3 ms·

> it's very difficult to see how one person's consensual marriage could possibly infringe on another person's rights. Maybe to you, but others argue that it's

> it's very difficult to see how one person's consensual marriage could possibly infringe on another person's rights. Maybe to you, but others argue that it's bad for society etc. It wasn't so "settled" in 2008 when Eich donated and that cause won the election. I'm not even sure a significant portion calling for his resignation would have supported an apology, if he decided to change his position. This is the opposite of a free, healthy, diverse society. > It's incredibly fallacious, though, to suggest that same-sex couples shouldn't have the right to marry simply because there's another tricky marriage-rights question out there. My intention wasn't to suggest that, but to note that for some reason gay rights are popular and polyamorous rights aren't. If Eich had donated to keep polygamy illegal, not nearly as many people would have cared IMO. People are being denied rights in both cases, but only one is fashionable to support right now. That hypocrisy bothers me, not the legal status of same-sex couples. This is veering further off-topic, but BTW I can think of one reason to not give all the same legal rights to polygamous marriages: it's maybe too easy to "abuse" by marrying yourself to every friend you want to give a piece of your insurance coverage, tax breaks, etc. > Hopefully some things that you and I believe today will be viewed as positively caveman-like in 200 years. That's the price of progress. But if you weren't on the right side just 6 years ago, you're viewed just as caveman-like and don't deserve your job? > This and the "crucify" thing are really straw man arguments. Perhaps it's hyperbolic. On the other hand, the counter-arguments invoking the KKK are too. There's a difference between going out in a mob and killing people, or donating money to a reasonably controversial cause that is part of our political process.

faddat 11y ago
He has fucked up personal beliefs-- this is a fact. These personal beliefs could have been kept in a box in his mind, but when he spoke on this publicly and loudly as a public figure, well..... It'd be nice if we could all do work that allows us to voice our exact thoughts at every moment.... or would it?
- scintill76 11y ago
  > He has fucked up personal beliefs-- this is a fact. You find them distasteful. That's your opinion, not fact. His support of Prop 8 and the legal ramifications of Prop 8, are the facts here. > These personal beliefs could have been kept in a box in his mind, but when he spoke on this publicly and loudly as a public figure So you're only allowed to believe something if you don't actually act on that belief in a way that internet stalkers can find? Hmm, hopefully there's never an unpopular belief someone has that you would say is good, because they'll decide to keep it to themselves instead of risking getting fired. I'm not sure his position was public or loud, at least not until people dragged it into public. All he did was donate, thus getting himself on a legally-required list of donors. There could be dozens of employees at Mozilla, even some execs, who voted for Prop 8 (voting against gay marriage) but didn't fund advocacy groups so that nobody knows. If Brendan Eich hadn't donated but voted and if nobody thought to publicly ask his belief and got an honest answer, he would still be at Mozilla to this day, quietly oppressing employees and infecting the world with his anti-gay views through Firefox. Or not, because I haven't heard any accounts of his political views actually entering the workplace until activists forced them to. To the public and to Mozilla employees, it was pretty much indistinguishable from "kept in a box in his mind."
JohnBooty 11y ago
> Maybe to you, but others argue that it's bad for society etc. > It wasn't so "settled" in 2008 when Eich donated and that cause > won the election. I'm not even sure a significant portion calling > for his resignation would have supported an apology, if he > decided to change his position. I think a lot of people would gladly have accepted a change of heart. I know I would have - perhaps for selfish reasons, since I used to think gay marriage wasn't the best idea. [1] Certainly the public has shown a willingness to vote for politicians who've changed their minds. > This is the opposite of a free, healthy, diverse society. The executives of a company are held to a different standard because they represent their companies to a much greater extent than the average employee. I do not expect every Mozilla employee or contributor to subscribe to a specific set of political views, and I've never heard anybody calling for such a thing when it comes to Mozilla nor any other company. But I'm not going to be eager to support a corporation whose CEO has views I dislike. As we saw, a lot of other people felt that way as well. Think about it: nobody would really blink an eye if they saw their Pepsi delivery man drinking a bottle of Coke - but surely we can understand how it would be big news if Pepsi's CEO drank Coke in public, and if it kept happening it might lead people to question whether or not he/she is the best person to lead PepsiCo. > all the same legal rights to polygamous marriages: > it's maybe too easy to "abuse" by marrying yourself > to every friend you want to give a piece of your > insurance coverage, tax breaks, etc. Yeah, it would certainly be a logistical nightmare! Imagine all the software that would need to be rewritten. We are probably talking about a mess to rival Y2K. Relative to the Y2K thing, less software would need to be changed. But the affected software would need to be changed pretty drastically. _________ [1] I thought legally recognized civil unions were a better idea, but then I decided it'd be "separate but equal" all over again and that didn't work the first time.

faddat 11y ago

He has fucked up personal beliefs-- this is a fact. These personal beliefs could have been kept in a box in his mind, but when he spoke on this publicly and loudly as a public figure, well..... It'd be nice if we could all do work that allows us to voice our exact thoughts at every moment.... or would it?

scintill76 11y ago
> He has fucked up personal beliefs-- this is a fact. You find them distasteful. That's your opinion, not fact. His support of Prop 8 and the legal ramifications of Prop 8, are the facts here. > These personal beliefs could have been kept in a box in his mind, but when he spoke on this publicly and loudly as a public figure So you're only allowed to believe something if you don't actually act on that belief in a way that internet stalkers can find? Hmm, hopefully there's never an unpopular belief someone has that you would say is good, because they'll decide to keep it to themselves instead of risking getting fired. I'm not sure his position was public or loud, at least not until people dragged it into public. All he did was donate, thus getting himself on a legally-required list of donors. There could be dozens of employees at Mozilla, even some execs, who voted for Prop 8 (voting against gay marriage) but didn't fund advocacy groups so that nobody knows. If Brendan Eich hadn't donated but voted and if nobody thought to publicly ask his belief and got an honest answer, he would still be at Mozilla to this day, quietly oppressing employees and infecting the world with his anti-gay views through Firefox. Or not, because I haven't heard any accounts of his political views actually entering the workplace until activists forced them to. To the public and to Mozilla employees, it was pretty much indistinguishable from "kept in a box in his mind."

JohnBooty 11y ago

> Maybe to you, but others argue that it's bad for society etc. > It wasn't so "settled" in 2008 when Eich donated and that cause > won the election. I'm not even sure a significant portion calling > for his resignation would have supported an apology, if he > decided to change his position. I think a lot of people would gladly have accepted a change of heart. I know I would have - perhaps for selfish reasons, since I used to think gay marriage wasn't the best idea. [1] Certainly the public has shown a willingness to vote for politicians who've changed their minds. > This is the opposite of a free, healthy, diverse society. The executives of a company are held to a different standard because they represent their companies to a much greater extent than the average employee. I do not expect every Mozilla employee or contributor to subscribe to a specific set of political views, and I've never heard anybody calling for such a thing when it comes to Mozilla nor any other company. But I'm not going to be eager to support a corporation whose CEO has views I dislike. As we saw, a lot of other people felt that way as well. Think about it: nobody would really blink an eye if they saw their Pepsi delivery man drinking a bottle of Coke - but surely we can understand how it would be big news if Pepsi's CEO drank Coke in public, and if it kept happening it might lead people to question whether or not he/she is the best person to lead PepsiCo. > all the same legal rights to polygamous marriages: > it's maybe too easy to "abuse" by marrying yourself > to every friend you want to give a piece of your > insurance coverage, tax breaks, etc. Yeah, it would certainly be a logistical nightmare! Imagine all the software that would need to be rewritten. We are probably talking about a mess to rival Y2K. Relative to the Y2K thing, less software would need to be changed. But the affected software would need to be changed pretty drastically. _________ [1] I thought legally recognized civil unions were a better idea, but then I decided it'd be "separate but equal" all over again and that didn't work the first time.