201–210 of 258 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another comparable example: He donated 10,000 to the Nazi party.
That would be a hell of an accomplishment, seeing as how the Nazi Party hasn't existed for more than half a century.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Backdooring his employer's code would be directly related to his work, and illegal actions on his own time would make him unemployable if caught and convicted, because he'd go to prison. False equivalances, all.
OK, if you need to picky, something more comparable. Imagine he said: "black people are inferior to white people and don't deserve to be happy".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We can call this a witch hunt when same-sex-marriage proponents start guillotining the opposition in public squares, then ;) More to the point, the David/Goliath straw man occurs at the point that someone says "witch hunt", invoking ideas of a prosecutorial mob hunting an innocent scapegoat down. Addressing the inappropriateness of the term directly is not a strawman (and additionally, I specifically addressed the co…
Unlike actual witch hunts - which were notoriously short on evidence - this episode has an actual smoking gun. Or more precisely, a smoking checkbook.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's certainly illegal to fire someone over that opinion, yes.
No it's not. Indeed, you run a legal risk in NOT firing such a person given that keeping them around (especially in a senior position) creates a demonstrably hostile work environment.
I support your decision to boycott, although I personally disagree with it. I wish you would give Brendan the chance to repent. First of all, and most importantly, it's unlikely they are going to shitcan him as CEO. Second, he has not spoken about his motivations for donating to Prop 8. If he was doing so in pursuit of abolishing the marriage institution altogether, I consider that very different than doing it becaus…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of their political stance. Nothing you can say will ever change that.
If that were true, no congressperson could ever staff an office. Or a campaign.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What prevented the authors of this article to spend $1000 to counterbalance Eich's contribution if they are so concerned? So only people who pay for their rights deserve them. Noted.
Helloooo... This is in USA. Does the word "lobbying" ring a bell?
The problem is not the right to deliver petitions. It's the practice of doing so with cash (or check!) included.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is gay a protected class then? If the answer is no, then homophobes is not a protected class. If the answer is yes, then homophobes is a protected class in your definition. Will I want to work with someone who is pro-Nazism? Probably not, but will I respect his belief? Yes. But will I use that to disqualify him from being my co-worker? No. I would be lying to say I wouldn't feel threaten to know I am working with som…
> Will I want to work with someone who is pro-Nazism? Probably not, but will I respect his belief? Yes. Why would you respect his belief? There's a difference between respecting his right to hold whatever belief he wants and respecting the belief itself. The former is true, and no government should punish someone for their beliefs. The latter is not true, and I am free to judge neo-Nazis however I wish. That judgemen…
Maybe I should be clear.
"Probably not, but will I respect his [right] being a pro-Nazism believer? Yes."
I am not making this up. My revision is actually in the context of the original quote. I will respect his right without endorsing his belief. I can dislike him and may distant from him as much as possible...
Sure we all carry bias. If the whole organization is against Nazi hiring a pro-Nazi would be stupid because that can cause internal tension. But that being said, not aligned with gay right advocates is not in the category as aligning oneself with someone with extreme thoughts. I bet people disagree on abortion and religion and tons of other very controversial issues.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Since this is a politically charged issue, I will say that while I am personally in favor of abolishing marriage altogether, I think actively working to deny gays the right to marry in the interim is an exceptionally absurd idea. Which aspect of marriage are you referring to, the religious and/or legal ceremony?
I'm referring to the legal distinction between single and married people, and the benefits married people get.
We need to be accurate here, "the legal distinction between married and unmarried couples". The benefits from marriage come from the legal process, so for unmarried couples to get the same benefits another equivalent legal process, or a new and universal process as a replacement would be required.
It seems that another legal process would be the answer, but only if it improves upon the process(es) that it replaces.