4 ms·

It's impossible to talk about what's moral and not without getting theological. The Bible defines homosexuals as immoral. It's not ambiguous about that. But it

It's impossible to talk about what's moral and not without getting theological. The Bible defines homosexuals as immoral. It's not ambiguous about that. But it says everyone is immoral. And it says all rights are given by God, not by men. And, partly because of this, it also says, very clearly, that senseless violence is despicable. That is to say, at least part the problem is with theology, or at least bad theology. And Mozilla, perhaps unintentionally, has taken a theological position by removing Eich. Or at least it thinks it can't productively tolerate certain people. And some of those people are good people with genuinely held religious views. So, yeah, Mozilla is getting some blowback. And, no, it's not because being opposed to same sex marriage is the same ridiculous theology of the KKK.

leereeves 11y ago
It's not impossible to discuss morality without theology (consider humanism) but that's irrelevant. My problem is with anyone who uses any excuse (including theology) to deny people equal rights. I do not object to Eich's religious views. If he believes gay marriage is immoral he should be free not to participate in one. I object to his attempt to impose his religious views on other people through the law and deny other people the right to choose for themselves. I believe that distinction is also relevant to Mozilla's decision.
- humanrebar 11y ago
  > It's not impossible to discuss morality without theology (consider humanism) but that's irrelevant. Humanism has massive theological implications. You can't be a humanist and a Christian at the same time, for example. The Bible encourages Christians to get along with humanists. Unfortunately, humanists have no holy book to encourage reciprocal behavior. > My problem is with anyone who uses any excuse (including theology) to deny people equal rights. You presume rights that are not natural rights. And they're not God-given. They're not even constitutional. (Yeah, the Supreme Court case was terrible law). They simply seemed like they should be rights, so they were "imposed" on "other people" through... well, not the law, but through the legal system. And in the process, the rights of many were violated (the right to due process before constitutional changes were made, for instance). > I object to his attempt to impose his religious views on other people through the law and deny other people the right to choose for themselves. ...and you want to punish him and his ilk by denying them the right to choose certain career paths. Judges, county clerks, wedding planners, JoP, etc. I guess CEO and other PR positions as well.
  - leereeves 11y ago
    If someone can't follow the law, including the rulings of the Supreme Court, rather than their personal beliefs (religious or otherwise), then they aren't qualified to be a judge. That's something all judges must do; it's not unique to this law. But if they can set aside their personal beliefs while on the bench and follow the law, they can still be judges. And they can certainly be CEOs, but CEOs will always be judged on their public image. That's not unique to this debate either. Remaining (publicly) neutral on controversial issues is often an unspoken job requirement. Particularly civil rights issues. > they were "imposed" on "other people" Everyone can choose for themselves now. Allowing other people to choose is not forcing you to accept their beliefs. (I do agree that wedding planners, bakers, etc should be free to choose whether to participate.) Freedom means sometimes other people will choose to do things you think are immoral.

leereeves 11y ago

It's not impossible to discuss morality without theology (consider humanism) but that's irrelevant. My problem is with anyone who uses any excuse (including theology) to deny people equal rights. I do not object to Eich's religious views. If he believes gay marriage is immoral he should be free not to participate in one. I object to his attempt to impose his religious views on other people through the law and deny other people the right to choose for themselves. I believe that distinction is also relevant to Mozilla's decision.

humanrebar 11y ago
> It's not impossible to discuss morality without theology (consider humanism) but that's irrelevant. Humanism has massive theological implications. You can't be a humanist and a Christian at the same time, for example. The Bible encourages Christians to get along with humanists. Unfortunately, humanists have no holy book to encourage reciprocal behavior. > My problem is with anyone who uses any excuse (including theology) to deny people equal rights. You presume rights that are not natural rights. And they're not God-given. They're not even constitutional. (Yeah, the Supreme Court case was terrible law). They simply seemed like they should be rights, so they were "imposed" on "other people" through... well, not the law, but through the legal system. And in the process, the rights of many were violated (the right to due process before constitutional changes were made, for instance). > I object to his attempt to impose his religious views on other people through the law and deny other people the right to choose for themselves. ...and you want to punish him and his ilk by denying them the right to choose certain career paths. Judges, county clerks, wedding planners, JoP, etc. I guess CEO and other PR positions as well.
- leereeves 11y ago
  If someone can't follow the law, including the rulings of the Supreme Court, rather than their personal beliefs (religious or otherwise), then they aren't qualified to be a judge. That's something all judges must do; it's not unique to this law. But if they can set aside their personal beliefs while on the bench and follow the law, they can still be judges. And they can certainly be CEOs, but CEOs will always be judged on their public image. That's not unique to this debate either. Remaining (publicly) neutral on controversial issues is often an unspoken job requirement. Particularly civil rights issues. > they were "imposed" on "other people" Everyone can choose for themselves now. Allowing other people to choose is not forcing you to accept their beliefs. (I do agree that wedding planners, bakers, etc should be free to choose whether to participate.) Freedom means sometimes other people will choose to do things you think are immoral.