The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

You're downlplaying the fact that he donated to an openly anti-gay, pro-PATRIOT ACT congressperson. If you didn't look at the link provided with the original article, showing how he's historically voted (and still continues to vote), you should probably do so. Cannon's record is pretty clear and unwavering.

I would be hard-pressed to think of a way in which donation to a staunch anti-personal-liberty candidate would be preferable to their electoral opposition. Usually, you see a Republican (like Cannon) up against a Democrat. Perhaps you could provide us with a scenario in which his opponent was so horrible that voting for Cannon was the lesser of two evils? Perhaps he was running against Senator Palpatine?

It also seems you are trying to dismiss the voting record with a stance that Politicians change their stances depending on how the wind blows. If so, perhaps you could explain why voting for someone whose vote is up for sale is any better than being a publicly anti-gay congressperson?

And my response to the separate but equal argument is literally sitting in my comment above, and part of my argument, remove rights from the word marriage. There is ONLY civil unions. There is no separation.

You yourself claimed that appropriating the word marriage was a band-aid, and yet you ignore that a band-aid was in place, and a much more rational argument would have been to remove rights associated with marriage.

Instead you continue to argue that codifying your beliefs into law was correct, even while you denounce the other side for trying to do that.

Come back when you can intelligently make an argument that is internally consistent. I have to agree with the others commenting on your posts, you have some serious cognitive dissonance.

>Eich said he supported equality.

His actions show otherwise.

I've said this before here, but I have much less problem with the (small) donation (to a failed cause) than I do his subsequent behavior.

His subsequent hypocrisy proves beyond any reasonable doubt that those views are still very personal and very real to him, regardless of what comes out of his mouth.

One does not abdicate a CEO position, something of great prestige, power, and compensation, on a lark. He was asked, multiple times by multiple people what his true thoughts were and declined to elaborate. He could have just (heartfeltly) apologized. He could have just thrown another $1000 at GLAAD/HRC/etc.

>You are conflating the state not recognizing gay marriage with a human rights issue. Not everyone agrees.

The same could be said of women's suffrage or the equlaity of blacks. The fact that it's a state issue does not preclude it being a human rights issue.

I have skin in this game. I see the behavior of people like Eich as a personal affront to me and people close to me. A proclamation that people like me should remain second class citizens because of some outmoded religious belief.

> However, ostracizing supports makes the ostracizers act like bullies.

Again, how is this any different from publicly announcing your support of some other anti-equality group? How well do you think a CEO would do if it came out that they were donators to Stormfront? I keep hearing this "bullies" line but it doesn't add up.

Absolutely. However, Eich's behavior after the donation came out revealed a crucial flaw in his ability to handle public relations. Even if this kerfluffle had been about something that isn't so contentious, it's been proven that he cannot handle criticism - something a CEO, the public face of a company, has as one of their primary job duties.

It also reveals a pretty massive conflict of interest wrt. his personal views on equality and Mozilla's views on equality. If it were any other corporation it may be different, but Mozilla's kind of famous for this.

Is it really so hard for you to imagine that not everyone comes from the same background and upbringing? Moreover, is it so hard to believe that not everyone who supported prop8 was a gay-hating bigot who wants to see them all burn in hell or whatever?

With every political standpoint, there is a spectrum of supporters who support the cause - for varying reasons and varying intensity. It's very important to keep this in mind especially with issues like prop8 where the anti-prop8 branded the prop8 supporters as a whole as gay-hating bigots.

Here's the problem: we don't know where Eich fell on the spectrum. We don't know if he hated gays or if he was brought up in a traditional household where marriage is a religious ceremony rather than a love-based ceremony.

Hell, I recall some prop8 supporters whose only problem with gay marriage was that it uses the word "marriage", they were people who wanted civil unions to offer the same legal protections/rules as marriage, but wanted to keep marriage as man+woman so the concept of a marriage ceremony still had the same religious significance as it did before.

My whole point here is that we have no idea why Eich supported prop 8. There's a whole rainbow of possible reasons, many of them which are not quite as damning as people make out. Since we never heard the other side of the story, this whole fiasco looks like nothing more than a huge joke, but is actually a scary reminder of how passionate and defensive people can get over social issues.