Misleading title. He donated $500 to a candidate in 2004 who later in 2006 voted to define marriage as one woman/one man. The title implies that Yagan donated directly to an anti-gay campaign.
Not speaking in support of Cannon or Yagan, but at least if you are going to present this narrative, present it factually and accurately. Oh wait, I guess that doesn't get page views.
Well, that's an uncomfortable coincidence. I guess you can probably say that donating directly to a Prop 8 campaign is worse than donating to a candidate who's unquestionable anti-gay rights. But still, when your company's throwing its weight around like that, its own affairs should probably be spotless.
Perhaps even Firefox's Eich has rethought LGBT equality since his 2008 donation.
To be fair, he has had ample opportunity to say if this is the case by now.
Though, while I don't personally agree with his position at all, I do respect him for not backing down under pressure if it's what he truly believes. Some of my buying decisions in the past have been made on the basis of company politics, but I don't think an individual's participation in the political process (which, unfortunately, money is now part and parcel of) should be able to get them fired.
And I felt the same way when "job creators" were talking about firing employees for voting for Obama. One thing shouldn't have to do with the other.
Specifically, Yagan donated $500 to Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah) in 2004, reports Uncrunched. During his time as congressman from 1997 to 2009, Cannon voted for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, against a ban on sexual-orientation based job discrimination, and for prohibition of gay adoptions.
It is not clear whether Yagan donated to Cannon before or after the votes in question, and if it were after, whether he was aware of such votes.
I think we need to stop witch hunting people based on flimsy evidence that they may or may not have donated to a campaign that may or may not be for a known bigot.
It also does not speak to their priorities. I personally would donate to a campaign of someone running for office based on how they performed on issues I cared about; as in, if someone had a strong pro-Internet platform, but just happened to also not strongly support gay rights[1], I would donate to that campaign even though I support gay rights, too.
[1]: Voting against a gay rights bill does not automatically make them anti-gay rights, it simply means they do not think the bill was worth passing into law in that form. Given how many bills are filled with unrelated junk or other backroom deal bs, this is not unusual.
"I personally would donate to a campaign of someone running for office based on how they performed on issues I cared about"
The fact that OKCupid chose this particular issue to blast Firefox signifies that this is _the_ issue they care about the most. If attacking an entire brand over the personal beliefs of their CEO is warranted, then it is also more than fair to question the motivations of OKCupid's CEO who donated to a politician that holds the exact opposite beliefs of the issue OkCupid cares about the most.
> Perhaps even Firefox's Eich has rethought LGBT equality since his 2008 donation.
Reading interviews with Eich, it's clear that he hadn't rethought his position. If Eich had recanted his earlier bigoted beliefs, there wouldn't have been a pushback. Clearly the CEO of OkCupid supports gay rights (now, at least), so there isn't any hypocrisy. Or is it immoral to change your viewpoint?
[+] [-] dkrich|12 years ago|reply
Not speaking in support of Cannon or Yagan, but at least if you are going to present this narrative, present it factually and accurately. Oh wait, I guess that doesn't get page views.
[+] [-] acjohnson55|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] biff|12 years ago|reply
To be fair, he has had ample opportunity to say if this is the case by now.
Though, while I don't personally agree with his position at all, I do respect him for not backing down under pressure if it's what he truly believes. Some of my buying decisions in the past have been made on the basis of company politics, but I don't think an individual's participation in the political process (which, unfortunately, money is now part and parcel of) should be able to get them fired.
And I felt the same way when "job creators" were talking about firing employees for voting for Obama. One thing shouldn't have to do with the other.
[+] [-] byoung2|12 years ago|reply
It is not clear whether Yagan donated to Cannon before or after the votes in question, and if it were after, whether he was aware of such votes.
[+] [-] Spooky23|12 years ago|reply
What's a supposed-to-be progressive doing providing financial support to Utah republicans for anyway?
[+] [-] DiabloD3|12 years ago|reply
It also does not speak to their priorities. I personally would donate to a campaign of someone running for office based on how they performed on issues I cared about; as in, if someone had a strong pro-Internet platform, but just happened to also not strongly support gay rights[1], I would donate to that campaign even though I support gay rights, too.
[1]: Voting against a gay rights bill does not automatically make them anti-gay rights, it simply means they do not think the bill was worth passing into law in that form. Given how many bills are filled with unrelated junk or other backroom deal bs, this is not unusual.
[+] [-] mirkules|12 years ago|reply
The fact that OKCupid chose this particular issue to blast Firefox signifies that this is _the_ issue they care about the most. If attacking an entire brand over the personal beliefs of their CEO is warranted, then it is also more than fair to question the motivations of OKCupid's CEO who donated to a politician that holds the exact opposite beliefs of the issue OkCupid cares about the most.
[+] [-] kevinh|12 years ago|reply
Reading interviews with Eich, it's clear that he hadn't rethought his position. If Eich had recanted his earlier bigoted beliefs, there wouldn't have been a pushback. Clearly the CEO of OkCupid supports gay rights (now, at least), so there isn't any hypocrisy. Or is it immoral to change your viewpoint?
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] spoiledtechie|12 years ago|reply