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.
If you continue to read the posts that followed I explain why not.
What I pointed out to eborg is that what we currently have in society is that liberals define what is accepted or not because liberals have the lowest bar for deviance. In other words, you and eborg are against NAMBLA and nobody has a lower bar than you guys, so you magnanimously allow society to hate NAMBLA supporters. In fact, we can imply anything we want, we can act hysterically about them, we can call them names, and we can treat them with disgust. But when it comes to homosexuals, we can't do any of that. Why? Because you don't agree.
Your extreme animus towards gay people is stomach-turningly apparent. You are certainly free to express it on an anonymous forum like you do. You are also free to stand on a street corner with a placard saying "I hate gays!" if you should choose to do so. But your right to express your views doesn't guarantee you the right to be free from criticism for your views.
Certain positions in a company are more prominent and if someone holds then with backwards opinions it causes the company more embarrassment than when they were in less prominent positions. When more people take notice, the company is forced to either support the person or get them out.
If you can't tell the difference between Richard Branson and Phillip Maher and why one's opinions would be more damaging to Virgin than the other then I don't know what to tell you.
Either they are pretending to be thick about something so obvious, or they really are that thick.
Since the Mozilla thread has been closed, someone suggested to me that a good topic would be a discussion of what should the boundaries be in the "good fight" over ideas.
While I'm all for holding public servants accountable for their statements, actions, votes, etc, I personally draw a line between private individuals and public servants, and I think that targeting specific private individuals is a form of intimidation and suppression of free speech.
Clearly, others draw the boundaries elsewhere, so it would be interesting to hear what people think about this?
A threat of a boycott is a perfectly legitimate form of free speech.
IMHO - Unless the CEO is the sole proprietor and owner of the business he should leave his personal opinions at home. His job is to make actual owners as much money as possible and not push his personal political agenda.
This egotistical fool damages the corporation and should be fired. Same applies to the idiots operating the Hobby Lobby.
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.
