Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A reasonable person who wanted to avoid repercussions WOULD abstain from donating to a cause that they knew could lead to problems. This isn't a violation of their first amendment rights because they are self-limiting their speech, not being prevented from doing so.
Yes, how people vote is published in the paper all the time, the day after the election. It is more of a collective breakdown, though.
In all seriousness, no, because that is a violation of the law. Publishing public donation information is not.
"You can say anything you want just as long as no one knows you said it." will be the first line on the Bill of Rights for the Internet.
Well, the majority of people in California supported Proposition 8, hence it's passage. How psychic should people be in choosing their causes?
And what you are saying is that people should not feel free to support those causes they believe in, because others may find out and there will be repercussions. You really don't think freedom is a good thing?
How individuals vote is never published in the paper, because we practice the secret ballot in this country. No one know how you voted, or how I voted.
It must be. Liberals and Democrats condone using he IRS to intimidate Obama's political enemies. Now Liberals ousting this guy. This is how Liberals rule... like thugs.
Location: In a Galaxy far, far away called Germany
4,300 posts, read 4,408,773 times
Reputation: 2394
Quote:
Originally Posted by pch1013
So a Jewish organization couldn't fire a convert to Islam who suddenly started preaching anti-Israel jihad, and a Catholic organization couldn't fire an outspoken atheist, and Hobby Lobby has no right whatsoever to insist upon its First Amendment rights being respected, because apparently a corporation (unlike a physical person) has no First Amendment rights.
Thanks for clearing that up for us.
Religious organizations have their beliefs that you adhere to and the organization itself can fire you because of that. If you wanted to compare oranges to oranges, it would be more like someone getting fired for being politically associated with a different party or not associated at all. A company has no right to fire someone due to their political or religious affiliation (unlike a religious organization). This CEO was NOT the CEO of Mozilla when he exercised his right of free speech. Even if he was, he has every right to make that donation. Everyone has the right to get angry at him - but they don't have the right to take away his livelihood by campaign of the opposition. If people want to stop buying Mozilla products, then that is their right - but that was not where it stopped. A campaigned ensued to make one man an example so as to intimidate any opposition.
Last edited by Bulldawg82; 04-09-2014 at 01:13 PM..
What yours is in this case is that of a viewpoint of privilege. And as such you can continue to play the role of dispassionate advocate of consequence-free-speech. Or whatever it is you are doing on this and the other now-closed thread.
You were not and are not the subject of the malicious hate campaign that was proposition 8. Your rights were not and are not in jeopardy by proposition 8 or like measures. You can be detached from the issue, but you have no right or ability to make the value judgment that those whose lives and families were - literally - attacked by people like Eich have no right of their own to show their displeasure with this high profile figure or the ACTION he took against them through the use of boycott.
Poor put-upon Eich. It's not like the guy was trying to rip families part, invalidate personal contracts made between consenting adults or enshrining discrimination in a State Constitution or anything, right? Oh wait...
that may be true, that he donated to the pro business part of the candidates platform, but isnt it the position of liberals that if you donate to a particular candidate, you support their ENTIRE platform? or is that only if you donate to conservative candidates?
I have never met a single person that agrees with any candidates entire platform. So, I wouldn't be one of those liberals you speak of.
If Mozilla had made such a statement, would the boycott or controversy have ended?
How does a individual's donation, made as a private citizen, make the company look bad?
What if I work for a uniform company as a salesman, which makes me the face of the company in a very literal way, and the company is in Oklahoma, where in neither the 2008 or 2012 elections did Obama win a single county? And what if it comes out that I donated to the Obama campaign? Should my employer be entitled to fire me because my political stances differ from the majority?
1. Of course not. Then people would feel Mozilla sands behind anti-gay rights sentiment even more and it would create an even bigger **** storm. The folks who were pro prop 8 would dig it, but I don't think they use anything but IE or Safari so I doubt it would result in a boon in business. It would have been a calculated risk to make that bold stand. Some companies do it. Others just want it to go away so they give the guy the boot or force them out. Depends on the issue and the company. Maybe if the controversial donation was made to a cause Mozilla's company culture supported things would have ended differently.
2. Pretty obviously someone donating to a controversial cause and then in charge of a totally separate entity makes people believe the entity shares the private citizen's opinions and intent. Phil Robertson dislikes gay activity, so he dislikes gay people, so Duck Dynasty is anti-gay, so A&E is anti-gay, so Disney hates gay people. Is that right? Was Mozilla anti-gay rights when they had an anti-gay rights CEO? Of course not. But people draw inferences on relationships, right or wrongly. It isn't illegal or unconstitutional. Happens ALL the time in politics. See: Obama and Jeremiah Wright, Obama and William Ayers, Obama and Jay-Z, Obama and Common, Ted Cruz and Ted Nugent, Rand Paul and Aqua Buddha, etc etc.
Well, legally yes - Oklahoma is a right to work state. Constitutionally yes - they didn't prevent you from doing or saying anything. Ethically - The company has an ethical right to protect their profits. If your presence is affecting that then they have a responsibility to do something. Does the public have an ethical right to get pissed at a company for something an employee said before? That's the question. They have the legal and constitutional right to express their displeasure aka "intimidate", but should they be mad at the company in the first place? Probably not.
What yours is in this case is that of a viewpoint of privilege. And as such you can continue to play the role of dispassionate advocate of consequence-free-speech. Or whatever it is you are doing on this and the other now-closed thread.
You were not and are not the subject of the malicious hate campaign that was proposition 8. Your rights were not and are not in jeopardy by proposition 8 or like measures. You can be detached from the issue, but you have no right or ability to make the value judgment that those whose lives were attacked by people like Eich have no right of their own to show their displeasure with this high profile figure or the ACTION he took against them through the use of boycott.
Poor put-upon Eich. It's not like the guy was trying to rip families part, invalidate personal contracts made between consenting adults or enshrining discrimination in a State Constitution or anything, right? Oh wait...
Are you saying that all speech should have consequences? Should we clear our votes and donations with our employers to counteract those consequences?
And since Mr Eich was one of 35,000 who donated as much or more to support Proposition 8, I take it that it's okay with you that those of a certain income level should bear the brunt of the consequences for exercising their right to "free" speech?
Are you saying that all speech should have consequences? Should we clear our votes and donations with our employers to counteract those consequences?
The poster is saying that. We now know our so called "private" donations aren't private. Up until now, our votes have been private, but will it continue to be so? I'm not so sure.
Are you saying that all speech should have consequences? Should we clear our votes and donations with our employers to counteract those consequences?
All speech already has consequences. Why on earth would you think it does not? The consequences, however, can vary based on your position and station in life.
For companies: It depends on what your role is in a company, and whether or not you're going to take a position of being the figure head or public face of a company. CEOs are vetted in advance just for that reason. Maybe nobody thought his support for Prop 8 would ever be discovered or be a big deal to some people. Those people who figured it wouldn't be a big deal probably have the same privileged perspective that you do.
If you're working in the mailroom, nobody is going to care what you do or support in your free time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
And since Mr Eich was one of 35,000 who donated as much or more to support Proposition 8, I take it that it's okay with you that those of a certain income level should bear the brunt of the consequences for exercising their right to "free" speech?
Income level matters not.
And, it bears repeating one more time:
Eich did not just "express an opinion." He gave money to others who sought to attack the lives, livelihoods, families and personal rights and freedoms of a minority.
You want to talk about INTIMIDATION and do a balancing test? What Eich did or supported is 10x worse than people boycotting his company for what he did.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
