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.
When I give money to Planned Parenthood, and I live in a Republican/conservative stronghold, should my donation be made public, and my employment dependent on my donating to the "right" causes?
I am not aware of Planned Parenthood doing anything coercive.
He tried, actively, to stop other people attempting to make a happy life for themselves. Gays getting married didn't influence his life. If his private values don't match the values of the company he's supposed to be leading, there's a problem.
He donated to a referendum movement.
Just like I donate to Planned Parenthood. And the conservatives that line the streets on Sundays for regular abortion protests would say that I try, actively, to help mothers murder their unborn children.
As for matching a person's values to a business, that's Mr Green's argument regarding Hobby Lobby. I don't buy it. A business is not a person. A business doesn't have moral values. A business doesn't have religious beliefs. Mr Eich did not try to impose his beliefs on his company. Not in any way, shape, or form. Until that donor list was published in the L A Times, Mr Eich's personal beliefs were so private that none of his colleagues, nor many of his close friends, had any idea he was opposed to same-sex marriage. His personal beliefs weren't reflected at all in the company he founded and help run. He actually is a great example of someone who kept his personal life separate from his professional life. He was exemplary in that regard.
I don't know what kind of world you live in, but I'm a LIBERAL. I thought the Million Moms thing over Ellen Degeneres was ridiculous, and the boycotting of Jane Fonda is ridiculous as well. The world is not BLACK and WHITE, Boxcar. And people aren't GOOD or EVIL.
Persecution of an individual is wrong. You obviously think so, since you are citing Ellen Degeneres and Jane Fonda. You think persecuting these two individuals was wrong. Why do you think it was wrong? Because these two individuals are entitled to think what they want, to be whomever they wish to be?
So what makes it different to persecute Mr Eich? Because he doesn't agree with you? So it's okay to persecute people who don't agree with you. That's like the people who think it's wrong for anybody else to torture their enemies, but it's okay when Americans do. Because we don't do it without a good reason, right? And the persecution of Mr Eich was done for a good reason, right? How dare he oppose same-sex marriage? Let's take him out and stone him for good measure.
I don't think boycotts are wrong at all.
I think everybody, even Eich, should use their money as they see fit. Vote with their wallets.
That's one of the reasons I don't see anything wrong with what happened to Eich.
Let me ask it this way:
Question 1. Eich had the right to spend his money the way he wanted to, according to his conscious, even if it hurt other people. Should Gay-rights supporters have the same right?
Question 2. Why was it okay for Eich to use his spending power to hurt gay people, but the reverse is found offensive?
Question 3. Why should people who support gay rights feel guilty about choosing not to use products of companies that are led by people who support financially gay prejudice?
By the way, I don't see Fonda movies because of the very reason I stated above. I can't stand her for what she did in Vietnam. I never listened to the Dixie Chicks, but I think the stunt they pulled in London was pretty cheap. If they wanted to criticize our president during a time of war, they should have done it over here, not overseas.
Just like I donate to Planned Parenthood. And the conservatives that line the streets on Sundays for regular abortion protests would say that I try, actively, to help mothers murder their unborn children.
As for matching a person's values to a business, that's Mr Green's argument regarding Hobby Lobby. I don't buy it. A business is not a person. A business doesn't have moral values. A business doesn't have religious beliefs. Mr Eich did not try to impose his beliefs on his company. Not in any way, shape, or form. Until that donor list was published in the L A Times, Mr Eich's personal beliefs were so private that none of his colleagues, nor many of his close friends, had any idea he was opposed to same-sex marriage. His personal beliefs weren't reflected at all in the company he founded and help run. He actually is a great example of someone who kept his personal life separate from his professional life. He was exemplary in that regard.
I am not aware of Planned Parenthood doing anything coercive.
Oh, dear. Would you like me to start sending you all of the anti-abortion literature that can be found in abundance in my area's churches? Or do you want me to take the line that none of those poor little unborn babies volunteer to be aborted. The forceps and cutting instruments would surely be considered coercive to them. The labor-inducing drugs, coercive to unborn babies.
I'm telling you that people have strong beliefs, about abortion, and about same-sex marriage. And in this country, we try to respect those differences of opinions. That's not what happened to Mr Eich. He was pilloried for a difference of opinion.
I don't care how terrible Proposition 8 was. It wouldn't have passed unless a majority of Californians voted for it. Mr Eich wasn't the flag-bearer. He wasn't the messenger. He was one of many people who was opposed to same-sex marriage. So why does he get to be the target? And when you've finished him off, are you going back to the L A Times to pick another target, another donor who supported Proposition 8?
The CEO of OKcupid donated to anti-Gay marriage causes too. Are you going after him next or did he simply evolve so he's allowed to be a hypocrite?
*I* didn't go after anyone, and firefox is my browser of choice at home, so I don't know who you think you're talking to or making ASSumptions about.
This is about private consumers making informed, free market decisions about where they want to spend their money or what products they want to use, based on ANY CRITERIA that is important to them.
That's how the market works. That's how free speech works.
I think everybody, even Eich, should use their money as they see fit. Vote with their wallets.
That's one of the reasons I don't see anything wrong with what happened to Eich.
Let me ask it this way:
Question 1. Eich had the right to spend his money the way he wanted to, according to his conscious, even if it hurt other people. Should Gay-rights supporters have the same right?
Question 2. Why was it okay for Eich to use his spending power to hurt gay people, but the reverse is found offensive?
Question 3. Why should people who support gay rights feel guilty about choosing not to use products of companies that are led by people who support financially gay prejudice?
Nobody knew for more then 4 YEARS, this mans view....he did not announce it in a board room, he did not announce it in a public employee meeting. He did not discriminate against ANY employees. No one knew......untill the list was published....over 4 years later.
What if he was for/against abortions and donated to one of those props......would/should he be judged and lose his job?
I'm telling you that people have strong beliefs, about abortion, and about same-sex marriage. And in this country, we try to respect those differences of opinions. That's not what happened to Mr Eich. He was pilloried for a difference of opinion.
... and for donating money to a campaign that sought to strip existing marriages of their validity and further prevent his fellow citizens from having equal rights. But, ya know, he was just "exercising free speech."
That is more than "having an opinion." Just like the Chick-Fil-A guy did more than "have an opinion." He sent money to causes that have very real adverse effects on LGBT people.
There's a thin line between speech and action.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
I don't care how terrible Proposition 8 was. It wouldn't have passed unless a majority of Californians voted for it. Mr Eich wasn't the flag-bearer. He wasn't the messenger. He was one of many people who was opposed to same-sex marriage. So why does he get to be the target? And when you've finished him off, are you going back to the L A Times to pick another target, another donor who supported Proposition 8?
Of course you "don't care how terrible" it was. Even if you disagreed with it, the reality is whether it passed or not does not and did not affect you. But for millions of others in this country these issues are VERY personal. MUCH more personal or even more so than a religious belief, because religion is a chosen belief system (speech), and not an innate characteristic (not speech).
He "became a target" because some other people in the tech world decided to make it an issue. Not even really "gay people" made an issue about it, but you can see how once known gay folks might think twice about using service and a company headed by someone who literally thinks they are undeserving of all the benefits and rights of citizenship.
And he was elevated to be the figurehead of a company. All the nonsense on this thread about "60 employees from Intel donated to Prop 8...." are completely not analogous, at all.
Again: What if Fred Phelps was made CEO of Mozilla. Would it be "fascist thought police tactics" to call for his ouster?
So what makes it different to persecute Mr Eich? Because he doesn't agree with you? So it's okay to persecute people who don't agree with you. That's like the people who think it's wrong for anybody else to torture their enemies, but it's okay when Americans do. Because we don't do it without a good reason, right? And the persecution of Mr Eich was done for a good reason, right?
It’s not about Eich as a person but his position as an officer of an organization. As the CEO he was the public face of the company. His personal views were held to a higher standard. Just ask Larry Summers (former president of Harvard) or Trent Lott (former Senate Minority Leader) who resigned for saying stupid things that offended people. Eich’s position as leader became untenable and he had no choice but to go.
Had he worked for a different company they outcome would have been very different, but Mozilla attracts a lot of progressives and libertarians (both as customers and employees).
He actually is a great example of someone who kept his personal life separate from his professional life. He was exemplary in that regard.
Oh yeah? Well too bad he didn't see fit to keep his personal BELIEFS out of and separate from other people's PERSONAL LIVES.... maybe then he wouldn't be in this situation.
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.
