rickyp wrote:fate

His stand was not discriminatory. He supported an initiative--that passed btw. So what?

Opponents of Proposition *, and the people complaining about his support of it, would tell you that Prop 8 Was discriminatory.
It outlawed marrriages between gays and lesbians.
How does that not discriminate between hetereosexuals and gays and lesbians?

So support of Proposition 8 is enough in your mind to be considered discriminatory? By your standard I would be discriminating. You probably consider me to be SIXHIRB, (Sexist, Intolerant, Xenophobic, Homophobic, Islamaphobic, Racist, Bigoted), just because I don't agree with you on a myriad of topics.

Are we not allowed to have a different opinion than LGBT community (or anyone for that matter)? That sir, is ridiculous. Discrimination is an action against a person.

Show me where the evidence of discrimination is concerning Eich, and I will withdraw my claim of hypocrisy. The left wants to be able to ensure that Eich could not have contrary thoughts to their position, regardless of his actions.

That is "thought police" realm, Sir. I think you need to re-evaluate that position. The world does not need to agree with you, me or anyone. I am mature enough to let others have a contrary opinion.

bbauska

So support of Proposition 8 is enough in your mind to be considered discriminatory?

dis·crim·i·nate [v. dih-skrim-uh-neyt; adj. dih-skrim-uh-nit] Show IPA
verb (used without object), dis·crim·i·nat·ed, dis·crim·i·nat·ing.
1.
to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality: The new law discriminates against foreigners. He discriminates in favor of his relatives.

Without getting all emotional about it, yes Proposition 8 discriminates between heterosexuals and homosexuals... One class of people is allowed to marry who they want and the other not.

At one point in time this was acceptable discrimination. Today it is not. (For the majority of Americans)
we all discriminate about some forms of behaviour or social norms. I'm quite comfortable discriminating against those who would allow polygamous marriages. And society still supports that form of discrimination.
It just doesn't majorly support similar discriminatory laws against gays and lesbians any more.

Are we not allowed to have a different opinion than LGBT community (or anyone for that matter)? That sir, is ridiculous. Discrimination is an action against a person

Discrimination is an action against a person because of their membership in a specific class...
That G&L are discriminated against in Prop 8 isn't really a matter of opinion. Its plain that Prop 8 is exactly about defining marriage in a way that excludes Gays and Lesbians.
Its whether or not the discrimination is acceptable to the majority of the populace or the US Constitution. Which offers unique protections for minorities, despite majority opinion. .
Back when Prop 8 was first voted on, the majority of Californians agreed with you that the discrimination was okay.
Today, not so much. Society has evolved.
Because he hasn't repudiated his past support for that discrimination Eich is suffering blow back from what is now a majority . That may not seem fair. And I'm not sure it really is fair. But thats what you get when people seek to enforce a new norm in society.

rickyp wrote:bbauska

So support of Proposition 8 is enough in your mind to be considered discriminatory?

dis·crim·i·nate [v. dih-skrim-uh-neyt; adj. dih-skrim-uh-nit] Show IPA
verb (used without object), dis·crim·i·nat·ed, dis·crim·i·nat·ing.
1.
to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality: The new law discriminates against foreigners. He discriminates in favor of his relatives.

Without getting all emotional about it, yes Proposition 8 discriminates between heterosexuals and homosexuals... One class of people is allowed to marry who they want and the other not.

Wrong. Where does Prop 8 mention homosexuals? Does it mention the already married? Children? Dogs? What about self-marriage?

At one point in time this was acceptable discrimination. Today it is not. (For the majority of Americans)

Says you. However, way back in 2008 it was acceptable to a majority of Californians. Eich was in that majority.

Did that impact his work? If so, please demonstrate it.

Would we have known about it except for the disclosure laws that apparently exist so that we can persecute those with whom we disagree?

we all discriminate about some forms of behaviour or social norms. I'm quite comfortable discriminating against those who would allow polygamous marriages. And society still supports that form of discrimination.

Hmm, my recommendation: don't give to a movement trying to keep marriage at just two people. Things may change and you could lose your job.

Discrimination is an action against a person because of their membership in a specific class...

So, maybe a class like . . . those who donated to Prop 8 passage?

That G&L are discriminated against in Prop 8 isn't really a matter of opinion. Its plain that Prop 8 is exactly about defining marriage in a way that excludes Gays and Lesbians.

And polygamists and dogs and children ". . . a man and a woman . . ."

Today, not so much. Society has evolved.

Less than 6 years . . . evolution takes billions, or so I am told.

Oh, and btw, you presume California has changed, but has there been another vote? Without that, you are speculating.

That may not seem fair. And I'm not sure it really is fair. But thats what you get when people seek to enforce a new norm in society.

So, when the moonlit gatherings of those in rainbow robes begin, we should accept that as "enforc[ing] a new norm in society?" Sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make a point . . . I guess.

Doctor Fate wrote:In my world, people are allowed to have whatever position they want on public policy, as long as it's not criminal or discriminatory, and as long as they work for a public corporation.

Yes, they are allowed to. But that doesn't mean they are immune from criticism. And they are not immune from reaction. And they are not (and their employers) are not immune from market-based action against them as a result of such a position.

What you are legally allowed to do is not the same as what people will deem acceptable behaviour, and neither are the same as what you should do. We should bear in mind that the principle of freedom of expression enshrined in the First Amendment and in other national/supranational bills of rights etc are designed to protect people from the state, but not each other. I can't see any evidence of state action to punish Eich for his publicly made position.

By the way, as a point of fact, the Mozilla Corporation is not a public corporation. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation - so is actually a private corporation. It was set up as the taxable entity that bankrolls the Foundation, which remains as a non-profit. Not that it makes a difference - frankly anyone should have freedom of expression, but at the same time that does not mean that they can say whatever they like and expect their employer to be happy about it. I am aware of cases where people who work for a public corporation and have publicly criticised it have been sacked. Should they also be protected?

His stand was not discriminatory. He supported an initiative--that passed btw. So what?

It passed, but has since been found to be unconstitutional on the grounds of Due Process and Equal Protection (ie: that it is unfairly discriminatory, and so supporting is actually is discriminatory).

What if he was a Mormon, Catholic, Protestant, or Muslim who simply believed he was supporting a moral position? How does that affect his ability to run the company? Is there any evidence that he discriminated against gay employees at Mozilla? Did he fail to promote them? Take their ideas into consideration? Did he pay them less than heterosexuals?

He may well be one of those four religious groups (it's not clear to me whether his motivation to support Prop 8 was religious or not), and it makes no difference. It does not affect his 'ability' to run Mozilla Corp, but the controversy within and without the company was affecting the company and overshadowing any abilities that he may bring to bear.

I am not aware of any evidence that he did anything within Mozilla that was discriminatory, but that was not the reason for the pressure on him/the company. bbauska has already addressed this point, so I'm not sure what it adds to ask again.

Should Californians begin burning rainbows on the front lawns of those who gave to Prop 8? Maybe they should put the law's supporters in stocks? Round them up and put them in re-education camps? #tolerance

No, of course not.

All that 'they' (and it was not just 'Californians' who participated in boycott action against Mozilla over Eich) did was boycott his company and use their freedom of expression to criticise him for his stance and Mozilla for promoting him.

Freedom of market action is what conservatives support isn't it? Is it any different from Christians who withdraw advertising from media channels that ire them? Is it any different from people during the Civil Rights campaigns using civil disobedience or boycotts to target segregation policies? Is it any different from people choosing not to buy German products because of WWII?

danivon wrote:What you are legally allowed to do is not the same as what people will deem acceptable behaviour, and neither are the same as what you should do. We should bear in mind that the principle of freedom of expression enshrined in the First Amendment and in other national/supranational bills of rights etc are designed to protect people from the state, but not each other. I can't see any evidence of state action to punish Eich for his publicly made position.

I see no evidence that I made any such claim.

Further, as I understand it, this was not a "publicly made position" in the sense that he was out in front, leading the charge. We're not talking about Rick Warren or the Mormon Church (both made public statements in favor of it). His "position" was made public by others, not him.

I think it's interesting that some on the Left understand the danger of unleashing the dogs of political correctness in this case (see Andrew Sullivan) and others (like you) do not.

By the way, as a point of fact, the Mozilla Corporation is not a public corporation. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation - so is actually a private corporation. It was set up as the taxable entity that bankrolls the Foundation, which remains as a non-profit.

For the record, my only objective was to differentiate it between a family-owned business or something of that nature. I was not trying to make a point about taxation.

Not that it makes a difference - frankly anyone should have freedom of expression, but at the same time that does not mean that they can say whatever they like and expect their employer to be happy about it. I am aware of cases where people who work for a public corporation and have publicly criticised it have been sacked. Should they also be protected?

Just to be clear: you are saying a political donation = speech? Is that your position or an acknowledgement of the legal state of play?

His stand was not discriminatory. He supported an initiative--that passed btw. So what?

It passed, but has since been found to be unconstitutional on the grounds of Due Process and Equal Protection (ie: that it is unfairly discriminatory, and so supporting is actually is discriminatory).

Yes, so he was in the majority who believed they were simply standing up for a principle. Hang them all!

After all, it's not discrimination at all to hunt a man down and hound him out of his job because he once supported a popular initiative.

What if he was a Mormon, Catholic, Protestant, or Muslim who simply believed he was supporting a moral position? How does that affect his ability to run the company? Is there any evidence that he discriminated against gay employees at Mozilla? Did he fail to promote them? Take their ideas into consideration? Did he pay them less than heterosexuals?

He may well be one of those four religious groups (it's not clear to me whether his motivation to support Prop 8 was religious or not), and it makes no difference. It does not affect his 'ability' to run Mozilla Corp, but the controversy within and without the company was affecting the company and overshadowing any abilities that he may bring to bear. (bold added)

Because of a threatened boycott by the very "tolerant" LGBT lobby.

Should Californians begin burning rainbows on the front lawns of those who gave to Prop 8? Maybe they should put the law's supporters in stocks? Round them up and put them in re-education camps? #tolerance

No, of course not.

All that 'they' (and it was not just 'Californians' who participated in boycott action against Mozilla over Eich) did was boycott his company and use their freedom of expression to criticise him for his stance and Mozilla for promoting him.

You are completely blind on this. If the issue was something else, you would be outraged.

Freedom of market action is what conservatives support isn't it? Is it any different from Christians who withdraw advertising from media channels that ire them? Is it any different from people during the Civil Rights campaigns using civil disobedience or boycotts to target segregation policies? Is it any different from people choosing not to buy German products because of WWII?

Actually, what this would be akin to is a Christian boycott of a company because they hired a Muslim CEO who once gave $1000 to a mosque that was subsequently tied to terrorism. I'm making the "Christian example" worse so that maybe you can see the error in this.

Essentially, the "gay gestapo" is out to force everyone to publicly agree or remain silent. You may think that's great, but that's only because you agree on this issue.

fate

Because of a threatened boycott by the very "tolerant" LGBT lobby.

so what do you think of this guy then?

It's Time For Christians To Blacklist Mozilla Firefox And OkCupid

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawk ... /page/full

or all those moral majority and Coalition for Better Television boycotts?

Say what you will about the LGBT they seem to be a helluva a lot more effective than many much larger groups at achieving their goals..

fate

Less than 6 years . . . evolution takes billions, or so I am told.

Oh, you didn't study the concept in high school biology?

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:What you are legally allowed to do is not the same as what people will deem acceptable behaviour, and neither are the same as what you should do. We should bear in mind that the principle of freedom of expression enshrined in the First Amendment and in other national/supranational bills of rights etc are designed to protect people from the state, but not each other. I can't see any evidence of state action to punish Eich for his publicly made position.

I see no evidence that I made any such claim.

No, but your argument was limited to what free expression allows him to do. I was pointing out that just being allowed to do something is only a legal protection, and not a social one.

Further, as I understand it, this was not a "publicly made position" in the sense that he was out in front, leading the charge. We're not talking about Rick Warren or the Mormon Church (both made public statements in favor of it). His "position" was made public by others, not him.

Making a donation to a public cause is a publicly made position. It is not a 'leading' position, but political action is an action in the public sphere.

I think it's interesting that some on the Left understand the danger of unleashing the dogs of political correctness in this case (see Andrew Sullivan) and others (like you) do not.

Oh, I understand the dangers. I think you are assuming my position is something it is not. I have not at any point said that I agree with the tactics used by Eich's opponents.

By the way, as a point of fact, the Mozilla Corporation is not a public corporation. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation - so is actually a private corporation. It was set up as the taxable entity that bankrolls the Foundation, which remains as a non-profit.

For the record, my only objective was to differentiate it between a family-owned business or something of that nature. I was not trying to make a point about taxation.

In a sense it was 'family' owned - the family being the Mozilla Foundation, a voluntary non-profit group dedicated to open-source development. My point was not about taxation either, it was to correct an error. A 'public' company is one that is open to public purchase. I'm not sure why your distinction is important - why should it be that the ownership structure of a company affect the way employees can act?

Not that it makes a difference - frankly anyone should have freedom of expression, but at the same time that does not mean that they can say whatever they like and expect their employer to be happy about it. I am aware of cases where people who work for a public corporation and have publicly criticised it have been sacked. Should they also be protected?

Just to be clear: you are saying a political donation = speech? Is that your position or an acknowledgement of the legal state of play?

donation = expression, under current US Law, but the point is actually that Free expression, or free 'donation' if it is difficult is not the same as being able to do/fund whatever you like and not have people who disagree let you know about it, or act accordingly.

So, back to my question - do you think people who are allowed to use their free expression to criticise their employer should be somehow protected from that employer?

His stand was not discriminatory. He supported an initiative--that passed btw. So what?

It passed, but has since been found to be unconstitutional on the grounds of Due Process and Equal Protection (ie: that it is unfairly discriminatory, and so supporting is actually is discriminatory).

Yes, so he was in the majority who believed they were simply standing up for a principle. Hang them all!

yet more hyperbole. I think that is your way of conceding the point that Proposition 8 was ruled to be discriminatory on the basis that it violated the Equal Protection clause. Cute.

After all, it's not discrimination at all to hunt a man down and hound him out of his job because he once supported a popular initiative.

It is not unfair discrimination to disagree with someone's opinions, no. (let us ignore the hyperbole)

Because of a threatened boycott by the very "tolerant" LGBT lobby.

Yep. Boycotts happen. You want to outlaw them?

You are completely blind on this. If the issue was something else, you would be outraged.

Again, telling me what I think, or would think. I am not supportive of the boycott (I continued to use Mozilla Firefox and Thunderbird as my main browser and email application and still do). I am not opposed to the boycott. I just don't see why it's quite the issue among right wingers as it is being blown up to be. Is it because this boycott worked and some of theirs failed? Starbucks didn't change their position on gay marriage after the NOM boycott on 2012.

I don't have to pick a side, by the way.

Actually, what this would be akin to is a Christian boycott of a company because they hired a Muslim CEO who once gave $1000 to a mosque that was subsequently tied to terrorism. I'm making the "Christian example" worse so that maybe you can see the error in this.

I don't see your point here - it's exactly the same as mine is. Whatever we may feel about a particular boycott, they are at times an effective, non-violent political and economic tool. Other than not liking one you disagree with (natch), what is your pitch? Should we make such actions illegal? Or should we pile on the boycotts and counter-boycotts and ratchet up the hyperbole, and thus enjoin into a new and more bloody phase of the dreaded US 'Culture Wars'?

meh.

Essentially, the "gay gestapo" is out to force everyone to publicly agree or remain silent. You may think that's great, but that's only because you agree on this issue.

Yes, because what this debate really needs is a Godwin. Because a boycott by free individuals is just like the Nazi state secret police. Never heard of Tammy Bruce, but she's a typical twitter loudmouth

I know how much you hate 'demagoguing', so why promote it here? looks a little... hypocritical?

rickyp wrote:fate

Because of a threatened boycott by the very "tolerant" LGBT lobby.

so what do you think of this guy then?

It's Time For Christians To Blacklist Mozilla Firefox And OkCupid

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawk ... /page/full

or all those moral majority and Coalition for Better Television boycotts?

1. Bad behavior cannot justify other bad behavior.
2. I'm writing this on Firefox.
3. I think boycotts are warranted under only the most dire circumstances.
4. I'm against any kind of "moral majority" movement.

Say what you will about the LGBT they seem to be a helluva a lot more effective than many much larger groups at achieving their goals..

"Effective," yes. Fair? That's another matter. Tolerant? Absolutely not.

fate

Less than 6 years . . . evolution takes billions, or so I am told.

Oh, you didn't study the concept in high school biology?

This from the man who seems to have no concept of logic and a frail grasp on his native language?

Btw, you introduced "evolved." I know it was too subtle for you, but my response was a nudge. Has society really "evolved" in less than six years? If you believe that, then let the voters of CA vote. Of course, you don't really believe that. You know judges have ruled on this, introducing their own sense of right and wrong and nicely setting aside pesky little issues like things "reserved" to the States. Why aren't there Federal marriage licenses? Why is there no Federal mandate on the age of marriageability? They manufactured this "law" as they have many others.

fate

Has society really "evolved" in less than six years?

yes

There is much media coverage of and research on public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States. Most polls since 2010 show majority support for legal recognition of same-sex marriage. Majority public support for same-sex marriage has solidified, as polls since 2010 consistently indicate support above 50%.[1] Support has increased steadily for more than a decade, with supporters first achieving a majority in 2010.[2][3][4][5] An August 2010 CNN poll became the first national poll to show majority support for same-sex marriage,[6] with nearly all subsequent polls showing majority support.[7][8][9][10]

Support for same-sex marriage generally correlates with younger age (younger than 50),[11] higher education, and residence in the Northeast, West Coast[12] and some parts of the Midwest, and lack of religious fundamentalism. Women are also more likely to be in support than men.[8][13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opi ... ted_States

fate

If you believe that, then let the voters of CA vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opi ... s#By_state

Support there seems to be about 59%

But that matters not since, referendums on matters that affect the basic rights as defined under the Constitution aren't sustainable.
And the SCOTUS ruling on DOMA has far reaching implications.

It was not until last month, however, that a federal court expressly invoked the Windsor decision to rule that the Constitution required finding a right to same-sex marriage. That decision came just before Christmas, in the deeply red state of Utah. (In a sign that public opinion truly is changing, a statewide poll conducted by the Salt Lake City Tribune found respondents evenly split on the question of whether same-sex couples in Utah should be allowed to marry.) Utah officials were unable to halt same-sex weddings until their appeal travelled all the way up the judicial chain to the Supreme Court, which granted a highly unusual interim stay after some thirteen hundred gay weddings had already taken place.

danivon wrote:No, but your argument was limited to what free expression allows him to do. I was pointing out that just being allowed to do something is only a legal protection, and not a social one.

No, this is not the thrust of my argument at all. I am frightened when a reasonably innocuous campaign gift turns the "tolerance police" into a lynch mob. I know some hysterians (sic) want to turn Eich into a human rights violator, but put it in context people! It had nothing to do with his job, had no apparent effect on how he treated his subordinates, but he had to be driven out! What he did was so outrageous! Who could ever agree with Eich? Oh, 52% of the electorate?

Why him? Why stop with him? Get them all!

Further, as I understand it, this was not a "publicly made position" in the sense that he was out in front, leading the charge. We're not talking about Rick Warren or the Mormon Church (both made public statements in favor of it). His "position" was made public by others, not him.

Making a donation to a public cause is a publicly made position. It is not a 'leading' position, but political action is an action in the public sphere.

Nice. So, if you give to a candidate who loses, should you have cause to worry? What if someone at Apple gave to the Romney campaign? Should they be forced out?

To me, this has all the earmarks of a witch hunt. At the very least, it is evidence as Sullivan said that at the very least the LGBT community is turning into the force of intolerance they complain Christians are.

I think it's interesting that some on the Left understand the danger of unleashing the dogs of political correctness in this case (see Andrew Sullivan) and others (like you) do not.

Oh, I understand the dangers. I think you are assuming my position is something it is not. I have not at any point said that I agree with the tactics used by Eich's opponents.

Got it. Just like I never claimed freedom of speech was anything other than a protection from the government. Okay.

A 'public' company is one that is open to public purchase. I'm not sure why your distinction is important - why should it be that the ownership structure of a company affect the way employees can act?

Because in a private company, let's say one like Chick-Fil-A, a CEO can do or say whatever he wants. No one is going to fire him or call for him to be fired. It's his company. (NB: I make no argument re a boycott--separate issue)

Just to be clear: you are saying a political donation = speech? Is that your position or an acknowledgement of the legal state of play?

donation = expression, under current US Law, but the point is actually that Free expression, or free 'donation' if it is difficult is not the same as being able to do/fund whatever you like and not have people who disagree let you know about it, or act accordingly.

This whole issue has made it plain to me that we need to stop identifying donors to political campaigns. Who I give to is no one's business and I've no right to know who freeman3, geojanes, or anyone else, supports. I don't think you see the bigger picture. This is going to lead to more nastiness. This has now been used. Think of it as a tactical nuke. Our society may well be on its way to more conflict if this is permitted to continue.

So, back to my question - do you think people who are allowed to use their free expression to criticise their employer should be somehow protected from that employer?

Uh, what does that have to do with this situation?

For example, I know a kid who went on Facebook and decried his company forcing him to work on Christmas. Now, I was very sympathetic to the argument, but NOT to the forum or the manner he used. For what he said, he should have been fired. Why? Because it is impossible for an employer to maintain order among his/her employees if one is allowed to give him/her a broad-side fusillade.

yet more hyperbole.

Right. Who said this, "Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure?"

After all, it's not discrimination at all to hunt a man down and hound him out of his job because he once supported a popular initiative.

It is not unfair discrimination to disagree with someone's opinions, no. (let us ignore the hyperbole)

It's not hyperbole--the man was hounded out of his job. There's nothing hypothetical or hyperbolic about it.

Because of a threatened boycott by the very "tolerant" LGBT lobby.

Yep. Boycotts happen. You want to outlaw them?

Nope. I think, however, that a small segment of the population ought to be careful about wielding that ax too often.

I just don't see why it's quite the issue among right wingers as it is being blown up to be. Is it because this boycott worked and some of theirs failed? Starbucks didn't change their position on gay marriage after the NOM boycott on 2012.

And, I didn't participate in the boycott. I saved Starbucks all by myself. (Hyperbole free)

I think it is because it's not that serious of a transgression and the man was driven out of his job. It says a lot about our society that this happened. And, it is typical of the Left in this country: crucify your "enemies" and sue when you don't get your way. Everyone must agree with the agenda of the Left or they must be destroyed. I know you think that's hyperbole, but please don't confuse reality with hyperbole just because you disagree.

I don't have to pick a side, by the way.

Actually, what this would be akin to is a Christian boycott of a company because they hired a Muslim CEO who once gave $1000 to a mosque that was subsequently tied to terrorism. I'm making the "Christian example" worse so that maybe you can see the error in this.

I don't see your point here - it's exactly the same as mine is. Whatever we may feel about a particular boycott, they are at times an effective, non-violent political and economic tool. Other than not liking one you disagree with (natch), what is your pitch? Should we make such actions illegal? Or should we pile on the boycotts and counter-boycotts and ratchet up the hyperbole, and thus enjoin into a new and more bloody phase of the dreaded US 'Culture Wars'?

No, I think people (liberals, for the most part) should simply accept that not everyone agrees with them. For example, we have a President who spent most of last week attacking Republicans and an Attorney General who insinuated that any opposition to him or the President is based on race (no matter how he tried to later walk it back).

In other words: conservatives are bad people. It's not that our ideas are not as good as liberal ones; it's us. WE are the problem. That is the issue.

Eich should have been left alone. If his ideology had an impact on his work, fine. However, there is no evidence of that.

Yes, because what this debate really needs is a Godwin.

Of course, that was a reasonable lesbian who used the term. Andrew Sullivan said similar things. One person on CNN bragged he was part of the "gay gestapo." The phrase is in the public arena.

Because a boycott by free individuals is just like the Nazi state secret police. Never heard of Tammy Bruce, but she's a typical twitter loudmouth

Not really. But, you're entitled to your opinion.

This is not the first time this sort of thing has been done. It is the first time it's had this kind of impact. There was an effort a few years ago to do this based on how people voted. All in all, I find it very disturbing that people are to be persecuted for their beliefs.

rickyp wrote:fate

Has society really "evolved" in less than six years?

yes

Well, with all the time you have spent in California, I'm sure you know.

fate

If you believe that, then let the voters of CA vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opi ... s#By_state

Support there seems to be about 59%

That's conjecture, not a vote. They are two different things. You do understand that, don't you?

But that matters not since, referendums on matters that affect the basic rights as defined under the Constitution aren't sustainable.

Just shut up.

What part of the Constitution outlines the "basic right" of homosexual marriage?

Seriously, either think first or just stop writing. You are complete fool.

And the SCOTUS ruling on DOMA has far reaching implications.

It was not until last month, however, that a federal court expressly invoked the Windsor decision to rule that the Constitution required finding a right to same-sex marriage. That decision came just before Christmas, in the deeply red state of Utah. (In a sign that public opinion truly is changing, a statewide poll conducted by the Salt Lake City Tribune found respondents evenly split on the question of whether same-sex couples in Utah should be allowed to marry.) Utah officials were unable to halt same-sex weddings until their appeal travelled all the way up the judicial chain to the Supreme Court, which granted a highly unusual interim stay after some thirteen hundred gay weddings had already taken place.

Did SCOTUS declare homosexual marriage the law of the land?

Again, shut up. A federal judge took the reasoning and determined that it applied to same-sex marriage. Okay.

That is a far, far stretch from homosexual marriage being a "basic [right] as defined under the Constitution."

fate

What part of the Constitution outlines the "basic right" of homosexual marriage?

Did SCOTUS declare homosexual marriage the law of the land?

You should inform your self more fully.
What they specifically said was, you can't out law homosexual marriage, Federally. That where and when a homosexual marriage has been recognized, that recognition must be respected by the Federal government.

United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ___ (2013) (Docket No. 12-307), is a landmark case[1][2][3] in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to heterosexual unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, because doing so "disparage[s] and ... injure[s] those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Windsor

A federal judge took the reasoning and determined that it applied to same-sex marriage. Okay.
That is a far, far stretch from homosexual marriage being a "basic [right] as defined under the Constitution.

"
Actually you're not very bright if you can't see the contradiction in your statement. if you read the link I provided before, you didn't retain much. .
A Federal judge has basically said it is a protected right, based on the Windsor ruling. All it has to do now is make its way up through the courts to SCOTUS. Here's the legal rationale, supported by the Windsor v ruling... (quoted from the same link above)

In sum the Ninth Circuit concluded: "In sum, Windsor requires that we reexamine our prior precedents, and Witt tells us how to interpret Windsor. Under that analysis, we are required by Windsor to apply heightened scrutiny to classifications based on sexual orientation for purposes of equal protection."[79] In holding that heightened scrutiny is required for classifications based on sexual orientation within the Ninth Circuit the court in SmithKline Beecham v. Abbott handed down a ruling whose underlying rationale could have broad implications outside of the case with respect to “the quest for marriage equality in every state in this country and greater constitutional protections for all LGBT Americans,”

A SCOTUS that produced the Windsor ruling, being consistent, will support the Ninth Circuit ruling.

Fate

At the very least, it is evidence as Sullivan said that at the very least the LGBT community is turning into the force of intolerance they complain Christians are.

A bit of a reach.
In this case the LGBT community is acting to punish someone they see as intolerant. And the weapon they use is the companies self professed value statements. Essentially they are saying the man's personal beliefs do not fit the companies values, and as such he should be disqualified from a leadership position.
Its akin to a Christian School insisting that its Principle be Christian.
I doubt anyone would complain if a Christian community lead a boycott against a Christian school who's principal was Muslim for instance...
Sullivan is also guilty of comparing a specific incident to a generality.
The complaints about Christian intolerance are usually about activities like trying to keep Mosques out of their communities. Or fighting to exclude science curriculum in their schools...
If they ask "Does this man live the expressed company values?" And he falls short, not just in his past activities but his demonstrated affinity for holding fast to the convictions that those activities represented, then how else can a company act?
To retain him in a leadership position when he cannot sustain the company values .... would be hypocritical. And that's what the LGBT community have going for them in this action.
And why they were effective. It wasn't the LGBT communities values being impressed upon the company, it was the companies expressed values being held up as a measuring stick, or a mirror.

rickyp wrote:fate

What part of the Constitution outlines the "basic right" of homosexual marriage?

Did SCOTUS declare homosexual marriage the law of the land?

You should inform your self more fully.
What they specifically said was, you can't out law homosexual marriage, Federally. That where and when a homosexual marriage has been recognized, that recognition must be respected by the Federal government.

Talk about a non-sequitur. I ask "Did SCOTUS declare homosexual marriage the law of the land?" You reply with a non-answer. It's pretty simple: yes or no.

You answered a question I did not ask.

A federal judge took the reasoning and determined that it applied to same-sex marriage. Okay.
That is a far, far stretch from homosexual marriage being a "basic [right] as defined under the Constitution.

"
Actually you're not very bright if you can't see the contradiction in your statement. if you read the link I provided before, you didn't retain much. .

Don't go to law school. Actually, you could not get in, based on your lack of writing skill and your overall lack of reasoning.

One judge in one State, even a Federal judge, cannot create a "basic [right] as defined under the Constitution." The words "as defined under the Constitution" ought to be understood as being included in the Constitution. That would not have reference to marriage.

A Federal judge has basically said it is a protected right, based on the Windsor ruling. All it has to do now is make its way up through the courts to SCOTUS.

Um. That is ridiculous. You have no idea how SCOTUS will rule. Many people think they know, but you don't know until they do--see Roberts' tortured logic on the ACA, for example. Lower courts are overturned all the time.

Here's the legal rationale, supported by the Windsor v ruling... (quoted from the same link above)

In sum the Ninth Circuit concluded: "In sum, Windsor requires that we reexamine our prior precedents, and Witt tells us how to interpret Windsor. Under that analysis, we are required by Windsor to apply heightened scrutiny to classifications based on sexual orientation for purposes of equal protection."[79] In holding that heightened scrutiny is required for classifications based on sexual orientation within the Ninth Circuit the court in SmithKline Beecham v. Abbott handed down a ruling whose underlying rationale could have broad implications outside of the case with respect to “the quest for marriage equality in every state in this country and greater constitutional protections for all LGBT Americans,”

The 9th Circuit is both the most liberal and the most overturned Court in the land.

A SCOTUS that produced the Windsor ruling, being consistent, will support the Ninth Circuit ruling.

That's a prediction. Want to wager on it?

Fate

At the very least, it is evidence as Sullivan said that at the very least the LGBT community is turning into the force of intolerance they complain Christians are.

A bit of a reach.
In this case the LGBT community is acting to punish someone they see as intolerant.

Thanks for making Sullivan's point.

And the weapon they use is the companies self professed value statements. Essentially they are saying the man's personal beliefs do not fit the companies values, and as such he should be disqualified from a leadership position.
Its akin to a Christian School insisting that its Principle be Christian.
I doubt anyone would complain if a Christian community lead a boycott against a Christian school who's principal was Muslim for instance...

Not the same, unless homosexuality is a religion. Religion is afforded special protection.

However, here's a point: his views were known before they hired him. Apparently, his views did not impact his work at all. Therefore, this was nothing less than a witch hunt.

In any case, thank you for demonstrating, yet again, your ignorance.

fate

Not the same, unless homosexuality is a religion. Religion is afforded special protection.

Other minority classes are also offered special protectiion.
Including homosexuals.

United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ___ (2013) (Docket No. 12-307), is a landmark case[1][2][3] in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to heterosexual unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, because doing so "disparage[s] and ... injure[s] those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity.

fate

Thanks for making Sullivan's point

Is Sullivan is saying one should tolerate intolerance ?
A self defeating notion.
That would be like saying that racism is wrong, but its okay for the KKK to preach segregation and discrimination against Blacks and Jews. And that no one should act to weed a KKK member out of a company where he has become a corporate officer.


Sullivan is saying that its wrong to seek individuals out because it amounts to persecution on a personal level.
However, since its the corporate code of ethics that is being applied against the person he's wrong.
The LGBT community aren't saying the man shouldn't be able to be politically active and support the Prop 8 crowd.
What their saying is that he isn't demonstrating the personal commitment to the corporate statement of values, that as CEO he would have to uphold. Its a question of trust and his personal qualifications for the job.

fate

However, here's a point: his views were known before they hired him.

Yes. And was an issue in the past that died down. But by elevating him to CEO..... the man who is most responsible for representing the values of the company, they reignited the issue.

At this point, a tech company having a C.E.O. who opposes gay marriage is not all that different from a company in 1973 having a C.E.O. who donated money to fight interracial marriage: even if there were plenty of Americans who felt the same way at the time, the C.E.O. would still have been on the wrong side of history. And since the role of a C.E.O. as a public face of an organization is more important than ever these days, Eich’s personal views were inevitably going to shape his ability to run the company.

That’s especially true because of the unusual nature of Mozilla. Mozilla is not like most companies. It’s a wholly-owned subsidiary of the nonprofit Mozilla Foundation, and is just one part of the broader Mozilla community, which includes thousands of open-source software developers and other volunteers around the world. These people still do much of the work behind Mozilla’s products—contributing code, technical support, design improvements, and so on. This means that Mozilla depends on the goodwill of its supporters more than most corporations do; it relies on their willingness to donate their services in pursuit of the broader Mozilla project, which is all about keeping the Web transparent and accessible. If it alienates them, Mozilla’s entire mission will be at risk.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/c ... -eich.html

rickyp wrote:fate

Not the same, unless homosexuality is a religion. Religion is afforded special protection.

Other minority classes are also offered special protectiion.(sic)
Including homosexuals.

You are such a cheesehead. Here's what I was responding to:

And the weapon they use is the companies self professed value statements. Essentially they are saying the man's personal beliefs do not fit the companies values, and as such he should be disqualified from a leadership position.
Its akin to a Christian School insisting that its Principle be Christian.
I doubt anyone would complain if a Christian community lead a boycott against a Christian school who's principal was Muslim for instance...

A "Christian school" would have 1st Amendment protection. So, NOTHING you can say after that would be analogous UNLESS it was based on the 1st Amendment.

So, just stop being a jackass--for five minutes.

fate

Thanks for making Sullivan's point

Is Sullivan is saying one should tolerate intolerance ?

No, he said those who scream loudest for tolerance should not exercise intolerance, as they did with Eich.

A self defeating notion.
That would be like saying that racism is wrong, but its okay for the KKK to preach segregation and discrimination against Blacks and Jews. And that no one should act to weed a KKK member out of a company where he has become a corporate officer.

Because KKK = Prop 8.

You are a moron. There is no other word for it. Oh, other than: jackass, idiot, fool . . . hang on, let me get a thesaurus.

Until you post something intelligent, well-written, and error-free, I will only respond to your posts by bolding all the errors. It's not about your ideology. It's about your idiocy.