161–170 of 230 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because equal marriage is really, really important. When gay people are not accepted in society opposing something that would improve that greatly is a bad thing to do
in other words, witch-hunt is ok if you support the cause?
This is also not a witch-hunt. I honestly cannot believe that people are so apathetic about equality
The fact that they can come out and say this demonstrates that these employees, the people best able to assess this, don't believe that Eich will retaliate. That Mozilla is and remains a place where any employee can express their views on political issues, even if they know they're contrary to the CEO's. And that destroys any argument for Eich's role as CEO creating a conflict with Mozilla's ability to welcome LGBTQ…
He expressed his views publicly. They are subject to public criticism. It's absurd to characterize any form of criticism, especially something relatively mild as this, as a witch-hunt. Anti-gay bigotry is socially unacceptable. Honestly anyone who thought about it at length ought to have realized we were heading in this direction. And the bar for denying an entire category of people's rights out to be relatively high…
What you're saying is it's ok to deprive a man of his livelihood based on the current state of public opinion, which shifts by the decade. Tell me you see how wrong that is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it that for some people political correctness - something which tries to make people respect one another more and be nice - is the devil. You have the right to say almost whatever you want. That doesn't mean you fucking should, does it? There's a big difference between the two
Because for some people political correctness is about lying to make others feel good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The fact that they can come out and say this demonstrates that these employees, the people best able to assess this, don't believe that Eich will retaliate. That Mozilla is and remains a place where any employee can express their views on political issues, even if they know they're contrary to the CEO's. And that destroys any argument for Eich's role as CEO creating a conflict with Mozilla's ability to welcome LGBT…
Definitely. Or that it's better to stand together than to fall separately. Or that during this moment of transition they're mostly likely to win out. Or that they want to be on record so that if something does happen, they'll have better material for a press push or a lawsuit. Or that they figure they might as well give fixing things a try before they leave Mozilla. Or a bunch of other things. The notion that them sp…
In short, are they speaking out against real offenses, or merely hypothetical ones?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(touching this issue with all due care as not to call in the activists; read all the way through before replying) Redefinition of marriage is not a human right, sorry. I can't decide I'd like to marry my work and have society accept that as marriage. Marriage has a definition, that up until now hasn't included gay couples. Changing that is not trivial, is not a law of nature and is not supportable on human rights gro…
Ah, separate but equal. Why didn't anybody think of that? Oh wait, they did: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(touching this issue with all due care as not to call in the activists; read all the way through before replying) Redefinition of marriage is not a human right, sorry. I can't decide I'd like to marry my work and have society accept that as marriage. Marriage has a definition, that up until now hasn't included gay couples. Changing that is not trivial, is not a law of nature and is not supportable on human rights gro…
"Separate but Equal" has been tried before. In Brown v. Board of Education - "Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal". Same can be said of marriage, it's impossible to attain equality in a separate "civil union" status. Also - marriage has been been redefined many times, it's certainly hasn't historically been immutable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(touching this issue with all due care as not to call in the activists; read all the way through before replying) Redefinition of marriage is not a human right, sorry. I can't decide I'd like to marry my work and have society accept that as marriage. Marriage has a definition, that up until now hasn't included gay couples. Changing that is not trivial, is not a law of nature and is not supportable on human rights gro…
Are you aware that prohibition of same-sex marriage in English legislation is a recent thing? It was only written into law in 1971. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullity_of_Marriage_Act_1971 Marriage is tweaked when needed.
How can "@mozilla stands for openness" if you restrict who can run the company?
So you'd be ok if he was a racist? Brendan is entitled to express his views, but it doesn't mean they come without consequences.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Marriage has always been about community and religion, in many countries people never bother registering it with the government. At least in Europe, that's pretty much backwards -- marriage has always been about property, and, it was fairly late that the Church even got involved at all, and the Church getting deeply involved in governing marriage was largely a trend that happened as the Church deepened its involvem…
Yes I forgot. For some cultures in some time periods women were property that was traded from father to husband, in exchange for goods, and marriage was the contract that finalized the transfer of property. Especially for the higher classes that had a significant amount of property. In some religions at least marriage signified a bond between two people, and not merely a transfer of property. My views are shaped some…
I wasn't talking about women as property, though that's also a factor in some cases (which undermines the whole "traditional marriage" as a good thing argument.) I was talking about marriage being about property arrangements, not the parties being property.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you'd be ok if he was a racist? Brendan is entitled to express his views, but it doesn't mean they come without consequences.
If open source is about ideological purity tests than no one can contribute.
Of course we want to encourage as many people as possible to contribute and therefore anything that pushes large groups of people away (for no good reason) is bad.