[seth1010]

I'm still not sure why he feels so strongly about being inclusive of his employees when he felt it necessary to help fund a bill that would do the exact opposite to millions of people in California (including his employees).

There is no grey scale here. Either you think that people (regardless of their sexual orientation) are equal, or you don't. You don't get to pick who to assign rights to based on if they work for your company or not.

At this point, every time I see him say "everyone at mozilla is treated fairly" it's obvious that he just doesn't want to commit career suicide while also remaining a bigot.

[pfortuny]

You know, people may have different 'concepts' of marriage and that is why they may be led to think that it makes no sense (in their conception) to create 'same-sex marriage'. I do not think this turns them into bigots, simply they have a different idea of what marriage 'is' and what it means in a society.

Calling people 'bigots' is not adding anything to the discussion and is just making your statements look unreasonable (as if you had no real 'idea' backing your defense of 'same-sex marriage' and you had to turn to expletives).

[dredmorbius]

Calling a thing what it is is accurate. If that name is pejorative that makes those to whom that term applies, and their supporters, uncomfortable, so much the better.

Eich should fall on his sword.

[eurleif]

>There is no grey scale here. Either you think that people (regardless of their sexual orientation) are equal, or you don't. You don't get to pick who to assign rights to based on if they work for your company or not.

Mozilla isn't in charge of whether its employees can get married. The equal rights Mozilla grants them would be for things like health insurance, presumably, not marriage. So maybe for Eich, it's not about whether they work for the company or not; maybe he thinks gays should have equal rights to services, but not to the ceremony of marriage.

[dalanmiller]

> but not the ceremony of marriage.

Be careful because I think by ceremony you are painting a picture that he isn't allowing gay weddings to happen, Prop 8 unless I"m mistaken was all about who can get married in the eyes of the state, no?

[itafroma]

The full text of the proposition was:

> Section I. Title

> This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act."

> Section 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution, to read:

> Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

The wording was enough to be declared unconstitutional due to its violation of the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. I don't think there's been any legal precedent set beyond that, but it's conceivably broad enough to apply to any jurisdiction or any organization operating within the state, not just the state government.

[jnbiche]

>Prop 8 unless I"m mistaken was all about who can get married in the eyes of the state, no?

And that's exactly the problem. State governments are sanctioning what are really civil unions but calling them marriages. The obvious answer is that everyone should have civil unions through their state government, and marriage should be reserved for one's church (if one so wishes and has a church -- I don't).

However, since that's not happening, it's clear to me that we have to recognize state marriages as de facto civil unions, and as such support everyone's right to participate. Since (to me) everyone should have the right

But the easy answer would have been to move "marriage" as such to the care of churches, leaving only civil unions in the care of state governments.

[dalanmiller]

Yup, I think I totally agree. It seems there's an issue with wording and that the state is marketing something it doesn't actually do ('wed' people), where they actually just provide a paper that pronounces legal union.

[pjc50]

Spousal rights for health insurance have been an issue at places in the past.

[eurleif]

But that wasn't the question. The question was whether it was a consistent position for someone to oppose gay marriage, but not discriminate as an employer.

[tomp]

There is no grey scale here. Either you think that people (regardless of their beliefs) are equal, or you don't.

Some people believe in god, some don't. Some people believe in death penalty, some don't. Hell, Jews and Muslims believe in mutilating their infant sons!

Banning one belief, just because you don't like it, is a very dangerous slippery slope.

[garrettgrimsley]

Let's not pretend anyone is trying to institute a de jure ban on homophobia.

[coldtea]

>I'm still not sure why he feels so strongly about being inclusive of his employees when he felt it necessary to help fund a bill that would do the exact opposite to millions of people in California (including his employees).

For one, he never said he is against treating gays equally in the workplace (or elsewhere). Only that they should not be married -- something which is irrelevant to the workplace.

Some people take his stance on gay marriage to mean "he hates gays", which doesn't really follow. Actually the reverse could also be true: you could support gay marriage (on principle, as a civil rights issue) and personally hate gays.

>There is no grey scale here. Either you think that people (regardless of their sexual orientation) are equal, or you don't. You don't get to pick who to assign rights to based on if they work for your company or not.

Well, the rights of people in the confines of a company have nothing to do with marriage (except maybe marital leave?). So it's not like he's contradicting himself on anything.

It's also not like he would prevent people to marry outside the workplace. If you remember he helped fund a BILL (emphasis mine). That is, he went with the law, not against it. If the law allows it, he doesn't have a say anymore.

[001sky]

There is no grey scale here.

Please take this garbage elsewhere.

People are not bigots because they disagree with your special interest politics.

[jawngee]

Equal rights and protections for all under the law are not special interest politics, unless you are working under the guise that homosexuality is something someone chooses.

But, I assume, you aren't that dumb.

[jrs235]

Equal treatment: Everyone is allowed to marry one person of the opposite sex.

Now some disagree that it should be "of the opposite sex" and instead want it to be: Everyone is allowed to marry one person.

Soon the next special interest will come along and want it to be: Everyone is allowed to marry one or more persons.

[001sky]

Marriage is a special interest class (A). The debate is whether or not to expand special interest class (A) to include other special interst classes (Z) (ie, make it larger A'=A+Z). Merely voting to include yourself in the privledge class does not make you some sort of prophet of truth and justice.

[dredmorbius]

People are not bigots because they disagree with your special interest politics.

And that's not what people are saying here. Eich is a bigot because he fits the definition of the term: "A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked."

As expressed in his support of statutory measures to accomplish those ends.

[tomp]

Then all Muslims, Jews and Christians are bigots? E.g. see the reaction of Jews and Muslims when Germany wanted to ban circumcision...

[dredmorbius]

If they hold beliefs, which from the perspective of those who don't share that belief set, are incorrect, then yes.

See also: Overton Window, moral relativism, Presentism, the Historian's Fallacy, and Chronological Snobbery.

Morals and ethics are not immutable.

[bergie]

There have been several succesfull cases of "special interest politics" in civil rights before. Abolition of serfdom and slavery, anti-segregation, universal suffrage to name a few.

Many of those were considered to be against the "natural order of things" too. Are you sure you want to take the side you seem to be taking?

[mavdi]

Gay marriage is more of a rights issue than pure politics.