[dclowd9901]

He's right. And so the fuck what?

It's not the reasoning I care about. It's never been about the reasoning. No one ever bought any bullshit about "community standards" even when it was being used to oust gays. It was about the act of marginalizing individuals over something that literally affects nobody else.

If a gay person works at my company, his being gay will have no affect on my livelihood. People with an anti-gay agenda have made a choice to stand in the way of progress. That means their actions negatively affect the people around them, malevolent. They're entitled to no consideration, because it's their choice to ostracize themselves for their ignorance. It should be seen the same as firing someone who habitually shits on the bathroom floor.

[news_to_me]

"If an anti-gay person works at my company, his being anti-gay will have no affect on my livelihood. People with a gay agenda have made a choice to stand in the way of progress. That means their actions negatively affect the people around them, malevolent. They're entitled to no consideration, because it's their choice to ostracize themselves for their ignorance. It should be seen the same as firing someone who habitually shits on the bathroom floor."

See how this goes both ways?

[differentView]

Do you believe gay people being allowed to marry negatively affect you? If so, how?

[news_to_me]

No, but neither can I see how Eich, in this particular context, was negatively affecting anyone at Mozilla. Folks were uncomfortable with a private choice he made, just like some people are uncomfortable that some gay people choose to get married.

[differentView]

Eich is one of those people. So much so that he put money into supporting a law that actively banned same-sex marriage. Mozilla is a company that is friendly to same-sex marriage, if people don't want that changed, they shouldn't support a CEO that could change that.

[stcredzero]

Do you believe gay people being allowed to marry negatively affect you? If so, how?

Is your immediate reaction to someone talking about a general principle to always assume it's cryptic opposition to your particular political views?

[differentView]

No, I asked that question because of what he wrote, "People with a gay agenda have made a choice to stand in the way of progress. That means their actions negatively affect the people around them, malevolent."

[stcredzero]

That's interesting. Do you have a link/citation?

[differentView]

What are you talking about? Read the parent comment.

[chc]

That's the same thing they said about gays and miscegenators. They weren't opposed just because people were on their high horses — no, it was the damage that gays and miscegenators did to society that required us to run them out of society.

In the end, it's all just "You hold the opposite opinion from me about what's good for society, so I'm going to try to evict you from society."

[dclowd9901]

Believing homosexual behavior undermines society is predicated on a false premise: biblical morality.

Doing shitty things that undermine the lives of others is objectively evil.

[chc]

> Believing homosexual behavior undermines society is predicated on a false premise: biblical morality.

And they think your morality is predicated on a false premise. The point is that I still expect them to treat you decently, and I expect you to treat them decently.

> Doing shitty things that undermine the lives of others is objectively evil.

Like petitioning to get them fired from their jobs? That kind of thing?

[dclowd9901]

I can see how you would think being fired from a job is on the same level as not being allowed to freely live your life without someone shitting on your rights. Wait no I don't.

Everyone is entitled to free speech, but that doesn't mean there aren't consequences for what you decide to do with it.

[secstate]

Thanks for the well-positioned comment. I had half a mind to nod my head at this article, but you're so right. The problem with Eich's donation was that it made an otherwise-unnecessary personal opinion perfectly obvious.

Actively contributing to a campaign to crush individual rights is a pretty strong indicator that as a CEO he'd have trouble living up to all sorts of equal-opportunity employers requirements.

Yeah, it sucks that this was dragged into the public, and don't even get be started on the waste-land of cable news. But he probably should have thought of the employment implications in donating to a campaign against gays before he did it.

I like the bathroom floor analogy, because there's a tacit social contract that we don't shit on the floor. Same is true in business. He's free to say whatever he wants in public, but he's also free to be heavily encouraged to resign over whatever is he DOES say.

[stcredzero]

Actively contributing to a campaign to crush individual rights is a pretty strong indicator that as a CEO he'd have trouble living up to all sorts of equal-opportunity employers requirements.

The actual policies of the organization he helped to run would suggest exactly the opposite.