[danudey]

Brendan went out of his way to donate a thousand dollars to prevent a group of people from sharing the same right as everyone else.

Allowing it would have harmed no one. Not him, not them, not anyone. There are no negative downsides, other than a subset of religious individuals who wish to impose their strictures onto all of society feeling less in control of their lives.

I have a hard time accepting, as a leader, someone who goes out of their way to donate to an anti-gay campaign whose aim is to do nothing other than deny the LGBT community something out of spite.

It's not his beliefs that are the issue; it's that he's trying to impose them on all of society.

[belovedeagle]

And so the correct response is for [a segment of] society to impose its views on him? I don't see the logic here; I suspect there really isn't any.

You say that "Allowing it would have harmed no one." Tell me, who is it harming for Brendan to be CEO of Mozilla? The answer is not "LGBT people", because he's already stated that his personal views won't change policy; and it's just not plausible that Mozilla will suddenly start discriminating against people due the the personal views of the CEO.

So we can say, "Allowing Brendan to be CEO would have harmed no one. Not him, not them, not anyone. There are no negative downsides, other than a subset of pro-LGBT-rights individuals who wish to impose their beliefs onto all of society, and onto Brendan in particular, feeling less in control of their lives." How then is protesting Brendan's donation any different than the donation itself?

You might agree with Brendan's views, disagree with them, whatever. But it seems mighty bigoted to start protesting someone else's beliefs; isn't that the whole message here?

EDIT: To be clear, if Brendan ever starts imposing discriminatory policies or the like, I'll grab my pitchfork and join you. Until then, anyone with a pitchfork in hand is protesting not Brendan's actions, but his mere /beliefs/, and that is wrong, and betrays a shocking cognitive dissonance coming from someone who supposedly supports equality and tolerance.

[macu]

Yes, completely agreed. People have the right to try to change others' views, but not to impose their views when trying fails.

Perhaps donating to Prop 8 was "trying to impose" but the backlash is of the same ilk.

[gregors]

You mean American society don't you? Most societies in the world aren't governed by America. Let's not pretend for a single second America leads the way in progressive and social change.

[zheshishei]

>I have a hard time accepting, as a leader, someone who goes out of their way to donate to an anti-gay campaign whose aim is to do nothing other than deny the LGBT community something out of spite. It's not his beliefs that are the issue; it's that he's trying to impose them on all of society.

I wouldn't really say "imposing" is the right term. I think "trying to impose" something on all of society would look more like something along the lines of bribing politicians. Instead, he donated to a campaign that aligned with his belief. Aren't campaigns a mode of free speech by which people can get their message out there? Moreover, aren't beliefs (at least strongly held ones anyways) supposed to be something that a person is willing to speak out about? So, If you claim that he can hold beliefs but that he shouldn't be allowed to speak about them, then it really does become a situation where you deny his right to hold his belief.

Also, isn't a society a collection of people who try to figure out what rules everyone should play by? I like to think of these rules as a sort of LCD, something that everyone can agree on. And, as the members try to alter the rules, they also alter the LCD. The catch is that if one of the LCD "rules" is being reviewed, one side can't just shove it down the other's throat. If that happened, then the LCD would cease to be a LCD and society would then be torn apart. That's why a proper exchange of thoughts is important.

That, I think, also means that the exercise free speech should be accompanied by the willingness to dialogue in a respectful manner with people with opposing views. "But", you say, "he refused to make a public statement on his donation." I think it doesn't matter because it's hard to have that sort of meaningful conversation with a crowd/mob. So, while boycotting Mozilla is fine and all, I think the best course of action would still be a one-on-one discussion. Luckily, it seems like he is doing that at Mozilla with his coworkers.

Finally, this is a separate point from the one above, but if someone claimed to hold a belief but was unwilling to defend it in public, wouldn't that be telling about their qualities as a leader? Shouldn't a leader be someone who is willing to take the vision of his followers, hold fast to them, and proclaim them to the world no matter the circumstance? So, assuming we believe his statement about the separation of his personal beliefs and Mozilla's goals, wouldn't that actually lend credence to his ability to lead?

[cturner]

   > Brendan went out of his way to donate a thousand dollars
   > to prevent a group of people from sharing the same right
   > as everyone else.

Right? The right to have a piece of paper from a government department endorsing the validity of your relationship with someone else? That's petty.

If you're in an alternative relationship and want to have a permanent union with someone else, or with several other people, you can go and draw up a contract and then get on with your lives. It could take as little as ten minutes. Contract law is fantastic like this.

Everything substantial is already available through contract law.

   > it's that he's trying to impose them on all of society.

Hypocrisy. Religious types who want to mandate how other people can live are off-key. But people who get carried away by the cause of gay marriage are equally ridiculous. You're playing the same game as the religious types. The missing piece of that expression of your political power enshrined in law - a political endorsement of certain relationships.

[rogerbinns]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of...

> According to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are 1,138 statutory provisions[1] in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. These rights were a key issue in the debate over federal recognition of same-sex marriage.

[cturner]

Interesting, thanks. I'm not in the US so my context is weak. My reaction would be to get rid of the provisions. In a free society, the government will have no role in the bedroom. Extending it into micromanaging relationships is a step in the wrong direction. The best code is the code we throw away.

[baconner]

The vast majority of rights that are bound to marriage in the us have nothing whatsoever to do with "the bedroom" but rather practical matters like visiting your chosen spouse in the hospital or not having your non-citizen spouse deported or receiving benefits if your spouse is killed while serving in the military. Another good example is the right to file taxes jointly which can have a huge impact on your joint income. Many of these things couldn't be covered by contract and even when they can technically be covered like allowing someone to make end of life decisions for you it costs money which opposite sex couples dont have to pay and contracts are frequently ignored by people like hospital staff who don't understand the law. When your partner is in the hospital suffering you shouldn't be stuck debating contract law with its staff and a single status, legal marriage, makes it crystal clear to all. While I do wish there was a code deprecation review committee in congress to eliminate things like financially favoring married couples at tax time practically speaking legally recognizing same sex marriage gets us much closer to equal treatment under the law much faster than debating each of those 1000+ rights individually. People in unrecognized same sex marriages are being actively harmed by their exclusion right now so IMO sitting around debating the perfect solution instead of moving forward pragmatically is harmful behavior.

[cturner]

OK, I'm convinced. But don't forget about that deprecation team.

[baconner]

Absolutely - this is why coders need to run for office more.

[x0x0]

On the off chance you're just uneducated and not a nasty little bigot playing dumb, the marriage right carries a ton of stuff besides a ring and a ceremony and any moral satisfaction the couple may get.

The right to see your spouse in the hospital, even (and particularly) if their family doesn't accept that their child is homosexual and attempts to ban a partner. (And this isn't a hypothetical; if you google you'll find just heart wrenching stories.)

It eases medical decisions when a gay spouse is badly injured or dying.

If there are children, both parents can have the right to care for them and make decisions for them.

The right not to testify against your spouse in some legal proceedings.

The right to get joint medical insurance.

Retirement benefits, which are particularly important when a higher income spouse passes first.

And more. See eg http://www.freedomtomarry.org/

edit: and a very important benefit: being treated as a first class citizen, ie one with the right to have your relationship recognized just like straight people have their relationships recognized.

[tzs]

> If you're in an alternative relationship and want to have a permanent union with someone else, or with several other people, you can go and draw up a contract and then get on with your lives. It could take as little as ten minutes. Contract law is fantastic like this.

A contract is only binding on the parties. Most of the marriage rights that gays want are significant because they apply to people NOT in the marriage.

[cookiecaper]

Some people obviously do not agree that "allowing it would have harmed no one".