661–670 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, OkCupid called them out on it extremely publicly.
Yes, even though their employees have contributed far more. http://pastebin.com/ekaFQXbE
Also, almost all of the donations predate OkCupid's acquisition by IAC in February 2011.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This line of reasoning is very troubling to me, because 20 years ago it was pretty much unacceptable in the U.S. to hold the opinion that gays were entitled to full legal rights, let alone the ability to marry. That changed only because some very courageous people stuck their neck out, weathered all the flack and negative personal repercussions towards themselves, and gradually made the point of "Why not?" I fully su…
There's two sides to that -- the first is that, yes, he absolutely has the right to hold any opinion he wants to, no matter how noxious I or others may find them. To paraphrase Hall on Voltaire, I'll defend to the death their right to be assholes. (Full disclosure: pro- gay marriage, anti-Prop 8, not a CA resident, so doesn't really affect me.) On the other hand, there's no absolute right to be a public-facing CEO, a…
How is it obvious? The board appoints the CEO. It's true that several board members left shortly after the appointment, and some outsiders have claimed that it was in protest, but I've not seen any confirmation of that. At least some of the ones leaving must have approved, because the remaining board members, I believe, do not have a majority.
I've seen other claims that these people had already planned to leave, and were just staying around to finish the CEO search. Some evidence for this is the fact that the people who left also announced their next major engagements. People who quite on short notice in protest generally don't know where they are going next.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it means freedom from state censorship and state punishment (imprisonment for instance). The public can punish you all they want.
Well, that's a bug in freedom of speech then. Other freedoms don't work like that. They protect you from all actors, not just the state. For example, your employer can't fire you for being gay. They shouldn't be able to fire you for your political views either.
There are only 21 states in which this is the case.
For every people who says that "the CEO is the face of an organisation": can you name all the former Mozilla CEO's? Or any CEO who wasn't Jobs or Ballmer? Honestly, I am curious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many lives need to be ruined before an oppressed community can fight back? Sainthood should not be a bar that everyone must meet in order to avoid being labeled with a black mark. This guy attacked a large group of people and that group defended itself by explaining their displeasure at his recent privilege. He then suffered the consequence of having his privilege removed. Good.
@OpieCunningham - How many lives need to be ruined... That's a great question, actually. How many lives were ruined by Prop 8? (which, by the way, was overturned by the Supreme Court) Are there gay people in jail in California as a result of Prop 8? Are there broken marriages? Was there an increase in anti-gay violence? Not that I've heard of. Prop 8, which apparently very few people seem to know (or care), was about…
If the law had not been overturned, the answer would, by definition of the law, be far greater than 0. If you propose that the actual answer was 0 before the law was overturned, I don't believe that - how many partners were refused next-of-kin, hospital visitation rights and some taxation benefits? More than 0 I would estimate. Is Eich in jail? Was his marriage broken up? Did anyone physically attack him? No. He lost the privilege of being a CEO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personally I think your characterization is hyperbole. There are a lot of rational reasons to oppose gay marriage (if you allow one their irrational premises). Opposing the state recognizing gay marriage is far from "treating people as lesser humans".
> There are a lot of rational reasons to oppose gay marriage (if you allow one their irrational premises). How can you have a rational reason with an irrational premise? If the premise is irrational, so is anything based on it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"damage done to their close peers" Again, what damage, and how does that get traced directly back to Eich? The law was repealed, marriage reinstated, and everything's fine. The system worked, so what's the issue? And a "whole bunch"? How many? Numbers? Percentage? Let us not suspect--we are in the Information Age. Google your way to success. The only number we have is $1000 from Eich to support Prop 8--that's the onl…
That's a preposterous argument. Is there some kind of minimum damage level that must be achieved before publicly objecting to someone's views? How does one quantify social damage?
So, yeah, I don't think it's unreasonable that, in exchange, we be able to show both columns in the ledger.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I fail to see how a CEO facing criticism for personal political contributions to be evidence of some sort of "gay liberal agenda". He has every right to donate to Prop 8 or whatever cause he likes. He has every right to vocally advocate his position. He does not have a right to be the public facing chief executive of a private organization. I would see no issue with a pro-gay rights CEO being forced to leave Hobby Lo…
I have a problem with the very idea that a mostly apolitical organization like Mozilla should have a sweeping political/social/cultural alignment. If Eich were opposed to net neutrality, or against open internet standards, etc, those would be damning beliefs for someone in the Mozilla CEO spot. Gay rights, however, have nothing whatsoever to do with Mozilla. (I agree with you that Hobby Lobby would fire a pro-gay-rig…
Which includes the right of others to criticize your speech.
If I get up on a soapbox and preach something you don't agree with, so you get up on a soapbox of your own and preach your disagreement, I am not being persecuted or denied my freedom. Nor am I being persecuted or denied my freedom if your arguments convince a majority of people to disagree with or choose not to associate with me.
This is, ironically, a fundamentally conservative position, that maximizing individual rights to speak up is what produces the best results, by causing the best ideas/most persuasive arguments to prevail.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tell that to Matthew Shepard.
It is irrational to associate a homophobic hate crime with a donation to gay marriage opponents. But that's OK. As long as you can raise a fuss about it you can completely ignore reason and pressure people into resigning.