My parents own a small business and are personally against Gay Marriage. I admit that hoping that my privacy will be respected enough that no one will try to find them and harass them because of this... They are generally good people who are sometimes misguided in their thoughts. However, they don't let that creep into their business and have the utmost respect for people in general. Yes, even Gay people. Just because they believe that Homosexuality is wrong doesn't mean that they are opposed to people who are gay.
I'd be devastated if their business suffered because of their personal viewpoints. The mob mentality leads to situations where we round up everyone who is Japanese, Jewish, Homophobic, etc. and get rid of them. Let's be rational here and let people live with their beliefs, and lets not persecute people for their beliefs because of a time/culture/religion they were born into or the sexual orientation they were born with.
EDIT: Just because you are opposed to someone getting married doesn't mean you hate that group. People who have that viewpoint frequently believe that homosexuality will degrade the morality of society. Yes, they are wrong and misguided, but they aren't ALL hateful.
In fact, I would venture to say that an extremely FEW are hateful. There has been too much caricaturing on both sides. I am fairly certain that 95%+ of people on both sides of the issue are actually very caring, intelligent people (and yes, even on the pro-Prop 8 side like myself) who do not treat each other differently.
This is pretty clearly a "right to swing your fist ends at my nose" situation. If your parents aren't attempting to limit homosexuals' ability to live as equals with non-homosexual humans then, yes, they shouldn't be persecuted for their beliefs. However, if they donate to political causes that are anti-gay-marriage, or march in support of those who do, or sign petitions asking for the right to marry to be repealed...
If you're uncomfortable with associating the word "hate" with "against gay marriage", consider what opponents of gay marriage are trying to stop:
* A person easily being able to be present at the deathbed of their lifetime partner.
Do they donate money help fund laws to remove people's rights? Thats big thing, its one thing to be against gay marriage its another thing to fund campaigns to ban it. Obama is against gay marriage, but he has never taken any action to prevent gays from getting married or recognizing gay marriages. Thats the key difference. If the former Mozilla CEO just tweeted he's against gay marriage, i am willing to bet he'd still have a job.
The mob mentality leads to situations where we round up everyone who is Japanese, Jewish, Homophobic, etc. and get rid of them.
One of these things is not like the other.
Also, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of people "rounding up" donors to Prop 8. Eich was appointed to lead an organization whose values he didn't share, and represent them to the public. He was unapologetic about this. This isn't a situation your parents or pretty much anyone else would realistically find themselves in.
Today, if somebody does not support interracial marriage, they are considered as racists. Is that wrong? If somebody does not support gay marriage - do they hate gays? Why do they want to disallow marriage benefits to these people?
In other words, if somebody is advocating that certain benefits should not be given to certain group of people (and they are part of that group not by own choice), the first question should be: Who is going to get harmed if we give that benefit to that group of people? If there is no answer on that question... then...
"homosexuality will degrade the morality of society"
Maybe I'm really, really, thick, but how is this not hateful?
The obvious exercise would be to replace homosexuality with being black or Jewish. I'm not saying this to score cheap points, but to illustrate how I personally read this.
I'm very sorry, and I respect the fact that we're talking about people who are very dear to you, but cannot read those phrases as anything other than expressions of hatred.
" The mob mentality leads to situations where we round up everyone who is Japanese, Jewish, Homophobic, etc. and get rid of them."
This is an utterly insane strawman you all are creating. We're now comparing holocaust victims, people in internment camps and people who have had a constitutional amendment passed to take away their rights to the plight of having people boycott your business for your intolerance...?
What's the next step? Compare people who had their rights taken away and then boycotted a person's products to Hitler just to complete the internet hyperbole?
It doesn't matter if people actively working to deny some groups their equal rights are hateful or not; they could be the most charming people in the world. No one is suggesting jailing the holders of said beliefs because of them. But sending a clear message that some views are downright wrong in our society and are opposed to its core democratic values isn't a "mob mentality", and such a clear message in favor of equality does not lead to unfair discrimination, and certainly not to rounding up people and getting rid of them. All it does is educate people that intolerant views are not tolerated in a free society.
Isn't the point of a democracy to allow the people to have a voice? It is starting to seem like many progressive groups are trying to vilify an individual's freedom of speech/thought. The Brendan Eich controversy highlights the issue as of late. Do I share all of the values/beliefs that my CEO does? No. Should I boycott my CEO for having conflicting values/beliefs? Maybe. If I am totally against something, then I should stand up for my beliefs. I believe everything starts to collapse when I try to use my beliefs to rally against another individual.
I have the belief that our founding fathers knew America would be a melting pot of religions, cultures, and beliefs and that is why they established state's rights to accommodate the beautiful array of citizens of which would make the United States of America.
If we continue to push one set of beliefs how different are we than North Korea, Iran, etc?
I am not very political, and I have many left and right wing perspectives. I am just saddened to see our country starting to stumble on a slippery slope.
"It is starting to seem like many progressive groups are trying to vilify an individual's freedom of speech/thought."
No. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. If you're pro-rape, you're a pariah, but it's not illegal just to have those beliefs. If you're pro-racism, you're going to have a hard time in most places. We don't have to respect those beliefs, and (if we feel strongly enough) we can choose not include those people in our lives (work for them, shop at their stores, etc)... But we do have to support their legal right to have/express those beliefs and (hopefully) treat them with respect rather than doubling down with hate.
Now take a belief like "we should increase the minimum wage". Are there many people that would grab their pitchfork and light their torches over that belief? Nope.
So the question is: How reprehensible is it to believe that same-sex marriage should not be legal? Is it a political issue, like minimum wage, or is it a human rights issue, like interracial marriage?
I support marriage equality and in general lean towards progressive/liberal polices. However I too am disturbed by the how aggressively progressive groups are getting where they demand that anyone who disagrees has to have their carrier destroyed and be totally ostracized from socity. Why was it necessary to demand that he loses his job? Why not just demend that Mozilla openly state their support for same sex marragie/benifts. Would all the people demanding that he step down also support a company who decided they would have a policy of not employing anyone who openly professed a belief in Islam, Catholicism or any number of world religions due to their opposition to same sex marriage? Demonizing the the people who disagree with us is not going to help win them over.
> If we continue to push one set of beliefs how different are we than North Korea, Iran, etc?
rolleyes
For starters, how about the fact that no authoritarian government forced anyone to do anything in this situation?
Mozilla got bad press because their CEO did something unpopular, and refused to apologize. As a quasi-nonprofit that relies somewhat on donations, Mozilla is more vulnerable to bad PR.
I just wish more CEOs could be held accountable for bad behavior. Bob Parsons (of GoDaddy) killing endangered elephants comes to mind...
Yes, the people have a voice. All the people. I believe strongly in free speech and if anything, I think this whole episode is an example of it working across the board.
Brendan Eich is free to support what I see as stupidly offensive positions, other people are free to speak out against what he said and/or boycott. The company he was made CEO of is free to stand by their man or cave and force him to resign.
Three different entities/groups utilized their freedom to speak and/or choose, so what's the problem?
Your point seems to be that the white, rich male who donated money to a campaign to take away civil rights is the REAL victim here. Not sure I can agree with that.
We had the Terrorism scare. We had the WMD scare. We had the communist scare. We had the gay culture scare. Now we have the anti-gay, anti-feminist, & "rape culture" scare.
I really appreciate all of the replies. My main concern lies not at all in the gay marriage debate. It lies in the increased bullying for views that aren't aligned with what individuals believe is right. For example : http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=5506&app=cro
BTW I have no affiliation to campus reform nor do I know what it is.
And for the guy calling the campaign a "hate group".. You should look up SPLC's hate group map, you would love it. And just so you know, that map has allowed "activists" to target institutions for shootings, just look up the Family Research Council.
Once again, I do not affiliate with any of these organizations nor would I because I believe in true love. I believe every human has the right to be loved and listened to in our democracy.
It is when activism becomes violent justice that upsets me.
Giving money to a hate group is not a "freedom of speech" OR a "freedom of thought" issue. At that point you've crossed the line from thought to action.
This isn't really hard to understand. And I for one am sick and tired of people invoking the beaten-to-death "but freedom of speeech!" argument when called on bad behavior. Freedom is a two way street.
Not to mention the fact it's a double standard. People saying that Eich did a bad thing is wrong and somehow infringing on freedom, but Eich giving money to a group who wants to legislate fundamentalist religious ideals is not infringing? What the fuck?!
Wow. Downvoted to -4 for calling donating to hate groups wrong. This is a new low for HN.
So we should have been more tolerant to those who supported segregation and let them just keep on keeping on?
I think recent history is pretty clear, making certain social and political views have consequences has largely been for the greater good. There are no doubt many anecdotes of the opposite. My little "sacrifice" for having been "Un-American" or a "Sadam Lover" a decade ago is nothing compared to what those of another color or sexual preference have gone through in my lifetime.
At some point, people have to pick sides and accept the consequences.
Isn't the point of a democracy to allow the people to have a voice? It is starting to seem like many progressive groups are trying to vilify an individual's freedom of speech/thought.
Of course, but the norms in society do shift, things that were once seen as deviant standards from the norm, may become accepted for a wide range of reasoning, society and what it expects of its members continually evolves, and has for millennia. I disagree that this is trying to vilify any thought, society has largely shifted, especially in coastal regions on this topic. It is accepted among many in metropolitan, young, urban areas that gay marriage and the rights of gays to couple and be recognized is a civil rights issue. Calling out someone who opposes that, are for many people the same as calling out someone who would presume that interracial marriage is wrong, or that segregation should still exist.
I believe everything starts to collapse when I try to use my beliefs to rally against another individual.
Do you really believe that? The nature of the marketplace of ideas, and how society shifts, is essentially exactly this. Beliefs are pursued through elections, advocacy, legal systems, exposure to people. 50 years ago it was unthinkable that gay’s would be accepted and have a protected right in some states to marry, 100 years ago it was unthinkable that blacks and whites would attend the same school together and just about 150 years ago, a war was fought to end slavery. These all come about because beliefs are rallied against other individuals in position of influence and power and a side wins.
I have the belief that our founding fathers knew America would be a melting pot of religions, cultures, and beliefs and that is why they established state's rights to accommodate the beautiful array of citizens of which would make the United States of America.
I’ve studied this period in American history a great deal, and I don’t think I’m making a leap to suggest that I do not believe this to be the case at all. The founding fathers in reviewing many of their writings, federalist papers and more, do not seem to anticipate anything but a society rooted in the landed aristocracy they knew and were a part of. The application of the rights in the Bill of Rights was slowly but surely expanded to all people and then slowly but surely enshrined to the states. Consider the text of the 14th amendment, to come after the Civil War and finally settle the issue of who a citizen is, the 15th protecting the right to vote for blacks, the 19th to only come after World War I giving women the right to vote, and the 26th passed in 1971 allowing 18 year olds to vote.
If we’re going to credit the founding fathers with anything its a system that places branches of government at odds with each-other, and that does tend to evolve with society, and not be locked into a set of rules understood as necessary in 1789, although there are plenty who would disagree as well.
If we continue to push one set of beliefs how different are we than North Korea, Iran, etc? Because we aren’t jailing people, we aren’t executing people, we aren’t using the power of law to say you may not speak about an issue. But society and people can decide not to support a position any longer.
This slippery slope has existed always and predates America, imo.
Edit: sorry for any grammatical, formatting errors wrote this from mobile and quickly.
Once upon a time, OKCupid had amazing blog posts with fascinating analyses of their data.
The blog posts stopped. Match.com acquired them. And their data-centric roots seemed to have eroded badly.
The message they put up -- "If individuals like Mr. Eich had their way, then roughly eight percent of the relationships we’ve worked so hard to bring about would be illegal." [^1] -- was pretty sloppy hyperbole. As if 100% of the 8% were going to get married. As if OKCupid were marriage-oriented like Eharmony.
Although a mob has many members, OKCupid is the company that chose to crank this into a higher gear, and volunteer to be Conseja de la Suprema y General Inquisición. [^2]
Marriage equality is right. Purges are wrong. Shamers should be ashamed.
The question is, exactly which behaviours would you suggest we not engage in? Should we not use our right of freedom of speech to criticise others? Should we not use our right of freedom of association to choose not to associate with people and organisations which do not support our moral beliefs, and what we see to be our human rights?
The only thing I can think of is that Mozilla are to blame for firing him, except that Mozilla has a (limited) freedom to choose their employees. As far as I can tell, even in the UK, where we have rather far-reaching employment discrimination law, companies have the right to fire people for political actions, although not for pure philosophical beliefs[0] or being a member of a political party. I could be wrong there, however.
So the question is, exactly who acted in the wrong and exactly how, in a way which does not lead to a slippery slope?
I was on the other side of this debate (ie against prop 8, pro gay marriage), and we donated and engaged in some advocacy in support of that view. I strongly believe in the idea of marriage as a civil rights issue which should be available to any pair of consenting adults (and perhaps configurations other than pairs, if I'm going to be intellectually consistent about it).
On the other hand, I also strongly believe in people's right to hold other points of view. I would certainly want no truck, as an individual or as a customer of a business, with someone who made a habit of expressing the differing opinion in hateful terms or by actions designed to injure the subjects of that opinion (eg firing gay employees or refusing to grant benefits to same-sex spouses or domestic partners), but on the other hand I don't really have a problem with someone who treats everyone consistently and with respect, although that person might have quite different beliefs from me about how things should be.
The thing is, there might be a wide range of things motivating that belief, from some deep pragmatic, religious, or moral conviction to simple antipathy. Unless the person acts or speaks to signal what those motivations are, I don't see any point in trying to make judgments about them or by extension of the person, for the same reason I wouldn't want people making extrapolations about my character from a single data point. This hasn't stopped a lot of other people from demonizing Eich on the basis of his donation, without giving any apparent weight to his behavior at Mozilla or the experience of LGBT people who work with him there (several of whom have blogged in support of his appointment notwithstanding their disagreement with his support of prop 8). Not being gay it's easy for me not to take the issue personally, but I'm inclined to give a lot of weight to people who are gay and deal with him on a regular basis.
The whole business has an unsavory air of internet bullying to it, to be frank. I'm not thinking of people like Catlin Hampton who went public about their discomfort with Eich's appointment so much as the large number of tweets, comments and so on that adopted a confrontational stance and made it into a zero-sum binary issue, eg people calling him 'Eich(mann)' and equating him with the late and largely unlamented Fred Phelps. Characterizations of this sort don't seem any better to me than characterizations of gay people as perverts or suchlike. Bandwagon behavior seems to bring out the worst in people and reminds me of why I generally dislike being in groups.
Whenever people have strong views like this, I'm skeptical how hostile they'll be to innocent people who don't fit their sharply defined worldview. In the UK a 16 year old "adult" can marry a 40 year old. If you support that right are you are active in opposing the 18-years age of consent laws in some US states? If you don't support it, do you see the UK laws as enabling child abuse?
My point is that when you put arbitrary conditions on what you're going to accept, you can end up including and excluding some people unfairly. How about just "as long as nobody is harmed"?
I completely support the right of people to gather statistics like this and make informed decisions about their consumer habits. I also support the right of Mozilla to make employment decisions based upon this.
Next up. Anyone who has ever supported abortion rights suddenly can't buy a house or gain employment anywhere in the state of Texas.
Personally I don't believe in marriage at all, at least from a government perspective.
Civil unions for all I say... let customary "marriage" take place in your church or synagogue or wooded grove or whatever and have no bearing on anyone else.
By now it seems pretty obvious that committed people should be entitled to the same legal protections regardless of sexual orientation...
That being said... not believing gay marriage is appropriate is NOT the same as believing similarly about inter-racial marriage. Some people (and I am not among these) feel marriage is a venue for biological reproduction and raising of children. And no matter how many rights gay people have, until our technology advances a bit further this is not something they are able to do. An inter-racial couple on the other hand can.
So please... stop with the "This is just like banning inter-racial marriage!" nonsense. In many peoples minds (again, not mine) it isn't.
And yes Eich was done badly. And OKCupid are bad actors in my opinion and should be called out on their nonsense. Particularly in view of threatening an open source browser.
If marriage is a venue for biological reproduction, then people shouldn't get the tax breaks and other legal benefits (hospital visitation, etc) until they've done so. Maybe the marriage certificate should be provisional until the first birth? Also, adoption certainly shouldn't count, since that's something same-sex couples can also do.
Clearly they have a pervasive anti-gay culture growing over there. It's not even just one guy at the top, it's throughout! I'm sure everyone who called for boycotting Mozilla will boycott Intel, too, right? I'm sure OKCupid long ago purged themselves of any vile Intel products?
I wonder what the age breakup of their SV workforce is. Intel didn't get big on software, so presumably their workers are a generation apart from those of Google.
Great analysis here. Really shows our double standard and mob mentality.
I'm not against people boycotting Mozilla (because that's their choice) but the whole things is just a big hotheaded mobfest (like all the other mobfest in the past).
What this shows is a great disparity between companies, i.e. corporate culture apparently attracts and/or fosters bigotry. (Intel, wtf?)
Which only supports the notion that Mozilla, given it's clear stance on equality and inclusiveness, should not be lead by a bigot like Eich. It was a completely inappropriate choice to begin with.
On a side note, I am disgusted by the way this is being artificially politicized by using terms like "progressive" and "liberal". Supporting equal civil rights for all is not a political view, not does being conservative mean being anti-gay.
This is not a political issue. You wouldn't call someone who is against institutionalized racism a "liberal" or "progressive".
The attempts to frame bigotry as politics is probably the most sickening part of this whole debacle.
[+] [-] bargl|12 years ago|reply
I'd be devastated if their business suffered because of their personal viewpoints. The mob mentality leads to situations where we round up everyone who is Japanese, Jewish, Homophobic, etc. and get rid of them. Let's be rational here and let people live with their beliefs, and lets not persecute people for their beliefs because of a time/culture/religion they were born into or the sexual orientation they were born with.
EDIT: Just because you are opposed to someone getting married doesn't mean you hate that group. People who have that viewpoint frequently believe that homosexuality will degrade the morality of society. Yes, they are wrong and misguided, but they aren't ALL hateful.
[+] [-] ljoshua|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drhayes9|12 years ago|reply
If you're uncomfortable with associating the word "hate" with "against gay marriage", consider what opponents of gay marriage are trying to stop:
* A person easily being able to be present at the deathbed of their lifetime partner.
* Joint custody of children.
* Tax breaks.
[+] [-] adrr|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] prospero|12 years ago|reply
One of these things is not like the other.
Also, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of people "rounding up" donors to Prop 8. Eich was appointed to lead an organization whose values he didn't share, and represent them to the public. He was unapologetic about this. This isn't a situation your parents or pretty much anyone else would realistically find themselves in.
[+] [-] tlogan|12 years ago|reply
In other words, if somebody is advocating that certain benefits should not be given to certain group of people (and they are part of that group not by own choice), the first question should be: Who is going to get harmed if we give that benefit to that group of people? If there is no answer on that question... then...
[+] [-] bowlofpetunias|12 years ago|reply
"homosexuality is wrong"
"homosexuality will degrade the morality of society"
Maybe I'm really, really, thick, but how is this not hateful?
The obvious exercise would be to replace homosexuality with being black or Jewish. I'm not saying this to score cheap points, but to illustrate how I personally read this.
I'm very sorry, and I respect the fact that we're talking about people who are very dear to you, but cannot read those phrases as anything other than expressions of hatred.
[+] [-] sliverstorm|12 years ago|reply
Kind of like how I believe organized religion is wrong, but that doesn't mean I hate religious people. Hmm?
[+] [-] ryguytilidie|12 years ago|reply
This is an utterly insane strawman you all are creating. We're now comparing holocaust victims, people in internment camps and people who have had a constitutional amendment passed to take away their rights to the plight of having people boycott your business for your intolerance...?
What's the next step? Compare people who had their rights taken away and then boycotted a person's products to Hitler just to complete the internet hyperbole?
[+] [-] pron|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ossreality|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] kenjackson|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ltcoleman|12 years ago|reply
I have the belief that our founding fathers knew America would be a melting pot of religions, cultures, and beliefs and that is why they established state's rights to accommodate the beautiful array of citizens of which would make the United States of America.
If we continue to push one set of beliefs how different are we than North Korea, Iran, etc?
I am not very political, and I have many left and right wing perspectives. I am just saddened to see our country starting to stumble on a slippery slope.
[+] [-] webwright|12 years ago|reply
No. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. If you're pro-rape, you're a pariah, but it's not illegal just to have those beliefs. If you're pro-racism, you're going to have a hard time in most places. We don't have to respect those beliefs, and (if we feel strongly enough) we can choose not include those people in our lives (work for them, shop at their stores, etc)... But we do have to support their legal right to have/express those beliefs and (hopefully) treat them with respect rather than doubling down with hate.
Now take a belief like "we should increase the minimum wage". Are there many people that would grab their pitchfork and light their torches over that belief? Nope.
So the question is: How reprehensible is it to believe that same-sex marriage should not be legal? Is it a political issue, like minimum wage, or is it a human rights issue, like interracial marriage?
[+] [-] vanattab|12 years ago|reply
Edit: fixed typos.
[+] [-] ForHackernews|12 years ago|reply
rolleyes
For starters, how about the fact that no authoritarian government forced anyone to do anything in this situation?
Mozilla got bad press because their CEO did something unpopular, and refused to apologize. As a quasi-nonprofit that relies somewhat on donations, Mozilla is more vulnerable to bad PR.
I just wish more CEOs could be held accountable for bad behavior. Bob Parsons (of GoDaddy) killing endangered elephants comes to mind...
[+] [-] georgemcbay|12 years ago|reply
Brendan Eich is free to support what I see as stupidly offensive positions, other people are free to speak out against what he said and/or boycott. The company he was made CEO of is free to stand by their man or cave and force him to resign.
Three different entities/groups utilized their freedom to speak and/or choose, so what's the problem?
[+] [-] ryguytilidie|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] briantakita|12 years ago|reply
We had the Terrorism scare. We had the WMD scare. We had the communist scare. We had the gay culture scare. Now we have the anti-gay, anti-feminist, & "rape culture" scare.
[+] [-] ltcoleman|12 years ago|reply
BTW I have no affiliation to campus reform nor do I know what it is.
And for the guy calling the campaign a "hate group".. You should look up SPLC's hate group map, you would love it. And just so you know, that map has allowed "activists" to target institutions for shootings, just look up the Family Research Council.
Once again, I do not affiliate with any of these organizations nor would I because I believe in true love. I believe every human has the right to be loved and listened to in our democracy.
It is when activism becomes violent justice that upsets me.
[+] [-] Karunamon|12 years ago|reply
This isn't really hard to understand. And I for one am sick and tired of people invoking the beaten-to-death "but freedom of speeech!" argument when called on bad behavior. Freedom is a two way street.
Not to mention the fact it's a double standard. People saying that Eich did a bad thing is wrong and somehow infringing on freedom, but Eich giving money to a group who wants to legislate fundamentalist religious ideals is not infringing? What the fuck?!
Wow. Downvoted to -4 for calling donating to hate groups wrong. This is a new low for HN.
[+] [-] hindsightbias|12 years ago|reply
So we should have been more tolerant to those who supported segregation and let them just keep on keeping on?
I think recent history is pretty clear, making certain social and political views have consequences has largely been for the greater good. There are no doubt many anecdotes of the opposite. My little "sacrifice" for having been "Un-American" or a "Sadam Lover" a decade ago is nothing compared to what those of another color or sexual preference have gone through in my lifetime.
At some point, people have to pick sides and accept the consequences.
[+] [-] dailyrorschach|12 years ago|reply
Of course, but the norms in society do shift, things that were once seen as deviant standards from the norm, may become accepted for a wide range of reasoning, society and what it expects of its members continually evolves, and has for millennia. I disagree that this is trying to vilify any thought, society has largely shifted, especially in coastal regions on this topic. It is accepted among many in metropolitan, young, urban areas that gay marriage and the rights of gays to couple and be recognized is a civil rights issue. Calling out someone who opposes that, are for many people the same as calling out someone who would presume that interracial marriage is wrong, or that segregation should still exist.
I believe everything starts to collapse when I try to use my beliefs to rally against another individual. Do you really believe that? The nature of the marketplace of ideas, and how society shifts, is essentially exactly this. Beliefs are pursued through elections, advocacy, legal systems, exposure to people. 50 years ago it was unthinkable that gay’s would be accepted and have a protected right in some states to marry, 100 years ago it was unthinkable that blacks and whites would attend the same school together and just about 150 years ago, a war was fought to end slavery. These all come about because beliefs are rallied against other individuals in position of influence and power and a side wins.
I have the belief that our founding fathers knew America would be a melting pot of religions, cultures, and beliefs and that is why they established state's rights to accommodate the beautiful array of citizens of which would make the United States of America. I’ve studied this period in American history a great deal, and I don’t think I’m making a leap to suggest that I do not believe this to be the case at all. The founding fathers in reviewing many of their writings, federalist papers and more, do not seem to anticipate anything but a society rooted in the landed aristocracy they knew and were a part of. The application of the rights in the Bill of Rights was slowly but surely expanded to all people and then slowly but surely enshrined to the states. Consider the text of the 14th amendment, to come after the Civil War and finally settle the issue of who a citizen is, the 15th protecting the right to vote for blacks, the 19th to only come after World War I giving women the right to vote, and the 26th passed in 1971 allowing 18 year olds to vote.
If we’re going to credit the founding fathers with anything its a system that places branches of government at odds with each-other, and that does tend to evolve with society, and not be locked into a set of rules understood as necessary in 1789, although there are plenty who would disagree as well.
If we continue to push one set of beliefs how different are we than North Korea, Iran, etc? Because we aren’t jailing people, we aren’t executing people, we aren’t using the power of law to say you may not speak about an issue. But society and people can decide not to support a position any longer.
This slippery slope has existed always and predates America, imo.
Edit: sorry for any grammatical, formatting errors wrote this from mobile and quickly.
[+] [-] vanattab|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] briantakita|12 years ago|reply
Let's find all the heretics and burn them! j/k
I'm glad that we are beginning to have a rational discussion about the implications of internet mob justice. I hope it continues.
Please refrain from flagging rational points of view that you don't agree with. That's called censorship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
[+] [-] 6cxs2hd6|12 years ago|reply
The blog posts stopped. Match.com acquired them. And their data-centric roots seemed to have eroded badly.
The message they put up -- "If individuals like Mr. Eich had their way, then roughly eight percent of the relationships we’ve worked so hard to bring about would be illegal." [^1] -- was pretty sloppy hyperbole. As if 100% of the 8% were going to get married. As if OKCupid were marriage-oriented like Eharmony.
Although a mob has many members, OKCupid is the company that chose to crank this into a higher gear, and volunteer to be Conseja de la Suprema y General Inquisición. [^2]
Marriage equality is right. Purges are wrong. Shamers should be ashamed.
[1]: http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/04/okcupid-to-firefox-u...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#Compositio...
[+] [-] vertex-four|12 years ago|reply
The only thing I can think of is that Mozilla are to blame for firing him, except that Mozilla has a (limited) freedom to choose their employees. As far as I can tell, even in the UK, where we have rather far-reaching employment discrimination law, companies have the right to fire people for political actions, although not for pure philosophical beliefs[0] or being a member of a political party. I could be wrong there, however.
So the question is, exactly who acted in the wrong and exactly how, in a way which does not lead to a slippery slope?
[0] http://www.pureemploymentlaw.co.uk/2011/05/19/what-is-a-phil...
[+] [-] kenjackson|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sliverstorm|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lucian1900|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anigbrowl|12 years ago|reply
On the other hand, I also strongly believe in people's right to hold other points of view. I would certainly want no truck, as an individual or as a customer of a business, with someone who made a habit of expressing the differing opinion in hateful terms or by actions designed to injure the subjects of that opinion (eg firing gay employees or refusing to grant benefits to same-sex spouses or domestic partners), but on the other hand I don't really have a problem with someone who treats everyone consistently and with respect, although that person might have quite different beliefs from me about how things should be.
The thing is, there might be a wide range of things motivating that belief, from some deep pragmatic, religious, or moral conviction to simple antipathy. Unless the person acts or speaks to signal what those motivations are, I don't see any point in trying to make judgments about them or by extension of the person, for the same reason I wouldn't want people making extrapolations about my character from a single data point. This hasn't stopped a lot of other people from demonizing Eich on the basis of his donation, without giving any apparent weight to his behavior at Mozilla or the experience of LGBT people who work with him there (several of whom have blogged in support of his appointment notwithstanding their disagreement with his support of prop 8). Not being gay it's easy for me not to take the issue personally, but I'm inclined to give a lot of weight to people who are gay and deal with him on a regular basis.
The whole business has an unsavory air of internet bullying to it, to be frank. I'm not thinking of people like Catlin Hampton who went public about their discomfort with Eich's appointment so much as the large number of tweets, comments and so on that adopted a confrontational stance and made it into a zero-sum binary issue, eg people calling him 'Eich(mann)' and equating him with the late and largely unlamented Fred Phelps. Characterizations of this sort don't seem any better to me than characterizations of gay people as perverts or suchlike. Bandwagon behavior seems to bring out the worst in people and reminds me of why I generally dislike being in groups.
[+] [-] hippoman|12 years ago|reply
My point is that when you put arbitrary conditions on what you're going to accept, you can end up including and excluding some people unfairly. How about just "as long as nobody is harmed"?
[+] [-] johngalt|12 years ago|reply
Next up. Anyone who has ever supported abortion rights suddenly can't buy a house or gain employment anywhere in the state of Texas.
[+] [-] sssbc|12 years ago|reply
(crickets...)
OkStupid, I can count on you, right? Surely you can tell AMD vs. Intel inside with your cool-o web tech, data analysis, ...
(yeah, go ahead and down vote me, doesn't make me wrong).
[+] [-] jqm|12 years ago|reply
That being said... not believing gay marriage is appropriate is NOT the same as believing similarly about inter-racial marriage. Some people (and I am not among these) feel marriage is a venue for biological reproduction and raising of children. And no matter how many rights gay people have, until our technology advances a bit further this is not something they are able to do. An inter-racial couple on the other hand can.
So please... stop with the "This is just like banning inter-racial marriage!" nonsense. In many peoples minds (again, not mine) it isn't.
And yes Eich was done badly. And OKCupid are bad actors in my opinion and should be called out on their nonsense. Particularly in view of threatening an open source browser.
[+] [-] bashinator|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kenjackson|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elwell|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scintill76|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] revelation|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] justincormack|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Xelank|12 years ago|reply
I'm not against people boycotting Mozilla (because that's their choice) but the whole things is just a big hotheaded mobfest (like all the other mobfest in the past).
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bowlofpetunias|12 years ago|reply
Which only supports the notion that Mozilla, given it's clear stance on equality and inclusiveness, should not be lead by a bigot like Eich. It was a completely inappropriate choice to begin with.
On a side note, I am disgusted by the way this is being artificially politicized by using terms like "progressive" and "liberal". Supporting equal civil rights for all is not a political view, not does being conservative mean being anti-gay.
This is not a political issue. You wouldn't call someone who is against institutionalized racism a "liberal" or "progressive".
The attempts to frame bigotry as politics is probably the most sickening part of this whole debacle.
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]