Slate pro-tip on executive management: Only bad CEOs oppose same-sex marriage

posted at 12:01 pm on April 4, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Actually, Slate has two pieces up today on the Mozilla/Firefox nuttiness that cost Brendan Eich his job as CEO of the company, for a private political donation six years ago for a referendum that passed in California by a significant majority. Let’s see if you can guess which one is the satire. First up is Slate’s senior technology writer Will Oremus:

There was a time when supporting gay marriage made you a radical. Then there was a time when it made you a progressive. Now we’ve reached a point where not supporting gay marriage makes you unfit to lead a major Silicon Valley organization.

Some will say we’ve come too far, too fast—that it’s unfair to pillory someone for a political view that was held by the majority of Californians just six years ago. They’re wrong. …

The notion that your political views shouldn’t affect your employment is a persuasive one. Where would we be as a democracy if Republicans were barred from jobs at Democrat-led companies, or vice versa?

But this is different. Opposing gay marriage in America today is not akin to opposing tax hikes or even the war in Afghanistan. It’s more akin to opposing interracial marriage: It bespeaks a conviction that some people do not deserve the same basic rights as others. An organization like Mozilla might tolerate that in an underling, and it might even tolerate it in a CTO. But in a CEO—the ultimate decision-maker and public face of an organization—it sends an awful message. That’s doubly so for an organization devoted to openness and freedom on the Web—not to mention one with numerous gay employees.

Next, Will Saletan offers advice that the effort shouldn’t stop with Eich, but that the angry mobs should force companies to purge all the bigots:

Some of my colleagues are celebrating. They call Eich a bigot who got what he deserved. I agree. But let’s not stop here. If we’re serious about enforcing the new standard, thousands of other employees who donated to the same anti-gay ballot measure must be punished.

More than 35,000 people gave money to the campaign for Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that declared, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” You can download the entire list, via the Los Angeles Times, as a compressed spreadsheet. (Click the link that says, “Download CSV.”) Each row lists the donor’s employer. If you organize the data by company, you can add up the total number of donors and dollars that came from people associated with that company.

The first thing you’ll notice, if you search for Eich, is that he’s the only Mozilla employee who gave to the campaign for Prop 8. His $1,000 was more than canceled out by three Mozilla employees who donated to the other side.

The next thing you’ll notice is that other companies, including other tech firms, substantially outscored Mozilla in pro-Prop 8 contributions attributed to their employees. That includes Adobe, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Oracle, Sun Microsystems, and Yahoo, as well as Disney, DreamWorks, Gap, and Warner Bros.

Thirty-seven companies in the database are linked to more than 1,300 employees who gave nearly $1 million in combined contributions to the campaign for Prop 8. Twenty-five tech companies are linked to 435 employees who gave more than $300,000. Many of these employees gave $1,000 apiece, if not more. Some, like Eich, are probably senior executives.Why do these bigots still have jobs? Let’s go get them.

As readers have no doubt surmised, Saletan’s is the satire, while Oremus’ should be. What makes a bad CEO can and has filled books, but his private political donations fall very far down any list — except for the so-called “tolerance” and “no-H8″ squads that demand total subjugation to their agenda as the price to pay for public engagement on any level. Oremus noted that no one seemed to have a big problem with Eich’s presence as chief technology officer after the donation was made public, even though that too was an executive-management position with great control over the direction of the company. And despite all of the pitchfork brigade’s fulminating for his removal, no one has offered a single point of fact that indicates that Eich treated LGBTQ employees any differently than others while serving as CTO.

As Saletan points out by looking at the data, the notion that opposition to SSM serves as a definition of fringe thought and bigotry is risible when seeing just how widespread that position is, even in the entertainment industry. Support for the traditional model of marriage goes way beyond the CEO level, obviously. Should companies where that support far outstrips that for SSM demand the resignation of CEOs who support SSM? Stamping out political heterodoxy at the executive level seems to be Oremus’ point, to the extent he has one at all.

Had Eich been chosen as managing editor of The Advocate and this donation came to light, his termination would make a lot more sense. His politics would have been opposite of one of the explicit efforts by that publication. Similarly, since people have used this as a hypothetical, parochial school teachers who refuse to adopt the doctrines of the faith for which the school is designed to educate should know that they will have to find other work (which is why the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the ministerial exception to employment law in those cases). Those are cases where the mission of the organization would be damaged directly by personal political action in opposition to it. In this case, though, there is no such connection between private political action and the operation of the company or service in its mission — as Eich’s long tenure as CTO demonstrated enough for him to get the top job. Mozilla exists to create web technology, not to serve a political or faith mission.

Of course Mozilla’s board can choose to hire and fire as it sees fit, but this shows that demands for “tolerance” and “noH8″ are unidirectional only. The rest of us can choose whether or not to use Mozilla’s products as a result of their intolerance for diversity of political thought. A few weeks ago, I wrote a column about the intolerance of the tolerance brigades, and its conclusion seems even more apropos now:

Tolerance does not mean acceptance or participation. It means allowing people to make their own choices about what they choose to do, and to respect the ability of their fellow citizens to do the same as long as it does no injury to them. What this contretemps shows is that America is getting a lot more intolerant the more “tolerant” we become.

Elizabeth Scalia has a suggestion to put an end to this “illiberal new power”:

If the headline strikes some as offensive, it will nevertheless remain, because that’s the case I’m making, and I’m sticking with it: a gay CEO with a pair of brass ones needs to step up and speak truth to a growing, and most illiberal new power. He or she needs to hire Brendan Eich in some sort of corporate leadership capacity for the sake of the most fundamental of freedoms — the freedom to think what you want to think, even if your thinking is unpopular or deemed “mistaken” — and in so doing boldly declare that our society has no truck with inquisitions. …

The very same people who have declared, “I yam what I yam”, and “we’re here, we’re queer; get used to it,” and who fought against discrimination on the basis of physical or emotional natures are proving themselves empty of magnanimity in victory. They are now saying “don’t be who you are,” and “you’re wrong, you’re gone; get used to it.” They’re applauding employment discrimination on the basis of an intellectual or spiritual philosophy.

What are they, anyway, philosophobes? Are they so terrified of any outlook which does not conform to theirs? I always thought a well-founded argument could withstand a little principled opposition. Apparently not.

Eich’s treatment is a symptom of weakness, not strength. Let’s hope it costs Mozilla, and teaches a lesson for all of the other companies that consider surrender to the “tolerance” squads.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 6

It’s ironic that the company of open software shuts down freedom of thought and belief.

May all who don’t see experience the darkness. It will be upon you, sooner than you can imagine.

These thugs are NOT for equality; they are for thuggery.

Schadenfreude on April 4, 2014 at 12:58 PM

It’s not a First Amendment case in the sense that Eich’s civil rights were violated. It is an awesome case for wrongful termination when one is forced out for expressing their freedom of speech.

Happy Nomad on April 4, 2014 at 12:55 PM

If you can be fired for who you donate to, then you can be fired for who you vote for.

The left is ardently AGAINST the secret ballot (see union “card check”). It won’t be long before “card check” comes to government elections.

ConstantineXI on April 4, 2014 at 12:58 PM

Are you saying Mozilla has no right to repair their public image?

MJBrutus on April 4, 2014 at 12:55 PM

They are caught in a sh*t storm of their own making. Tolerance, indeed. Fascist freaks.

John the Libertarian on April 4, 2014 at 12:59 PM

Once again, I post this not safe for work pic that shows exactly what is coming.

And exactly how much tolerance the left wants. The referenced pic is exactly what the gays want to see happen. And as for Jetboy and others who don’t want to be lumped in–tough. Your movement calls everyone who disagrees a bigot, with very little resistance. If we are engaged in a civil war, then I’m sorry you guys are going to be casualties.

Vanceone on April 4, 2014 at 12:55 PM

We are living in a modern-day Sodom and Gomorrah…

nullrouted on April 4, 2014 at 12:59 PM

John the Libertarian on April 4, 2014 at 12:47 PM

.
If you want to punish them, that’s cool. But this is certainly not a 1st Amendment case.

MJBrutus on April 4, 2014 at 12:48 PM

.
It most certainly is “a 1st Amendment case.”
.
I’ll settle for an apology on account of firing an employee (a CEO) on the basis of “having and stating political beliefs that are contradictory to the political beliefs of the rest of the board member.”
.
But this is absolutely a 1st Amendment case.

listens2glenn on April 4, 2014 at 12:59 PM

His freedom of expression.

Schadenfreude on April 4, 2014 at 12:56 PM

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Please explain.

MJBrutus on April 4, 2014 at 1:00 PM

Tolerance does not mean acceptance or participation. It means allowing people to make their own choices about what they choose to do, and to respect the ability of their fellow citizens to do the same as long as it does no injury to them. What this contretemps shows is that America is getting a lot more intolerant the more “tolerant” we become.
- Ed Morrissey

That’s the thing Ed, leftists frame everything as an injury to them. Their identity group victim ideology means that they will always have some “injury” attached to whatever public policy or cultural value they support. This is also why that which is not prohibited will be mandatory – to not make it mandatory would be injurious.

gwelf on April 4, 2014 at 1:00 PM

oscarwilde on April 4, 2014 at 12:57 PM

That too.

Schadenfreude on April 4, 2014 at 1:00 PM

We are living in a modern-day Sodom and Gomorrah…

nullrouted on April 4, 2014 at 12:59 PM

And I wouldn’t blame God one bit for doing the obvious.

Humanity has become evil. We, the good are a shrinking minority I am afraid.

ConstantineXI on April 4, 2014 at 1:00 PM

This is an actual news headline:

German cemetery sets aside ‘lesbian-only’ burial area after gay women’s group called for somewhere for them to ‘live together in the afterlife’

workingclass artist on April 4, 2014 at 12:40 PM

It’s over by the Koi pond. Opps, this is not a QOTD thread!

HonestLib on April 4, 2014 at 1:00 PM

Please explain.

MJBrutus on April 4, 2014 at 1:00 PM

Verbaluce

Schadenfreude on April 4, 2014 at 1:01 PM

MJBrutus, you are being willfully obtuse, I discredit you. Freedom of speech.

John the Libertarian on April 4, 2014 at 1:02 PM

That’s the thing Ed, leftists frame everything as an injury to them. Their identity group victim ideology means that they will always have some “injury” attached to whatever public policy or cultural value they support. This is also why that which is not prohibited will be mandatory – to not make it mandatory would be injurious.

gwelf on April 4, 2014 at 1:00 PM

The left views opposition and disagreement as injury to them.

You must ACCEPT not only them, but every view that they have. Not just accept it, but EMBRACE it.

That is why the modern Democrat party is indistinguishable from any fascist party of the 20th Century.

ConstantineXI on April 4, 2014 at 1:02 PM

Click here to view Oremus, the face of H8tred:
http://www.onearth.org/files/onearth/imagecache/author_page_image/profile_images/picture-9917.jpg

chuckh on April 4, 2014 at 1:02 PM

Ladies
Guns
Booze
Tobacco

Happy Nomad on April 4, 2014 at 12:53 PM

At the end of the day, isn’t THIS what most Men the World
over truly desire?

If you disagree with me, I’ll have your Azz fired.

ToddPA on April 4, 2014 at 1:02 PM

Schadenfreude on April 4, 2014 at 1:01 PM

Really? Is this what you cried to HA to have you reinstated for? Why did you bother?

MJBrutus on April 4, 2014 at 1:03 PM

Please explain.

MJBrutus on April 4, 2014 at 1:00 PM

Verbaluce

Schadenfreude on April 4, 2014 at 1:01 PM

Maybe …

hawkdriver on April 4, 2014 at 1:03 PM

Schadenfreude on April 4, 2014 at 1:01 PM

Really? Is this what you cried to HA to have you reinstated for? Why did you bother?

MJBrutus on April 4, 2014 at 1:03 PM

That was cheap you idiot. And you do use sock puppets so get off your high horse.

hawkdriver on April 4, 2014 at 1:04 PM

Firefox agreed with black balling Militant gays. Militant gays are a drag. Firefox will understand the drag. As the revenues garnered from use of the browser product dwindle so will the company. Served them well, black balling. F them!

Bmore on April 4, 2014 at 1:04 PM

Do NOT get weak in the knees! Tell their PR folks at press@mozilla.org how you feel.

John the Libertarian on April 4, 2014 at 1:04 PM

It’s all part of a concerted effort to stifle conservative fund raising across the board by terrorizing potential donors.

forest on April 4, 2014 at 1:05 PM

MJBrutus on April 4, 2014 at 1:03 PM

What part of Militant gays having a CEO of a company black balled are you not understanding?

Bmore on April 4, 2014 at 1:05 PM

That was cheap you idiot. And you do use sock puppets so get off your high horse.

hawkdriver on April 4, 2014 at 1:04 PM

Telling more lies, I see. No surprise there.

MJBrutus on April 4, 2014 at 1:06 PM

Please explain.

MJBrutus on April 4, 2014 at 1:00 PM

Are we going to do this all over again?

Are you really this thick?

Freedom of speech is more than just having the government not interfere it’s a society and culture which values tolerance and free expression.

Take the letter written by Mitchell (Mozilla exec) over the Eich situation. She lauded the Mozilla’s community values of “openness”, “tolerance”, and “equality”. It’s Orwellian.

In this specific instance it’s not about government intrusion but it’s about something just as vital – a society which tolerates free speech.

Take a good hard look at the college campus. There you don’t have “government” interfering with speech but you have a culture that hates free speech and demands conformity. It’s toxic and corrosive to a free SOCIETY.

gwelf on April 4, 2014 at 1:07 PM

Bmore on April 4, 2014 at 1:05 PM

That part that has anything to do with the government making a law to abridge speech.

MJBrutus on April 4, 2014 at 1:07 PM

Some pro-life groups wanted people to boycott United Airlines because its CEO chaired a Planned Parenthood event:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/stand-against-united-airlines-ceo-chairing-planned-parenthood-fundraiser.

http://www.catholicvote.org/action-item-tell-united-airlines-to-dump-planned-parenthood/comment-page-2.

Don’t pretend that some conservatives haven’t done the same thing.

jim56 on April 4, 2014 at 1:07 PM

John the Libertarian on April 4, 2014 at 12:53 PM

.
And you problem with that is what? His remarks hurt the company by sparking a public relations backlash of boycotts and protests. Are you saying Mozilla has no right to repair their public image?

MJBrutus on April 4, 2014 at 12:55 PM

.
? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? !
.
After your 12:40 PM comment, you have the nerve to say that ?

You are a major-league sorry-ass.
.

I think it is funny how people are swearing off Mozilla. Nothing wrong with doing that, so please don’t take this as flame bait (yeah, like that will help).

Personally, I haven’t let the politics of my preferred SW maker decide what products I am going to use and I don’t see the point in it. I choose the best for me and let the market sort it out.

MJBrutus on April 4, 2014 at 12:40 PM

listens2glenn on April 4, 2014 at 1:07 PM

MJBrutus on April 4, 2014 at 1:07 PM

Was not aware I sited the government. Where did I do that?

Bmore on April 4, 2014 at 1:08 PM

Take the letter written by Mitchell (Mozilla exec) over the Eich situation. She lauded the Mozilla’s community values of “openness”, “tolerance”, and “equality”. It’s Orwellian.

In this specific instance it’s not about government intrusion but it’s about something just as vital – a society which tolerates free speech.

Take a good hard look at the college campus. There you don’t have “government” interfering with speech but you have a culture that hates free speech and demands conformity. It’s toxic and corrosive to a free SOCIETY.

gwelf on April 4, 2014 at 1:07 PM

Yeah, those people are bullies and jerks. So?

MJBrutus on April 4, 2014 at 1:08 PM

BOYCOTT MOZILLA

Fascist thugs must not win. Tell them how you feel: press@mozilla.org

John the Libertarian on April 4, 2014 at 1:08 PM

It’s ironic that the company of open software shuts down freedom of thought and belief.

May all who don’t see experience the darkness. It will be upon you, sooner than you can imagine.

These thugs are NOT for equality; they are for thuggery.

Schadenfreude on April 4, 2014 at 12:58 PM

It’s revenge they seek. Reparations. That’s what this (and situations like it) are really all about. The playbook is identical to other previously marginalized groups like blacks. And, just like with blacks, once gays get full equality, marriage and all, they will continue to demand more and more special treatment.

What blows my mind is that anyone takes them seriously. Blacks can be over the top in their demands/activism, sure… but that’s a whole race of people. The gay lobby is little more than a bunch of random sexual deviants who have somehow gained legitimacy as a cohort in our culture. I like the explanation I read in an article earlier, saying that straight liberals essentially push for strong support of gays because it gives them cover for their own sexual deviations (ie. At least I’m not gay!).

nullrouted on April 4, 2014 at 1:08 PM

hawkdriver on April 4, 2014 at 1:04 PM

Telling more lies, I see. No surprise there.

MJBrutus on April 4, 2014 at 1:06 PM

Oh, I think it’s PUT PAID.

hawkdriver on April 4, 2014 at 1:08 PM

Bmore on April 4, 2014 at 1:08 PM

You responded to my response about why this is not a 1st Amendment freedom of speech issue.

MJBrutus on April 4, 2014 at 1:08 PM

jim56 on April 4, 2014 at 1:07 PM

You lied to me yesterday. I have the proof.

Bmore on April 4, 2014 at 1:08 PM

Those of us who are deleting Firefox and going to other browsers are not doing so because of the political, social, or religious views of the owners.

We are deleting Firefox to make a statement. We do not care what the company’s CEOs believe.

And if, at this point, you do not know what statement we are attempting to make … , well, you’re stupid.

davidk on April 4, 2014 at 1:09 PM

Eich’s treatment is a symptom of weakness, not strength. Let’s hope it costs Mozilla, and teaches a lesson for all of the other companies that consider surrender to the “tolerance” squads.

I’m guessing that Mozilla is already ruing the day they decided to respond to a bunch of offended gays. I predict in the end it will have been more costly than they ever imagined.

Happy Nomad on April 4, 2014 at 1:10 PM

Oh, I think it’s PUT PAID.

hawkdriver on April 4, 2014 at 1:08 PM

I have never posted here under any other name. You are a liar.

MJBrutus on April 4, 2014 at 1:10 PM

Don’t pretend that some conservatives haven’t done the same thing.

jim56 on April 4, 2014 at 1:07 PM

Who’s pretending otherwise?

There are some elements on the right that do this but it’s a force on the left.

gwelf on April 4, 2014 at 1:11 PM

MJBrutus on April 4, 2014 at 1:08 PM

So to you black balling someone out of a job by stifling his free speech is acceptable to you?

Bmore on April 4, 2014 at 1:11 PM

MJBrutus on April 4, 2014

…quit being a jerk!

KOOLAID2 on April 4, 2014 at 1:12 PM

It’s ironic that the company of open software shuts down freedom of thought and belief.

May all who don’t see experience the darkness. It will be upon you, sooner than you can imagine.

These thugs are NOT for equality; they are for thuggery.

Schadenfreude on April 4, 2014 at 12:58 PM

It’s revenge they seek. Reparations. That’s what this (and situations like it) are really all about. The playbook is identical to other previously marginalized groups like blacks. And, just like with blacks, once gays get full equality, marriage and all, they will continue to demand more and more special treatment.

What blows my mind is that anyone takes them seriously. Blacks can be over the top in their demands/activism, sure… but that’s a whole race of people. The gay lobby is little more than a bunch of random sexual deviants who have somehow gained legitimacy as a cohort in our culture. I like the explanation I read in an article earlier, saying that straight liberals essentially push for strong support of gays because it gives them cover for their own sexual deviations (ie. At least I’m not gay!).

nullrouted on April 4, 2014 at 1:08 PM

Having spent ages at risk of punishment for their own private, now perfectly legal conduct, some gay-rights activists might be happy to destroy someone like Eich — even though there’s zero evidence that he himself opposes gay rights in any respect save marriage, his definition of which is (presumably) guided by religion.

This is like targeting someone because his/her great, great, great, grandfather owned slaves even though you and your ancestors have been free for 150 years.

davidk on April 4, 2014 at 10:16 AM

davidk on April 4, 2014 at 1:12 PM

Bmore on April 4, 2014 at 1:11 PM

I don’t like it. But it is neither illegal nor unconstitutional.

MJBrutus on April 4, 2014 at 1:12 PM

Really? Is this what you cried to HA to have you reinstated for? Why did you bother?

MJBrutus on April 4, 2014 at 1:03 PM

That was cheap you idiot. And you do use sock puppets so get off your high horse.

hawkdriver on April 4, 2014 at 1:04 PM

Wait. Is Bruti Brayam or spathi or something?

And this is just a guess, Bruti, but Will Rogers never met you, right?

Lanceman on April 4, 2014 at 1:12 PM

Take the letter written by Mitchell (Mozilla exec) over the Eich situation. She lauded the Mozilla’s community values of “openness”, “tolerance”, and “equality”. It’s Orwellian.

In this specific instance it’s not about government intrusion but it’s about something just as vital – a society which tolerates free speech.

Take a good hard look at the college campus. There you don’t have “government” interfering with speech but you have a culture that hates free speech and demands conformity. It’s toxic and corrosive to a free SOCIETY.

gwelf on April 4, 2014 at 1:07 PM
Yeah, those people are bullies and jerks. So?

MJBrutus on April 4, 2014 at 1:08 PM

I guess you’re just hopeless. I’ll highlight my comments again for your reading comprehension improvement.

But again, you’re registering your assent to a toxic society that doesn’t value free speech.

gwelf on April 4, 2014 at 1:13 PM

for that being that.
..brutus keeps blathering on and on.

CW on April 4, 2014 at 1:13 PM

Lanceman on April 4, 2014 at 1:12 PM

Rather than compound lies with more lies why don’t you ask HA to check IP addresses?

MJBrutus on April 4, 2014 at 1:13 PM

Even the students here at our college are getting sick and tired of LGBT this and LGBT that, they’ve even organized their own graduation ceremony. The college is all about diversity, but it seems they’re headed more towards divisiveness than acceptance.

scalleywag on April 4, 2014 at 1:14 PM

gwelf on April 4, 2014 at 1:13 PM

I read fine. I don’t like it. However, as I have said over and over (talk about reading incomprehension) it is neither illegal nor unconstitutional.

MJBrutus on April 4, 2014 at 1:15 PM

BOYCOTT MOZILLA

Tell the fascist thugs how you feel: press@mozilla.org

John the Libertarian on April 4, 2014 at 1:15 PM

I have no problem when folks voice their opinions with their wallets, but I do have a problem when one uses their power to stop other from voicing their opinions.

HonestLib on April 4, 2014 at 1:16 PM

I don’t like it. But it is neither illegal nor unconstitutional.

MJBrutus on April 4, 2014 at 1:12 PM

That’s a straw man. No one is claiming it is or should be illegal.

We’re saying it’s toxic to a free SOCIETY.

gwelf on April 4, 2014 at 1:17 PM

Rather than compound lies with more lies why don’t you ask HA to check IP addresses?

MJBrutus on April 4, 2014 at 1:13 PM

I’m just asking, Bruti. I don’t know. And I can’t think of another supposedly conservative commenter with your propensity to piss people off on a variety of subjects. Except for maybe Bradky.

But look at the bright side – Ed likes you.

Lanceman on April 4, 2014 at 1:17 PM

Mjbrutus you are a simpleton. And that is really that.

CW on April 4, 2014 at 1:17 PM

Only sorry-assed board members would fire a CEO for opposing “societal recognition of homosexuality, as a valid, legitimate, alternate state of ‘normal’.”

listens2glenn on April 4, 2014 at 1:18 PM

BTW-

MLK was killed 46 years ago today. I’m sure he didn’t fight for civil rights just so that a bunch of gays could act like intolerant street thugs.

Happy Nomad on April 4, 2014 at 1:18 PM

David Freddoso @freddoso
Now let’s watch all people who misrepresented the Hobby Lobby case explain why @mozilla gets to dictate right and wrong to its employees.

Flora Duh on April 4, 2014 at 1:18 PM

I don’t like it. But it is neither illegal nor unconstitutional.

MJBrutus on April 4, 2014 at 1:12 PM

Acceptable behavior on the part of Militant gays? Or is it acceptable behavior on the part of the Firefox company? Legality or Constitutionality aside.

Bmore on April 4, 2014 at 1:18 PM

I read fine. I don’t like it. However, as I have said over and over (talk about reading incomprehension) it is neither illegal nor unconstitutional.

MJBrutus on April 4, 2014 at 1:15 PM

You don’t like it? It’s hard to tell with you hiding behind your straw man arguments.

Ed and others here think this is outrageous and bodes ill for a free society. But for some reason when we’re talking about society you can’t stop blathering about government.

gwelf on April 4, 2014 at 1:18 PM

That’s a straw man. No one is claiming it is or should be illegal.

We’re saying it’s toxic to a free SOCIETY.

gwelf on April 4, 2014 at 1:17 PM

Everyone who has been squawking about the 1st Amendment and about freedom of speech has been doing just that.

MJBrutus on April 4, 2014 at 1:19 PM

But this is absolutely a 1st Amendment case.
listens2glenn on April 4, 2014 at 12:59 PM

Mmmmm… no. Did congress make a law…?

Akzed on April 4, 2014 at 1:20 PM

BTW-

MLK was killed 46 years ago today. I’m sure he didn’t fight for civil rights just so that a bunch of gays could act like intolerant street thugs.

Happy Nomad on April 4, 2014 at 1:18 PM

Hey man, get with the program. MLK, if he were alive today, would agree that being gay in modern America is just like being a black man or women in chattel slavery or under Jim Crow.

gwelf on April 4, 2014 at 1:20 PM

Bmore on April 4, 2014 at 1:18 PM

Acceptable in what way? It is not illegal so I would not think anyone should be arrested. Reprehensible on the part of the gay bullies? Sure, I could go with that.

MJBrutus on April 4, 2014 at 1:20 PM

gwelf on April 4, 2014 at 1:18 PM

If you tried arguing with what I say and not with what I don’t say you will be far less confused.

MJBrutus on April 4, 2014 at 1:21 PM

so Mjbrutus
thanks anything goes as long as its constitutional?hmm i guess those abolitionists should’ve shut up.

CW on April 4, 2014 at 1:21 PM

Everyone who has been squawking about the 1st Amendment and about freedom of speech has been doing just that.

MJBrutus on April 4, 2014 at 1:19 PM

Most people have been talking about freedom of speech – which has a meaning outside the 1st amendment.

Who exactly has been framing this in terms of the first amendment? One or maybe two commenters? Ed didn’t. Allah hasn’t. 99% of commenters aren’t.

And I haven’t – so why in the sam hill are you referencing the first amendment when responding to my arguments?

So it’s a straw man argument.

gwelf on April 4, 2014 at 1:22 PM

MJBrutus on April 4, 2014 at 1:20 PM

Thanks for somewhat of a clarification. So, boycotting a product or service would not be unacceptable in this instance either. Since it is not illegal to do so, nor Unconstitutional. Correct?

Bmore on April 4, 2014 at 1:23 PM

f you tried arguing with what I say and not with what I don’t say you will be far less confused.

MJBrutus on April 4, 2014 at 1:21 PM

If I’m confused it’s only because you cannot communicate.

I say this is bad for society.

You respond it’s not illegal or unconstitutional.

That’s a complete non-sequitor. If you really do think this is egregious then why didn’t you just agree? Instead you start talking about something I didn’t even bring up. And then say I’m confused by your statements.

gwelf on April 4, 2014 at 1:24 PM

Don’t pretend that some conservatives haven’t done the same thing.

jim56 on April 4, 2014 at 1:07 PM

No one on the right is claiming to be a virtue of “tolerance” “love” “acceptance” and “diversity.”

melle1228 on April 4, 2014 at 1:25 PM

Bmore on April 4, 2014 at 1:23 PM

I still don’t know what you mean by unconstitutional. I also am hesitant to answer a question with so many negatives. I suspect we may not both do our boolean logic the same way :-)

MJBrutus on April 4, 2014 at 1:25 PM

MJBrutus on April 4, 2014 at 1:25 PM

I’m sorry, I meant “unacceptable” not “unconstitutional” in that sentence.

MJBrutus on April 4, 2014 at 1:27 PM

Wow, some one’s bucking for Grand PooBah Troll A$$hole on this thread.

We try harder.

BigWyo on April 4, 2014 at 1:27 PM

I suspect we may not both do our boolean logic the same way :-)

MJBrutus on April 4, 2014 at 1:25 PM

I suspect your boolean logic requires a complete systems debug.

oscarwilde on April 4, 2014 at 1:28 PM

MJBrutus on April 4, 2014 at 1:25 PM

Okay. Lets try this. You would have no issue with a boycott of Firefox?

Bmore on April 4, 2014 at 1:28 PM

Lanceman on April 4, 2014 at 1:12 PM

Rather than compound lies with more lies why don’t you ask HA to check IP addresses?

MJBrutus on April 4, 2014 at 1:13 PM

pfffft

hawkdriver on April 4, 2014 at 1:29 PM

Bmore on April 4, 2014 at 1:28 PM

Correct. Boycott away!

MJBrutus on April 4, 2014 at 1:29 PM

hawkdriver on April 4, 2014 at 1:29 PM

Well, why don’t you?

MJBrutus on April 4, 2014 at 1:30 PM

I am thoroughly enjoying many products today not made by the Thought Nazi’s.

If you want to force your philosophy upon people, or yield to corporate terrorists, perhaps you should find another job besides representing a company.

The main purpose of a business is to sell product and make a profit. Dividing, chastising and offending your base of clients, under the guise of corporate responsibility, especially when they are in the majority will get you one thing. It will put you out of business.

It’s a free market. At least for now and until the government forces us to buy more things.

By the way, that reminds me: John Roberts go sit on your thumb.

Marcus Traianus on April 4, 2014 at 1:30 PM

MJBrutus on April 4, 2014 at 1:25 PM

So, that said, if I changed your comment to read,

Correct. Blackball away!

MJBrutus on April 4, 2014 at 1:29 PM

you would have no issue with that as well?

Bmore on April 4, 2014 at 1:32 PM

Take a good hard look at the college campus. There you don’t have “government” interfering with speech but you have a culture that hates free speech and demands conformity. It’s toxic and corrosive to a free SOCIETY.

gwelf on April 4, 2014 at 1:07 PM

Exactly.

The cornerstone of an Orwellian totalitarian society is the focus on ‘groupthink’ and ‘groupspeak’ as being the ONLY acceptable thought and speech. Anything outside of that is considered subversive and to be utterly and completely crushed until everyone agrees 2+2=5.

It’s intended to be toxic to a free society, because the antithesis of a free society is a totalitarian society. The left today desires a totalitarian society in order to achieve their ‘utopia on earth’. To achieve this desire, the ‘ends justifies the means’, and ‘tolerance’, ‘equal rights’, ‘fairness’, and ‘justice’ are as they define it – and only available to those who share their ‘groupthink’.

Athos on April 4, 2014 at 1:32 PM

Web browsers listing for Windows

This link provides a long list of browsers that will work on Windows.

Kaffa on April 4, 2014 at 1:32 PM

Bmore on April 4, 2014 at 1:32 PM

I don’t know what you mean by “blackball” :-)

MJBrutus on April 4, 2014 at 1:33 PM

Hey man, get with the program. MLK, if he were alive today, would agree that being gay in modern America is just like being a black man or women in chattel slavery or under Jim Crow.

gwelf on April 4, 2014 at 1:20 PM

Yeah, and being turned down by a bakery or photographer on your “special day” is just like the atrocities of Bloody Sunday.

Happy Nomad on April 4, 2014 at 1:33 PM

Don’t pretend that some conservatives haven’t done the same thing.

jim56 on April 4, 2014 at 1:07 PM

No one on the right is claiming to be a virtue of “tolerance” “love” “acceptance” and “diversity.”

melle1228 on April 4, 2014 at 1:25 PM

–Then don’t complain. The left was just successful in its boycott when the right wasn’t. I don’t recall any conservatives standing up for the United Airlines’ CEO when the pro-life organizations called for the United Airlines boycott.

jim56 on April 4, 2014 at 1:34 PM

I don’t know what you mean by “blackball” :-)

MJBrutus on April 4, 2014 at 1:33 PM

blackball

Bmore on April 4, 2014 at 1:35 PM

Don’t pretend that some conservatives haven’t done the same thing.

jim56 on April 4, 2014 at 1:07 PM

No one on the right is claiming to be a virtue of “tolerance” “love” “acceptance” and “diversity.”

melle1228 on April 4, 2014 at 1:25 PM

I don’t remember that CEO losing his job for it, nor do I remember anyone calling for his resignation.

I’m guessing the company told the boycotters to pound sand.

CurtZHP on April 4, 2014 at 1:35 PM

–Then don’t complain. The left was just successful in its boycott when the right wasn’t. I don’t recall any conservatives standing up for the United Airlines’ CEO when the pro-life organizations called for the United Airlines boycott.

jim56 on April 4, 2014 at 1:34 PM

On a thread yesterday I asked you straight up had you been banned before. You said no. Was that a lie?

Bmore on April 4, 2014 at 1:36 PM

Most people have been talking about freedom of speech – which has a meaning outside the 1st amendment. Who exactly has been framing this in terms of the first amendment? gwelf on April 4, 2014 at 1:22 PM

You mean aside from quoting it?!

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Look, if I punched someone in the nose for saying something I didn’t like, it wouldn’t be a free speech issue. If I boycotted some company whose politics I didn’t like, it wouldn’t be an establishment of religion. But when govt tells employers to buy their staff rubbers, that violates the free exercise clause.

What’s the difference in those three examples? In the last, the fed govt is involved.

If I stood out front of my place of employment and screamed lies about the company to passersby, it would not be a freedom of speech issue were my boss to fire me.

What’s so hard to understand?!

Akzed on April 4, 2014 at 1:36 PM

blackball

Bmore on April 4, 2014 at 1:35 PM

That sounds raaaacist anymore.

Like blackwalls, black-listed, boot-black and blackberry.

Lanceman on April 4, 2014 at 1:37 PM

Bmore on April 4, 2014 at 1:35 PM

Sure. Blackball away!

MJBrutus on April 4, 2014 at 1:38 PM

hawkdriver on April 4, 2014 at 1:29 PM

Well, why don’t you?

MJBrutus on April 4, 2014 at 1:30 PM

1. Not necessary. A person’s writing style and colloquiums are a better indicator.

B. IPs are the easiest thing to mask.

hawkdriver on April 4, 2014 at 1:38 PM

On a thread yesterday I asked you straight up had you been banned before. You said no. Was that a lie?

Bmore on April 4, 2014 at 1:36 PM

Yes, it was most definitely a lie. He is Jamesbo3. They ain’t very creative when it comes to new names.

Lanceman on April 4, 2014 at 1:39 PM

Lanceman on April 4, 2014 at 1:37 PM

Nope. Not racist. Just a very serious matter.

Bmore on April 4, 2014 at 1:39 PM

hawkdriver on April 4, 2014 at 1:38 PM

And lies are even easier. You are a liar. It’s that simple.

MJBrutus on April 4, 2014 at 1:40 PM

Bmore on April 4, 2014 at 1:35 PM

Sure. Blackball away!

MJBrutus on April 4, 2014 at 1:38 PM

So your entire commentary here was just to poke the rubes?

hawkdriver on April 4, 2014 at 1:40 PM

MJBrutus on April 4, 2014 at 1:38 PM

Okay. One last inquiry if I may. Have you ever been black balled?

Bmore on April 4, 2014 at 1:40 PM

Yes, it was most definitely a lie. He is Jamesbo3. They ain’t very creative when it comes to new names. Lanceman on April 4, 2014 at 1:39 PM

How can you tell?

Akzed on April 4, 2014 at 1:40 PM

Nope. Not racist. Just a very serious matter.

Bmore on April 4, 2014 at 1:39 PM

That shouldn’t have warranted a response, my Bmorian friend. My spelling of ‘raaaacist’ was a giveaway. :P

Lanceman on April 4, 2014 at 1:40 PM

Does this mean it’s ok to push out/fire people in any job who support gay marriage? Wow. We can do that? That’s awesome!

Dongemaharu on April 4, 2014 at 1:41 PM

hawkdriver on April 4, 2014 at 1:38 PM

And lies are even easier. You are a liar. It’s that simple.

MJBrutus on April 4, 2014 at 1:40 PM

Easier still to call someone a liar. Liar. And if we were incorrect, we’d be … incorrect. Wouldn’t make us liars.

You’re so smart.

hawkdriver on April 4, 2014 at 1:41 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 6