|
|
|
|
|
|
by hippiehippo
4458 days ago
|
|
|
"the consequences of his actions." So I guess that he is fine with a company fireing, let's say, an employee who donated to Obama's compaign because... consequences of his actions, right? To be honest, his reasoning sounds like the communist propaganda from Eastern Europe: you are free NOT to join the Communist Party, but then you won't be able to hold a high(er) ranking position at your job, and you'll be stuck at a mid-level for the rest of your life. See? It's freedom! You are free NOT to sign the donation of your agriculture lands to the State, but then the State will take it anyway. But what matters is that your are free to choose, and... consequences. |
|
|
We play the "freedom" game in lots of cases. You can be racist, you are technically free to act in racist ways in public, but the consequence of such behavior is that most people will choose not to associate with you. You will lose opportunities to do business, to socialize in most cases, and more. So, are you free to be racist? Not really, not if you want to be part of the society, even though the technical answer is yes.
So, the larger society does not "tolerate" racism. And the community of which Mozilla is a part does not "tolerate" the CEO being part of a movement to prevent gays marrying. I don't consider either to be a tragedy. This is about what groups of people will allow, and what they won't.