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.
Man, I just love all the RW critics of the so-called "Nanny State" who now want the "Nanny State" to protect a bigot from the consequences of his actions ... just because he's one of "their" bigots.
In the first place, Brendan Eich is not a bigot because he supports the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Second of all, upholding the right of Free Speech, which is a right guaranteed by the Constitution, does not make the State a "nanny state" in defending that right. It is the duty of government to uphold and defend the Constitution, and to guarantee our rights.
Words mean things. You need to learn the definition of "bigot." It would seem to me that you may fit that definition, but Brendan Eich does not.
Does it matter how long he was CEO? He was forced to resign after being made CEO because it was learned that he donated the huge sum of $1000 to the Prop 8 campaign, an egregious "crime" (apparently).
Eich was on the same side as a majority of the citizens of California. Are the majority of the citizens of California 'mean,' in your view?
About 7 million of them voted to "Eliminate the rights of same-sex couples to marry" in 2008. That's pretty mean. It also wasn't the majority of Citizens of California. It was 52% of the people who could be bothered to vote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamencoFreak
How do you know what image Mozilla wishes to project?
That Mozilla is a private company makes the entire free speech argument irrelevant. The First Amendment only applies to the government.
Obviously, you didn't read the article. Let me help you. Here is the relevant portion:
Yes, First Amendment rights under the Constitution address only the relationship between the individual and the government -- not private enterprise. But through a host of federal and state legislation, laws have been enacted over time that prohibit employers from discriminating against their employees on the basis of certain characteristics and further provide wrongfully terminated employees with legal remedies.
Generally, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of race, national origin, color, religion, and gender. Congress later enacted legislation that expanded discrimination to include age and disability. Eventually, discrimination under federal law came to include marital status, sexual orientation and political affiliation, as well.
State laws vary but most provide for the same protections. Indeed, California is an “at-will” state, meaning the employment relationship can be terminated at any time for any reason. But an employee cannot be wrongfully terminated in California or terminated on the basis of discrimination, that is, on the basis of age, race, sexual orientation, gender, disability, political affiliation, religion, or national origin.
In the first place, Brendan Eich is not a bigot because he supports the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Second of all, upholding the right of Free Speech, which is a right guaranteed by the Constitution, does not make the State a "nanny state" in defending that right. It is the duty of government to uphold and defend the Constitution, and to guarantee our rights.
Words mean things. You need to learn the definition of "bigot." It would seem to me that you may fit that definition, but Brendan Eich does not.
Taking any stand against how someone else lives, within the context of their own selves and their own family, is bigotry. The ethic of reciprocity is the most universal ethic across belief systems and religions. It provides that an adult can expect as much respect for their own decision to marry the person they love as they grant respect to other adults for their decision to marry the person they love.
conservatives are very weird in how they think about these kinds of things.
First this is not a limit on free speech. So that whole argument is complete nonsense.
Here is where the real debate about this issue takes place and will ultimately be decided by society.
If any CEO gives to an anti-interracial marriage organization or publicly aligns themselves with that view point, very few people would be attacking Mozilla for getting rid of that CEO because mostly as a society, we have decided that being anti interracial marriage is a viewpoint that is unacceptable.
Now what the people who are arguing that this is about speech are REALLY saying is being against homosexual marriage is not the same as being against interracial marriage.
They want to carve out space for this viewpoint as not really one of discrimination but of religious belief(although these same people forget that interracial marriage was ALSO opposed on religious belief grounds)
In that way, they want to make it a socially acceptable viewpoint that to be publicly against homosexual marriage shouldn't make one a social pariah who is viewed as bigot/homophobe in the same way that being against interracial marriage would make a person a social pariah and a bigot/racist.
This is the question before society is being anti-homosexual marriage the equivalent to being anti-interracial marriage or being anti-Asian or anti-black or, etc?
The muzzling of free speech will be the ruination of Liberty. But who will determine what speech will be allowed, and what speech will not be allowed?.
Apparently it's you who wants to muzzle free speech and determine what will be allowed or not.>>>
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamencoFreak
As a foreigner, I don't even really think you have the right to enter the debate.
Why would you purposefully start a repeat thread on this topic, when this is already being discussed here where you are also participating?
This is about the chilling of Free Speech by those who disagree with the political position of individuals or groups, not exclusively about the Mozilla case.
In New York city, gun rights advocates had their names and addresses published and were subjected to the same kind of public exposure because of their views, vandalism, and other forms of attack.
This is the dangerous direction we are headed as a country. Freedom and Liberty are threatened when mob rule becomes the arbiter of justice.
This is about the chilling of Free Speech by those who disagree with the political position of individuals or groups, not exclusively about the Mozilla case.
In New York city, gun rights advocates had their names and addresses published and were subjected to the same kind of public exposure because of their views, vandalism, and other forms of attack.
This is the dangerous direction we are headed as a country. Freedom and Liberty are threatened when mob rule becomes the arbiter of justice.
Nothing was done here that hasn't been done since the founding of the country. The Mozilla example is a perfect example of how the country was designed to work. You can have your position and I can have mine. There is absolutely nothing wrong with protest and it's great to be able to believe that this was a wrong place for the protest.
All without the government getting involved. I say it's about as good as we can hope for.
That Mozilla is a private company makes the entire free speech argument irrelevant. The First Amendment only applies to the government.
Sssh... It must be very difficult for them to concentrate with all those fear hormones flooding their brains.
You would be petrified too if armies of rabid vicious homosexuals were lying in wait under your bed ready to force dust bunnies down your throat to take away your right to free speech.
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.
