3 ms·

I don't think it's an interesting comparison, given one is a choice between two "lesser evils" and elected by three hundred million citizens VS the other being

by coldpie 10y ago

I don't think it's an interesting comparison, given one is a choice between two "lesser evils" and elected by three hundred million citizens VS the other being a leader of a private company appointed by a board from a pool of presumably many (or at least several) valid candidates. Totally different scenarios. But yes, it was a big black mark against them and they, too, received lots of public pressure to change their public policy on the matter. And eventually, they did. Eich refused to even say he wouldn't make such a donation again, much less apologize for the harm he caused.

Turing_Machine 10y ago
Sorry, why should a public official should be held to a lower standard than the director of a private company? I'm not seeing that. Most observers believe that the passage of Proposition 8 in California had far more to do with black churches turning out for Barack Obama than it did with contributions from people like Eich. Edit: updating with citation. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/06/AR2008110603880.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11... 70% of black voters supported Proposition 8, which means that they were against gay marriage.
- coldpie 10y ago
  You're right that I didn't answer your question directly. To be explicit, yes, I think wishing to impose your personal religious beliefs on your constituents should disqualify you from holding public office. However, when presented with two options that both fail that test, I will vote for the lesser of the two evils presented to me. I don't think that Mozilla was faced with that dichotomy, and the fact that Eich was relatively quickly and easily replaced backs that up.
  - humanrebar 10y ago
    > I think wishing to impose your personal religious beliefs on your constituents should disqualify you from holding public office. Should officials be cajoling or forcing people to "convert" (not every religion has conversion as such)? Nope. Can we divorce all laws from any metaphysical worldview? No. That's not possible. We presume certain things matter, like human lives, freedom of conscience, truth, the health of the planet, etc. Banning murder assumes that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist and/or does not require human sacrifice to get into heaven. I can't come up with the right adjective, but that's imposing an (a)theological position on constituents. It's obviously the right position, too. Point being, even the idea of "inalienable rights" is an (a)theological position. Some people think rights are given by God or the nature of humanity. Others think laws are given by the people and groups that can enforce them. The goal isn't to have agnostic laws. That's literally impossible. The goal is to find a just baseline worldview we can all compromise on and have tolerant laws that follow from that.
    - coldpie 10y ago
      I don't agree with your premise, and this isn't the forum to debate that. But even if I did, given that even members of the same religion have disagreements about the morality of gay marriage, I don't think your argument is relevant to this specific situation.

by coldpie 10y ago

Turing_Machine 10y ago

Sorry, why should a public official should be held to a lower standard than the director of a private company? I'm not seeing that. Most observers believe that the passage of Proposition 8 in California had far more to do with black churches turning out for Barack Obama than it did with contributions from people like Eich. Edit: updating with citation. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/06/AR2008110603880.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11... 70% of black voters supported Proposition 8, which means that they were against gay marriage.

coldpie 10y ago
You're right that I didn't answer your question directly. To be explicit, yes, I think wishing to impose your personal religious beliefs on your constituents should disqualify you from holding public office. However, when presented with two options that both fail that test, I will vote for the lesser of the two evils presented to me. I don't think that Mozilla was faced with that dichotomy, and the fact that Eich was relatively quickly and easily replaced backs that up.
- humanrebar 10y ago
  > I think wishing to impose your personal religious beliefs on your constituents should disqualify you from holding public office. Should officials be cajoling or forcing people to "convert" (not every religion has conversion as such)? Nope. Can we divorce all laws from any metaphysical worldview? No. That's not possible. We presume certain things matter, like human lives, freedom of conscience, truth, the health of the planet, etc. Banning murder assumes that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist and/or does not require human sacrifice to get into heaven. I can't come up with the right adjective, but that's imposing an (a)theological position on constituents. It's obviously the right position, too. Point being, even the idea of "inalienable rights" is an (a)theological position. Some people think rights are given by God or the nature of humanity. Others think laws are given by the people and groups that can enforce them. The goal isn't to have agnostic laws. That's literally impossible. The goal is to find a just baseline worldview we can all compromise on and have tolerant laws that follow from that.
  - coldpie 10y ago
    I don't agree with your premise, and this isn't the forum to debate that. But even if I did, given that even members of the same religion have disagreements about the morality of gay marriage, I don't think your argument is relevant to this specific situation.