ALL liberals are oblivious to the long term dangers of political correctness.

[Vector1]

Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA

Not even close. The 1st Amendment is a limitation on government actions. People are free to select whom they wish to associate with, don't you agree?

Whether it be government or big business, the ability to essentially ruin a persons career based on their political, religious, or moral beliefs is not what our Constitutional protections are all about.

Incidentally, Eich was given a chance to address the issue and instead of apologizing or expressing regret, he issued the lamest non-apology ever: He expressed his "sorrow at having caused pain", which is just "I am sorry you feel that way" writ large.

Indeed, that is part of the PC playbook. However, demanding someone publicly apologize for their beliefs is little different than forcibly extracting it with the fear of reprisals for non capitulation. What on earth does the guy have to apologize for anyway
He believes as most of this country does. Regardless, even if he believed in something only a small minority believed in, he should not be subjected to paying a price for it by losing his job.

And? People were getting married and he spent his own money to put a stop to that. Is it a big surprise that a lot of people decided to not put more cash in his pockets?

You can say that about anything/anyone or any company.

My donations are in the public domain and I am perfectly comfortable with that. My voting history, could I vote, would of course be secret.

Come on now, you don't impress me as an ignorant or naive person. Contribution to a ballot initiative, amendment, or candidate indicates how and for whom you will vote. So the idea of secret voting is absurd on it's face.
One of my neighbors had a political sign up which is the opposite of my beliefs, but if he came in for employment, rest assured he would be hired or rejected on the basis of his qualifications, not his political views.

What's the alternative? You'd force Mozilla's programmers to keep working for a CEO whose views they abhor, when they have alternatives? The open-source community should not be allowed to choose who they contribute their time to?

People have been working for bosses and/or companies they do not care for since the beginning of employment. Heck I worked for a dog nuts liberal communist pinko at one time, but that did not prevent me from doing my job. Nor did I feel compelled to start a strike based on the persons political views. So while I would not socialize with the guy, he had a right to his opinion and the right to earn a living.

What minorities worked deliberately reduce the rights of others? I am baffled.

I think you took my comment too literally. My only point was that private entities had/have the right to do many things. Yet that does not excuse doing the wrong things, for instance discriminating against someone for their race, religion, etc.
Just because Modzilla is private does not mean it is ok to force him out based on his personal/political views.

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by Vector1

Whether it be government or big business, the ability to essentially ruin a persons career based on their political, religious, or moral beliefs is not what our Constitutional protections are all about.

This was not "big business". This was in fact the people on the floor who - for once - held some power.

Indeed, that is part of the PC playbook. However, demanding someone publicly apologize for their beliefs is little different than forcibly extracting it with the fear of reprisals for non capitulation. What on earth does the guy have to apologize for anyway

Trying to stop equal rights for LGBT couples?

He believes as most of this country does.

Did. Times have changed.

Regardless, even if he believed in something only a small minority believed in, he should not be subjected to paying a price for it by losing his job.

CEOs have a role to play in company culture and values. It is part of their job.

If a company put a Holocaust denier in the CEO role, I'd avoid them - as customer and employee. As is my right.

Come on now, you don't impress me as an ignorant or naive person. Contribution to a ballot initiative, amendment, or candidate indicates how and for whom you will vote. So the idea of secret voting is absurd on it's face.

If I wish to speak out in the political process, it comes at the risk of people choosing to disassociate with me. I am an adult, and I can handle that fact.

One of my neighbors had a political sign up which is the opposite of my beliefs, but if he came in for employment, rest assured he would be hired or rejected on the basis of his qualifications, not his political views.

If you neighbor had a sign up saying your rights should be restricted because of who you are, would you still be as generous?

People have been working for bosses and/or companies they do not care for since the beginning of employment. Heck I worked for a dog nuts liberal communist pinko at one time, but that did not prevent me from doing my job. Nor did I feel compelled to start a strike based on the persons political views. So while I would not socialize with the guy, he had a right to his opinion and the right to earn a living.

Just because you're happy to do so doesn't mean that Mozilla's employees felt the same. As they had other options - and everybody knew it - then yes, his failure to gauge the mood in the company he's supposed to be leading is disqualifying him, professionally.

I think you took my comment too literally. My only point was that private entities had/have the right to do many things. Yet that does not excuse doing the wrong things, for instance discriminating against someone for their race, religion, etc.

At-will employment has been a conservative pet cause for many years. I used to be in the entertainment business. If I started becoming politically active against, say, the MPAA's right to enforce copyright, should my employer still be forced to keep me on?

Just because Modzilla is private does not mean it is ok to force him out based on his personal/political views.

If said views make it impossible for him to do his job, yeah - out he goes.

He has every right to stand firm and refuse to apologize. The employees and Mozilla community has every right to say "Bye", and that's when the board (belatedly) woke up and did their job: Remove the guy who's a bad fit.

[Vector1]

Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA

This was not "big business". This was in fact the people on the floor who - for once - held some power.

How do you define big business then, as this was not a Mom & Pop type of small business. Regardless, you seem to be missing a fundamental point in that suppression of a persons speech is not what this country was founded on.

Trying to stop equal rights for LGBT couples?

You may wish to frame it as equal rights, but to most American, that is right, I said most, (more on this in a minute), it is an attempt to change the historical definition of marriage. It is also part of the homosexual agenda to try and equate their sexual behavior with normalcy and acceptance. They are free to do as they please as far as I am concerned, but don't demand me to find it normal.

Did. Times have changed.

Wrong!
I'd bet dollars to donuts that if you asked homosexual advocates if they wanted a national up or down vote on homosexual marriage today, they would say no.
Granted with all the liberal brainwashing in the schools, media, and Hollywood, homosexuality is becoming more tolerated. Yet a majority of Americans would vote against it if the vote were held today.

Then again, maybe that is why you and like minded people want to defend what happened to Eich, to suppress opposition to your beliefs. In reality that is the main purpose of PC, to make people wary of freely expressing themselves for fear of retribution.



If I wish to speak out in the political process, it comes at the risk of people choosing to disassociate with me. I am an adult, and I can handle that fact.

WOW
You wonder why people say liberalism leads to a Nazi Germany. The fact that you want to ignore and/or accept that people could harm you for your viewpoint is really hard to believe.

If you neighbor had a sign up saying your rights should be restricted because of who you are, would you still be as generous?

Absolutely, and it happens on a regular basis. A perfect example is those who oppose my 2nd Amendment rights. It can be as subtle as restrictions on the type of weapon I own, such as a semi-automatic rifle (so called "assault rifle"). r as overt as wanting to abolish all firearms in the hands of private citizens.
While I might despise their beliefs on that issue, it does not mean I want harm to come to them, or that they should pay a price for their beliefs. This is America, not communist China.


Just because you're happy to do so doesn't mean that Mozilla's employees felt the same. As they had other options - and everybody knew it - then yes, his failure to gauge the mood in the company he's supposed to be leading is disqualifying him, professionally.

At-will employment has been a conservative pet cause for many years. I used to be in the entertainment business. If I started becoming politically active against, say, the MPAA's right to enforce copyright, should my employer still be forced to keep me on?

If said views make it impossible for him to do his job, yeah - out he goes.

He has every right to stand firm and refuse to apologize. The employees and Mozilla community has every right to say "Bye", and that's when the board (belatedly) woke up and did their job: Remove the guy who's a bad fit.



You are unreal. Do you honestly think he would have made the political contribution to support prop 8 if he knew 5 years later it would come back to haunt him?

That of course is the whole problem in a nutshell, yet might be the very reason liberals and homosexual activists wanted to make him pay a price, to deter others.
Heck, apparently the comic book industry is full of PC minded liberals, and they recently prevented a very talented person in the industry from working because of his beliefs.
I'll bet true old school liberals are rolling their eyes at reading your posts because they were opposed to the blackballing of socialists/communists back in the day.

`

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by Vector1

[How do you define big business then, as this was not a Mom & Pop type of small business.

The Mozilla Org is not your classical top-down hierarchy with a board focused on safeguarding the interest of the stockholders. They actually have the temerity to think that some sort of ideals should be part of what guides them. Right now, their homepage sports 'Doing good is part of our code".

Regardless, you seem to be missing a fundamental point in that suppression of a persons speech is not what this country was founded on.

Freedom of association is still there, right?

You may wish to frame it as equal rights

The right to marry the person you love seems fairly equal to me.

but to most American, that is right, I said most, (more on this in a minute), it is an attempt to change the historical definition of marriage.

Well, boo-bloody-hoo. Loving v. Virginia changed the definition of marriage, too. And the majority of Americans (more on that in a minute) are not programmers and other employees in a position to tell Mozilla's board that they're ready to leave.

Wrong! I'd bet dollars to donuts that if you asked homosexual advocates if they wanted a national up or down vote on homosexual marriage today, they would say no. Granted with all the liberal brainwashing in the schools, media, and Hollywood, homosexuality is becoming more tolerated. Yet a majority of Americans would vote against it if the vote were held today.

You seem very sure of that?

Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55%

The fact that you want to ignore and/or accept that people could harm you for your viewpoint is really hard to believe.

I live in the real world. I know there are communities where an atheist married to a Jew would not have good job prospects at all, for instance. People can choose not to associate with me.

A perfect example is those who oppose my 2nd Amendment rights. It can be as subtle as restrictions on the type of weapon I own, such as a semi-automatic rifle (so called "assault rifle"). r as overt as wanting to abolish all firearms in the hands of private citizens. While I might despise their beliefs on that issue, it does not mean I want harm to come to them, or that they should pay a price for their beliefs. This is America, not communist China.

I suspect your identity is not as deeply linked to gun ownership as it is to your sexual orientation. Still - you'd work for them, if you had a choice? Put money in their pocket to fight a right you hold dear?

You are unreal. Do you honestly think he would have made the political contribution to support prop 8 if he knew 5 years later it would come back to haunt him?

Probably not. But he could have addressed it when it came up. He chose a half-hearted apology instead. How is a married gay person going to work with this dude? "Hey there, I'm your new boss. Yes, yes - I tried to make sure your marriage was annulled, but that was 5 years ago and I may not be willing to call it a mistake, but we're still cool, right?"

Heck, apparently the comic book industry is full of PC minded liberals, and they recently prevented a very talented person in the industry from working because of his beliefs.

Haven't hard of that, can't comment.

Eich wasn't hired as janitor or even programmer - he was the rassum frassum CEO. Perhaps he can find an organization whose values better embody his stance on who gets the full panoply of civil rights and who don't.