relationships similar to heterosexual couples; gays and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals; and gay and lesbian relationships do not deserve the full recognition of society."
Seems fair enough to me. And yes the proposition was passed by a majority, but only 52 to 48% so hardly an overwhelming majority, was it?
And a semi-serious reply, LG… I believe, and for good reasons found in the U.S. Constitution, that an individual cannot be held as a law breaker if he/she discriminates. Discrimination has, historically been only done by government.
I should be able to conduct my life and my business (unless my business requires a Federal License) as directed by my own conscience, even if that conscience differs with segments of society. However, government doesn't have the same right.
For example, the Civil Rights Act of 1968 prohibits discrimination in the sale and rental of most U.S. housing. It also prohibits discrimination in financing arrangements and extends to agents, brokers, and owners. "Both the 1964 and 1968 Civil Rights Acts establish the right of an injured party to sue and to obtain damages from any individual who illegally infringes with a person's civil rights, conspires to deprive others of their civil rights, or abuses either government authority or public office to accomplish such unlawful acts…"
I'm in full support of the Act, as it applies to those so protected by the language of the Act which states: "...provided for equal housing opportunities [i]regardless of race, creed, or national origin and made it a federal crime to “by force or by threat of force, injure, intimidate, or interfere with anyone … by reason of their race, color, religion, or national origin[i]. I marched along side others in support of the passage of the Act.
However, I'm in full support of a large segment of our Black communities and leaders who do not support the application of the Act's wording to a "behavior".
A black friend explained his position this way… " I was born black, live black and will die black and nothing I can do will change that… it's a physical condition, not a behavior".
Whereas I personally know several homosexuals that lived the lifestyle for a while and then"changed". Two of them (one woman and one man) have since married in the traditional sense and fully admit their previous lives were behavior driven. Your example is a good one and serves to prove my point LG… you equate a behavior as fully equivalent to an unchangeable physical characteristic, which really, shouldn't even be given a second thought, in my opinion.
One source that's part of a well funded study finds several real, detrimental affects of legalizing same sex marriage "...One of the biggest threats that same-sex "marriage" poses to traditionally defined marriage, is that it would probably undercut the norm of sexual fidelity in marriage. In the first edition of his book in defense of same-sex marriage, Virtually Normal, homosexual commentator Andrew Sullivan wrote: "There is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman." Of course, this line of thinking--were it incorporated into marriage and telegraphed to the public in sitcoms, magazines, and other mass media--would do enormous harm to the norm of sexual fidelity in marriage.
One recent study of civil unions and marriages in Vermont suggests this is a very real concern. More than 79 percent of heterosexual married men and women, along with lesbians in civil unions, reported that they strongly valued sexual fidelity. Only about 50 percent of gay men in civil unions valued sexual fidelity…"
(Source: Esther Rothblum and Sondra Solomon, Civil Unions in the State of Vermont: A Report on the First Year. University of Vermont Department of Psychology, 2003.)
Other studies show gay men average several dozen partners, even after "marriage". There is an extremely low rate of sexual fidelity among homosexual men as compared to married heterosexuals. Among married females 85% reported sexual fidelity. Among married men, 75.5% reported sexual fidelity. Among homosexual males in their current relationship, 4.5% reported sexual fidelity. (Sources:Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality).
I should be able to conduct my life and my business (unless my business requires a Federal License) as directed by my own conscience, even if that conscience differs with segments of society. However, government doesn't have the same right.
For example, the Civil Rights Act of 1968 prohibits discrimination in the sale and rental of most U.S. housing. It also prohibits discrimination in financing arrangements and extends to agents, brokers, and owners. "Both the 1964 and 1968 Civil Rights Acts establish the right of an injured party to sue and to obtain damages from any individual who illegally infringes with a person's civil rights, conspires to deprive others of their civil rights, or abuses either government authority or public office to accomplish such unlawful acts…"
I'm in full support of the Act, as it applies to those so protected by the language of the Act which states: "...provided for equal housing opportunities [i]regardless of race, creed, or national origin and made it a federal crime to “by force or by threat of force, injure, intimidate, or interfere with anyone … by reason of their race, color, religion, or national origin[i]. I marched along side others in support of the passage of the Act.
However, I'm in full support of a large segment of our Black communities and leaders who do not support the application of the Act's wording to a "behavior".
A black friend explained his position this way… " I was born black, live black and will die black and nothing I can do will change that… it's a physical condition, not a behavior".
Whereas I personally know several homosexuals that lived the lifestyle for a while and then"changed". Two of them (one woman and one man) have since married in the traditional sense and fully admit their previous lives were behavior driven. Your example is a good one and serves to prove my point LG… you equate a behavior as fully equivalent to an unchangeable physical characteristic, which really, shouldn't even be given a second thought, in my opinion.
One source that's part of a well funded study finds several real, detrimental affects of legalizing same sex marriage "...One of the biggest threats that same-sex "marriage" poses to traditionally defined marriage, is that it would probably undercut the norm of sexual fidelity in marriage. In the first edition of his book in defense of same-sex marriage, Virtually Normal, homosexual commentator Andrew Sullivan wrote: "There is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman." Of course, this line of thinking--were it incorporated into marriage and telegraphed to the public in sitcoms, magazines, and other mass media--would do enormous harm to the norm of sexual fidelity in marriage.
One recent study of civil unions and marriages in Vermont suggests this is a very real concern. More than 79 percent of heterosexual married men and women, along with lesbians in civil unions, reported that they strongly valued sexual fidelity. Only about 50 percent of gay men in civil unions valued sexual fidelity…"
(Source: Esther Rothblum and Sondra Solomon, Civil Unions in the State of Vermont: A Report on the First Year. University of Vermont Department of Psychology, 2003.)
Other studies show gay men average several dozen partners, even after "marriage". There is an extremely low rate of sexual fidelity among homosexual men as compared to married heterosexuals. Among married females 85% reported sexual fidelity. Among married men, 75.5% reported sexual fidelity. Among homosexual males in their current relationship, 4.5% reported sexual fidelity. (Sources:Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality).
Whether you find it fair enough is beside the point. The Proposition… as I've said, was an amendment to the State Constitution, which already contained the definition of marriage as "one man and one woman", the Amendment ratifying that definition was upheld by the Supreme Court of California, but the Supreme Court of the U.S. refused to hear the case saying those who brought the suit did not have standing since they hadn't demonstrated that they had been harmed. So… it was the action of a solitary activist Judge that overturned it… fair? I don't think many of the 52% would agree...
Clanad
Should he have lost his job?
I don't think so. It depends on whether his private views are in conflict with Mozilla's public stance on marriage equality. Also, it should be noted that his views weren't an issue when he was first employed by the company...only when he became CEO (I believe he was promoted from CFO).
However, there seems to be a degree of hypocrisy surrounding this story.
How many companies have been targeted with boycotts by right wing fundamentalist groups in the US, because of their support of gay rights?
This has been going on for years. The American Family Association organises boycotts of any company they see as promoting or supporting gay rights.
The AFA lists major corporations that have non-discrimination policies that include sexual orientation or that offer domestic-partner benefits for same-sex couples, including Eastman Kodak, Citigroup, PepsiCo., American Airlines, Allstate Insurance, and the Coca-Cola Company.
The AFA states that "One company losing five to ten percent of its sales will send a clear message to every company in America."
AFA attacked Kraft Foods (owner of brand names Post, Oscar Meyer, and Maxwell House, among others) for the company's support of the 2006 Gay Games in Chicago.
See more at: http://
Should he have lost his job?
I don't think so. It depends on whether his private views are in conflict with Mozilla's public stance on marriage equality. Also, it should be noted that his views weren't an issue when he was first employed by the company...only when he became CEO (I believe he was promoted from CFO).
However, there seems to be a degree of hypocrisy surrounding this story.
How many companies have been targeted with boycotts by right wing fundamentalist groups in the US, because of their support of gay rights?
This has been going on for years. The American Family Association organises boycotts of any company they see as promoting or supporting gay rights.
The AFA lists major corporations that have non-discrimination policies that include sexual orientation or that offer domestic-partner benefits for same-sex couples, including Eastman Kodak, Citigroup, PepsiCo., American Airlines, Allstate Insurance, and the Coca-Cola Company.
The AFA states that "One company losing five to ten percent of its sales will send a clear message to every company in America."
AFA attacked Kraft Foods (owner of brand names Post, Oscar Meyer, and Maxwell House, among others) for the company's support of the 2006 Gay Games in Chicago.
See more at: http://
Clanad
Basically my point is this - it was right wing organisations who started using their muscle to boycott companies who had the audacity to offer equal rights to their employees.
They started this...so is it not predictable that those who support equal rights should use the same tactics?
Companies will do anything to protect their brand name. If they believe that public perception of them has been damaged, the individual will be sacrificed.
Ultimately, right wing fundamentalist Christian organisations created this atmosphere of intolerance...now they're reaping the rewards of their ongoing boycotts.
I hope they understand that it is they, who opened this Pandora's Box.
Basically my point is this - it was right wing organisations who started using their muscle to boycott companies who had the audacity to offer equal rights to their employees.
They started this...so is it not predictable that those who support equal rights should use the same tactics?
Companies will do anything to protect their brand name. If they believe that public perception of them has been damaged, the individual will be sacrificed.
Ultimately, right wing fundamentalist Christian organisations created this atmosphere of intolerance...now they're reaping the rewards of their ongoing boycotts.
I hope they understand that it is they, who opened this Pandora's Box.
By the way, I question Mr Sullivan's assertions that "one of the biggest threats that same-sex "marriage" poses to traditionally defined marriage, is that it would probably undercut the norm of sexual fidelity in marriage."
Really?
Because from where I stand, one if the biggest threats to traditional marriage is the ease in which men and women can divorce each other, and drift away from long term commitment which we have seen in this country over the past fifty years.
When I was at school, the idea of someone having a baby outside wedlock was still pretty scandalous.
Is it now?
When I was at school, parents divorcing was still a big talking point.
Is it now?
I would argue that the biggest threats to the institution of marriage is nothing to do with marriage equality or so-called 'militant gays'...
If there were no such thing as same sex marriage, we would STILL have a society where two thirds of marriage break down and a majority of children were born out to wedlock.
Actually...let me check those last two 'fact'. I remember reading those stats some time ago, and I might be a little off.
Really?
Because from where I stand, one if the biggest threats to traditional marriage is the ease in which men and women can divorce each other, and drift away from long term commitment which we have seen in this country over the past fifty years.
When I was at school, the idea of someone having a baby outside wedlock was still pretty scandalous.
Is it now?
When I was at school, parents divorcing was still a big talking point.
Is it now?
I would argue that the biggest threats to the institution of marriage is nothing to do with marriage equality or so-called 'militant gays'...
If there were no such thing as same sex marriage, we would STILL have a society where two thirds of marriage break down and a majority of children were born out to wedlock.
Actually...let me check those last two 'fact'. I remember reading those stats some time ago, and I might be a little off.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.