[ltcoleman]

Isn't the point of a democracy to allow the people to have a voice? It is starting to seem like many progressive groups are trying to vilify an individual's freedom of speech/thought. The Brendan Eich controversy highlights the issue as of late. Do I share all of the values/beliefs that my CEO does? No. Should I boycott my CEO for having conflicting values/beliefs? Maybe. If I am totally against something, then I should stand up for my beliefs. I believe everything starts to collapse when I try to use my beliefs to rally against another individual.

I have the belief that our founding fathers knew America would be a melting pot of religions, cultures, and beliefs and that is why they established state's rights to accommodate the beautiful array of citizens of which would make the United States of America.

If we continue to push one set of beliefs how different are we than North Korea, Iran, etc?

I am not very political, and I have many left and right wing perspectives. I am just saddened to see our country starting to stumble on a slippery slope.

[webwright]

"It is starting to seem like many progressive groups are trying to vilify an individual's freedom of speech/thought."

No. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. If you're pro-rape, you're a pariah, but it's not illegal just to have those beliefs. If you're pro-racism, you're going to have a hard time in most places. We don't have to respect those beliefs, and (if we feel strongly enough) we can choose not include those people in our lives (work for them, shop at their stores, etc)... But we do have to support their legal right to have/express those beliefs and (hopefully) treat them with respect rather than doubling down with hate.

Now take a belief like "we should increase the minimum wage". Are there many people that would grab their pitchfork and light their torches over that belief? Nope.

So the question is: How reprehensible is it to believe that same-sex marriage should not be legal? Is it a political issue, like minimum wage, or is it a human rights issue, like interracial marriage?

[slantyyz]

>> Is it a political issue, like minimum wage

One might argue that minimum wage is a human rights issue, especially if a full time employee on minimum wage can't afford food and shelter.

[sliverstorm]

I don't think it works like that. Last I understood, right to food & shelter is primarily a negative right, meaning nobody can deprive you of those things. Similar to right to movement- nobody is obligated to buy you a bus ticket, but outside of special circumstances nobody is allowed to stop you from buying that bus ticket.

[slantyyz]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_housing

[snip]

Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognises the right to housing as part of the right to an adequate standard of living. It states that:

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

[/snip]

Doesn't sound like the right to an adequate standard of living (which would include food and shelter) is a negative right to me.

[sliverstorm]

Well, that's how it is according to the UN. I'm attempting to find something more specifically about the USA- the UN's opinions are often pie-in-the-sky...

Obviously reality is more nuanced; notice the unrest of SF residents recently. Many can't afford their SF flats anymore; is that a violation of human rights? Do we need to subsidize their housing?

Clearly there is a positive aspect- Section 8 housing, anyone?- but it seems like that plays a small part in the overall "right".

[DrJokepu]

> Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.

Actually, it means exactly that. In the United States, however, only the Congress and state legislatures are required to respect it.

[slantyyz]

I think you're talking about protected speech.

There are classes of "speech" that aren't protected, such as state secrets, uttering threats, or hate speech (in most democratic countries, at least).

[vanattab]

I support marriage equality and in general lean towards progressive/liberal polices. However I too am disturbed by the how aggressively progressive groups are getting where they demand that anyone who disagrees has to have their carrier destroyed and be totally ostracized from socity. Why was it necessary to demand that he loses his job? Why not just demend that Mozilla openly state their support for same sex marragie/benifts. Would all the people demanding that he step down also support a company who decided they would have a policy of not employing anyone who openly professed a belief in Islam, Catholicism or any number of world religions due to their opposition to same sex marriage? Demonizing the the people who disagree with us is not going to help win them over.

Edit: fixed typos.

[ForHackernews]

> If we continue to push one set of beliefs how different are we than North Korea, Iran, etc?

rolleyes

For starters, how about the fact that no authoritarian government forced anyone to do anything in this situation?

Mozilla got bad press because their CEO did something unpopular, and refused to apologize. As a quasi-nonprofit that relies somewhat on donations, Mozilla is more vulnerable to bad PR.

I just wish more CEOs could be held accountable for bad behavior. Bob Parsons (of GoDaddy) killing endangered elephants comes to mind...

[georgemcbay]

Yes, the people have a voice. All the people. I believe strongly in free speech and if anything, I think this whole episode is an example of it working across the board.

Brendan Eich is free to support what I see as stupidly offensive positions, other people are free to speak out against what he said and/or boycott. The company he was made CEO of is free to stand by their man or cave and force him to resign.

Three different entities/groups utilized their freedom to speak and/or choose, so what's the problem?

[mpyne]

> Three different entities/groups utilized their freedom to speak and/or choose, so what's the problem?

The hypocrisy.

Where are OKCupid's protests against Intel? 538 didn't release names, but surely they can't be hard to find, and if there is reason to burn one heretic then by induction there's reason to burn all the rest. So what is OKCupid waiting for?

[ryguytilidie]

Your point seems to be that the white, rich male who donated money to a campaign to take away civil rights is the REAL victim here. Not sure I can agree with that.

[scintill76]

Can you agree that you should practice equality, by not judging controversies based on the wealth, race, and gender of the persons involved?

[ryguytilidie]

If you think I'm judging him based on those things than you have twisted my words well beyond recognition. That's beyond what I can help with.

[scintill76]

I said you're unfairly judging the situation, by focusing on those facts about the person. Why else would you say "white, rich male" and "REAL victim" in that tone? If I've misunderstood, feel free to clarify why you felt that describing a "white, rich male" was necessary. I read it as a suggestion that we should let those factors influence how we judge the justness or unjustness of this situation. To do so is not in keeping with equality.

Full disclosure: if you look at my other recent comments, I've obviously been quite sympathetic to the man (though cooling off as I accept the reality of PR politics.) I'm also a "privileged", straight, white male. I don't think this affects my post here. The whole idea of, "If a privileged majority may have been slighted, nobody need apologize, we'll just erase a bit of the debt they owe the world and put it out of our mind for today" is repulsive to me. I feel like this is underlying your original comment (feel free to untwist your words if that's what I've unwittingly done.) I'm not saying he was victimized, but it's offensive that you went out of your way to reject that idea, in large part because of the status of the person. People who indulge this kind of mentality are just about as bad as the original oppressors. Maybe this is all invalid to you since I'm a "white male", but I also hope I would have the integrity to stand up for this, even if I were not so privileged.

[ryguytilidie]

" I'm also a "privileged", straight, white male. I don't think this affects my post here. The whole idea of, "If a privileged majority may have been slighted, nobody need apologize, we'll just erase a bit of the debt they owe the world and put it out of our mind for today" is repulsive to me. "

Its fine to be privileged in a vacuum, and people shouldn't treat you any differently. But to be a person in a position of privilege AND paying to take away the civil rights of a less privileged group AND THEN claiming to be the victim when you lose your job and people gasp judge you based on your actions? VICTIM CARD BABY!

It's pretty clear you're quick to do the same. Stuff like "Maybe this is all invalid to you since I'm a "white male"" is nothing if not you playing the victim card based on being in the most privileged class on the planet...

My point was never that rich white males are awful, just that the whole "holy shit someone pointed out that me abusing my position of power is offensive, time to turn the tables and make me, the rich white male, the real abused one in this saga where an entire class of people had an amendment passed to take away their civil rights. Those people whos rights I took away? They're the real bad people here..."

[scintill76]

Alright, that bit was a little too "victim card." There's nothing more I can productively say about that.

I see what you're saying about the victim mentality, but you're being too broad. (Not that Brendan has even said anything about feeling victimized AFAIK, but people here are on his behalf.) My point is that if we're ever going to have more equality, we have to stop "keeping score" like this. You could at least make it about how a straight person (Brendan) is playing the victim after victimizing non-straights. Make it about the hypocrisy of exercising "free speech" and then being upset when others exercise theirs at you (again I don't think Brendan feels this way), or legislating rights away from others, but please stop dragging in "rich white male." When talking about these issues, the classes are relevant, but none of those are a factor to the class you are accusing him of oppressing. Unless you actually think it would be different if he only discriminated against gay, rich, white males? Or, that not a single middle-class, female latina also supported Prop 8? I feel you just bring them up to remind everyone what the score is and how it should color what we think of Brendan's situation. That's not equality.

[Beliavsky]

The participation of white men in the political process is especially suspect. No bias there.

[ryguytilidie]

I guess I should know better than to imagine that I could point out that someone in a position of privilege probably shouldn't play the victim to a bunch of people in positions of privilege...

[briantakita]

It's the same old game. Demagoguery.

We had the Terrorism scare. We had the WMD scare. We had the communist scare. We had the gay culture scare. Now we have the anti-gay, anti-feminist, & "rape culture" scare.

[ltcoleman]

I really appreciate all of the replies. My main concern lies not at all in the gay marriage debate. It lies in the increased bullying for views that aren't aligned with what individuals believe is right. For example : http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=5506&app=cro

BTW I have no affiliation to campus reform nor do I know what it is.

And for the guy calling the campaign a "hate group".. You should look up SPLC's hate group map, you would love it. And just so you know, that map has allowed "activists" to target institutions for shootings, just look up the Family Research Council.

Once again, I do not affiliate with any of these organizations nor would I because I believe in true love. I believe every human has the right to be loved and listened to in our democracy.

It is when activism becomes violent justice that upsets me.

[Karunamon]

Giving money to a hate group is not a "freedom of speech" OR a "freedom of thought" issue. At that point you've crossed the line from thought to action.

This isn't really hard to understand. And I for one am sick and tired of people invoking the beaten-to-death "but freedom of speeech!" argument when called on bad behavior. Freedom is a two way street.

Not to mention the fact it's a double standard. People saying that Eich did a bad thing is wrong and somehow infringing on freedom, but Eich giving money to a group who wants to legislate fundamentalist religious ideals is not infringing? What the fuck?!

Wow. Downvoted to -4 for calling donating to hate groups wrong. This is a new low for HN.

[forrestthewoods]

Disagree with someone? Quick, declare them a hate group!

[Karunamon]

Pretty sure campaigning for legalized discrimination is the objective definition of a hate group.

[hackinthebochs]

Are those who would be against polyamorous marriage a "hate group"?

[rimantas]

How about interracial marriage instead? Double standards are appaling in this case. I've just read Marco's http://www.marco.org/2014/04/04/political-views and I think he hits the nail on the head.

[hackinthebochs]

I don't find the comparison all that revealing. Clearly, there is no substantive difference between races. However, there are a few obvious substantive differences between genders, and these differences might lead one to a different belief regarding marriage. A belief in outlawing interracial marriage necessarily comes from hateful beliefs. A belief regarding gay marriage doesn't necessarily come from hate/homophobia.

[Karunamon]

Irrelevant.

[hackinthebochs]

Its relevant as it reveals your rationale for defining "hate group" as suspect if you aren't willing to apply that same label to this hypothetical.

[hindsightbias]

> If we continue

So we should have been more tolerant to those who supported segregation and let them just keep on keeping on?

I think recent history is pretty clear, making certain social and political views have consequences has largely been for the greater good. There are no doubt many anecdotes of the opposite. My little "sacrifice" for having been "Un-American" or a "Sadam Lover" a decade ago is nothing compared to what those of another color or sexual preference have gone through in my lifetime.

At some point, people have to pick sides and accept the consequences.

[dailyrorschach]

Isn't the point of a democracy to allow the people to have a voice? It is starting to seem like many progressive groups are trying to vilify an individual's freedom of speech/thought.

Of course, but the norms in society do shift, things that were once seen as deviant standards from the norm, may become accepted for a wide range of reasoning, society and what it expects of its members continually evolves, and has for millennia. I disagree that this is trying to vilify any thought, society has largely shifted, especially in coastal regions on this topic. It is accepted among many in metropolitan, young, urban areas that gay marriage and the rights of gays to couple and be recognized is a civil rights issue. Calling out someone who opposes that, are for many people the same as calling out someone who would presume that interracial marriage is wrong, or that segregation should still exist.

I believe everything starts to collapse when I try to use my beliefs to rally against another individual. Do you really believe that? The nature of the marketplace of ideas, and how society shifts, is essentially exactly this. Beliefs are pursued through elections, advocacy, legal systems, exposure to people. 50 years ago it was unthinkable that gay’s would be accepted and have a protected right in some states to marry, 100 years ago it was unthinkable that blacks and whites would attend the same school together and just about 150 years ago, a war was fought to end slavery. These all come about because beliefs are rallied against other individuals in position of influence and power and a side wins.

I have the belief that our founding fathers knew America would be a melting pot of religions, cultures, and beliefs and that is why they established state's rights to accommodate the beautiful array of citizens of which would make the United States of America. I’ve studied this period in American history a great deal, and I don’t think I’m making a leap to suggest that I do not believe this to be the case at all. The founding fathers in reviewing many of their writings, federalist papers and more, do not seem to anticipate anything but a society rooted in the landed aristocracy they knew and were a part of. The application of the rights in the Bill of Rights was slowly but surely expanded to all people and then slowly but surely enshrined to the states. Consider the text of the 14th amendment, to come after the Civil War and finally settle the issue of who a citizen is, the 15th protecting the right to vote for blacks, the 19th to only come after World War I giving women the right to vote, and the 26th passed in 1971 allowing 18 year olds to vote.

If we’re going to credit the founding fathers with anything its a system that places branches of government at odds with each-other, and that does tend to evolve with society, and not be locked into a set of rules understood as necessary in 1789, although there are plenty who would disagree as well.

If we continue to push one set of beliefs how different are we than North Korea, Iran, etc? Because we aren’t jailing people, we aren’t executing people, we aren’t using the power of law to say you may not speak about an issue. But society and people can decide not to support a position any longer.

This slippery slope has existed always and predates America, imo.

Edit: sorry for any grammatical, formatting errors wrote this from mobile and quickly.