#151 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3556 posts) -

I'm going to be replying inside your own post, so I can take your issues point by point, and don't have to repeatedly copy / paste. You might be surprised to find that we actually agree on several points.

@brodehouse said:

@spaceinsomniac: Did Brendan Eich use or not use his financial resources to attempt to make marriages between gays illegal? Please answer.

If something is illegal, it's pretty much always punishable by prison or a fine. In this sense, he did not use his financial resources to attempt to make gay marriage illegal. He used his financial resources to not make gay marriage recognized by our government. More specifically, several years ago, he used his vast financial resources to donate 1000 dollars to an organization that is opposed to gay marriage. That's not the work of someone who wants to destroy gay marriage. It's an action from someone who gave a "charity" a very small donation, likely out of guilt, and likely because he believed that it was the right thing to do, according to his faith.

You seem to be insisting that I'm misrepresenting Brendan Eich when I say that he used his financial resources to promote inequality. That's exactly what happened.

That is exactly what happened. It's very much an issue of inequality, and I roll my eyes every time I hear that stupid passive-aggressive "gay men can legally marry; they can marry any woman they want, because that's what marriage is" argument. But that doesn't make it any less true that marriage, for millions and millions of religious people, is a considered a religious rite between a man and a woman.

He gave money to a specific campaign whose specific purpose is to skip around the Constitution and write off any same-sex marriages, even those of married gay people who enter the state. Find a way to falsify that.

That's a very compelling point, but that's not what you suggested when you said "I will continue to attempt to use my financial resources to make your marriages and relationships illegal and punishable by prison." That was complete hyperbole.

Straight up; do you feel that wanting to outlaw same sex marriage is much different than wanting to outlaw interracial marriage?

Gay sex is considered sin in the Bible. Interracial sex is not. Other than that, they're exactly the same.

Your bit on religious people is categorically erroneous. For one, it doesn't say in the Bible that homosexuality should be punishable by prison, it also doesn't say that gay marriage should be illegal in the nation you live in, and yet here we are. It doesn't say that gay people should be violently attacked and yet that happens. It's because it's not about what it says in the Bible, it's about being taught from the time they were children to hate gays and to not be a gay and to make other gays stop being gay by force. The religious are the reason why homosexuality was punishable by prisons, asylums or worse, for decades upon centuries. For you to claim that they would never, ever harm homosexuals is absolutely ridiculous. They have been campaigning for and occasionally winning the right to imprison, torture and destroy homosexuals since longer than you've been alive. They are not campaigning for it now because no one else would stand for it anymore, but when they could imprison and destroy homosexuals, they did. If they could again, they would. They can get away with it in Uganda, so they do. If they could get away with it here, they would.

Wow. Now THAT is some hate. On your part, that is.

When did I ever claim that the religious never harmed homosexuals throughout history? I'm talking about religious people here and now, in the US, which is what we're actually talking about. Catholics once persecuted Christians with torture, but I don't fear that from the current Pope, or think that "he's not campaigning for it now because no one else would stand for it anymore, but if he could again, he would." That is absolutely ridiculous. Hate and violence go against everything that most religions truly stand for. Turn the other cheek, hate the sin but love the sinner, judge not least ye be judged yourself, let he who is without sin cast the first stone, etc. There's a lot of that in the Bible. You don't have to look too hard to find it.

You "don't buy the argument that religious people should accept gay sex with open arms because of which way the wind is blowing". That's great because I never fucking made that argument. I didn't even fucking mention religious people until you brought it up.

You can't talk about this topic without "even fucking mentioning religious people." That's the entire point of the argument against gay marriage. That's the actual debate here, and what makes this such an interesting topic.

Religious people should afford gay people an equal level of rights and respect as every other person in society, but they don't, and they won't. Instead they'll cling on to their book of nonsense from 3000 years ago and act as if ignorant desert priests who had never seen an ocean knew more about the world than we did. They will use this to justify homosexuals having a different legal standard than heterosexuals, because their stupid book of myths said so. Perhaps next the Norse Church can tell us that blacks can't have their relationships "be recognized by the state", because it would offend Thor.

Thor is great. Especially that second movie. Much better than the first.

Either way, many of these same people also deny themselves birth control, refuse to masturbate, don't have sex until marriage, don't eat pork, give away 10% of their money, etc "because their stupid book of myths said so," as you've put it. So when that same book tells them to not be cool with the whole butt sex thing, it doesn't surprise me that they continue to follow what their religion teaches, and it doesn't automatically make them "hateful bigots" because of it.

The line about "I know a lot of Christians who would never hurt gay people". I know a lot of Christians who are pro-gay marriage, for all the obvious secular, ethical reasons. My best friend is a Christian pastor. However, that does not change the fact that many, many Christians justify their own bigotry and proxy state violence against gays entirely because of what they erroneously believe about the world. There are plenty of examples of what happens when the religious make their laws into national laws.

You bring up some people "forced" to do things against their religion. Most businesses would force their employees to offer service to gays because most businesses are interested in treating their customers well. I find a "religious exemption" from making cakes for gay people would be like a gas attendant claiming a "religious exemption" from filling up the gas tank of anyone they think is a little flitty. That's not someone attempting to be true to their religion's doctrine, that's about pressuring gays and making their lives difficult for no other reason than the stupid Goddamn lies about the world they learned as children.

A little flitty? Is that a typo? Not sure what you're getting at there.

In the case of people who own their own business; I would actually be fine if they want to discriminate against gay customers. Because then I and everyone else with a conscience can discriminate against them as a consumer. But if you tell me that the treatment I receive from the pharmacist at WalMart should be however their religion tells them to treat me, then I'll have to call WalMart's human resources department and make sure that all employees are adhering to their codes of conduct.

I feel the same way. While I personally wouldn't have an issue with a religious baker refusing to create a cake for a gay marriage that they believe to be an affront to God, I absolutely am fine with others not being cool with that, and "voting with their wallet" as it were. I also am fine with OK Cupid's stance on this issue, despite the hypocrisy that others have already pointed out.

Lastly, I find it very odd that you doubled down on Eich's religion, when I had not even mentioned it. I don't even know what Eich's religion is, and I don't know if that's why he decided that gay people were not subject to the same rights and privileges as straights. I only know that he did, and your "nuh uh" does not change what he did.

Religion doesn't change what he did. It explains why he did it. It also doesn't mean that I agree with it.

Seeing as I've answered several of your questions, could you do me the favor of answering several of mine concerning the complications that could arise from this and similar issues?

Do you believe that a Jewish owned and operated restaurants should be forced to offer ham, bacon, and sausage? Probably not.

Do you believe that religious bakers and wedding gown designers should be forced to create cakes and dresses for gay marriages that they believe to be an affront to God?

Do you believe that religious business owners should be allowed to refuse service to gay people, even though the service they provide has nothing to do with marriage?

Do you believe that religious business owners should be forced to provide birth control to their employees, despite it being against their religion?

Do you believe that religious owned and operated hospitals should be forced to provide birth control for their patients, despite it being against their religion?

Do you believe that religious owned and operated hospitals should be forced to provide abortion services for their patients, despite it being against their religion?

These are interesting topics, and what this debate is really all about. Where do religious rights end, and individual rights begin?

Online
#152 Posted by Milkman (16527 posts) -

Do you believe that a Jewish owned and operated restaurants should be forced to offer ham, bacon, and sausage? Probably not.

No

Do you believe that religious bakers and wedding gown designers should be forced to create cakes and dresses for gay marriages that they believe to be an affront to God?

Yes

Do you believe that religious business owners should be allowed to refuse service to gay people, even though the service they provide has nothing to do with marriage?

No

Do you believe that religious business owners should be forced to provide birth control to their employees, despite it being against their religion?

Yes

Do you believe that religious owned and operated hospitals should be forced to provide birth control for their patients, despite it being against their religion?

Yes

Do you believe that religious owned and operated hospitals should be forced to provide abortion services for their patients, despite it being against their religion?

Yes

These are interesting topics, and what this debate is really all about. Where do religious rights end, and individual rights begin?

Online
#153 Posted by joshwent (2113 posts) -

@milkman: Wow that's scary.

Does it make any sense that the types of social control by the government that you're apparently in favor of is the exact same abuse of power that enforced institutional racism in the US in the first place?

I'm an Atheist so I have no "religious" point of view. I also believe wholeheartedly that any people should be able to marry any other people for whatever reason they want. But to be in favor of forcing an individual to act and work towards something that they find morally reprehensible is pretty disgusting to me.

What is left of freedom without the ability to peacefully say, "No."?

#154 Posted by Milkman (16527 posts) -

@joshwent: Your religion doesn't give you the right to not obey the law.

Online
#155 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3556 posts) -

@joshwent said:

@milkman: Wow that's scary.

Does it make any sense that the types of social control by the government that you're apparently in favor of is the exact same abuse of power that enforced institutional racism in the US in the first place?

I'm an Atheist so I have no "religious" point of view. I also believe wholeheartedly that any people should be able to marry any other people for whatever reason they want. But to be in favor of forcing an individual to act and work towards something that they find morally reprehensible is pretty disgusting to me.

What is left of freedom without the ability to peacefully say, "No."?

Yep. This is where the interesting debate begins. And for the record, I do support gay marriage.

Online
#156 Edited by joshwent (2113 posts) -
@milkman said:

Your religion doesn't give you the right to not obey the law.

It's hard to have a conversation when you don't respond to anything I actually said.

Anyway... if you could specify what "the law" is, and then show that isn't contradicted by a ton of other laws, we could talk about that point. But the larger one that you seem to be avoiding is a point about freedom.

If I were a business owner, I'd be very concerned about my rights to choose who I allowed and didn't allow into my private property and who I chose to do work for. If I sold cakes, and someone came in acting belligerent and started cursing at me, I'd ask them to leave. If someone with swastika tattoos came in, I might refuse to serve them, as I might not be comfortable taking their money. If a gay couple wanted a cake, I'd say, "Cool!" and make them a damn cake.

But if I were forced to serve all of those people, I'd feel like my rights as an individual were being impeded on. Would you disagree?

#157 Edited by Jay_Ray (1070 posts) -

@joshwent: Sure as hell sounds like you support segregation in private businesses. We have forced businesses to serve all skin colours, why not force them to serve people of all sexuality and genders.

#158 Posted by TheHT (10884 posts) -

@joshwent: I don't think it's very reasonable to compare being gay to being belligerent or a neo-nazi.

To your prior post, the difference between enforcing racism and enforcing freedom of sexuality should be obvious. I'm assuming americans are not free to deny service based on race, so why would denying service based on sexuality be of any lesser worth? Or would you support a proprietor being able to deny service based on race in order to bolster this notion of "the freedom to say no"?

#159 Edited by Milkman (16527 posts) -

@joshwent: A person acting belligerent and a person being gay are two very different things. If a person comes into your store and is being an asshole, then obviously you can refuse them serve. Someone getting a swastika tattoo is a choice and one that represents hate of a certain group of people. No one was born with a swastika tattoo.

Being gay is not a lifestyle choice. It's a person's born sexuality. Refusing to a serve someone who is gay is the same thing as refusing to serve someone because they are black. Again, I don't care what your religious beliefs are. It's wrong.

Online
#160 Edited by joshwent (2113 posts) -
@jay_ray said:

Sure as hell sounds like you support segregation in private businesses.

100% correct.

To be crystal clear, I abhor bigotry in all its forms. I am completely for all people (gay folks included of course) to have identical rights. The marriage "debate" isn't a debate at all to me in that it's a clear instance of government enforced segregation and it should be rectified this fucking second.

But when it comes to forcing an individual to act in any specific way lest their rights be taken away, I can't tolerate it. Government interference in the non-violent actions of any individual is a risk to all of us. Allowing the government to legislate morality is exactly the mentality that lead to Jim Crow laws, has lead to Prop 8 type limits on marriage, and tons of other irrational horrible (and actually unconstitutional) limits on our personal freedom. Compassionate Conservatism (aka, policies derived from his specific world-view) was the rally cry of George W. Bush, and liberals stood strong and said, "No! The government does not have the power to force us to act how you want us to."

Now we've come full circle and those same people are arguing against their former selves, wishing that they'd just shut up and do what they're told.

You can't make laws against assholes. There are bigots and dumb people and any kind of regulation can't change that. But in fact, allowing people to segregate when the government isn't involved would have the same effect that you (and I) already want it to.

Consider, I own a bakery and I compete with Sally's bakery a few blocks away. Sally's believes that gay people are an affront to her faith so she chooses not to sell to them. I have no qualms with any groups so I sell to everybody. Who's store is going to do better? In this age of Yelp and Twitter and internet outrage, people pissed at Sally's policies will also stop shopping there. Hell, local people would probably write about the situation giving me free publicity just for not being a dick. I'd imagine, after a while, I'd have many more customers than she does. And even if her policies of discrimination actually attract some people that agree with her to shop there, it's just a clearer indication that those who disagree might not want to give her money.

I could go on, but I've already derailed this thread. I'll just end this by saying that no one's moral code is affected by laws. If someone hating jews or asians or anything is made illegal, their hate will persist. Progress and change are only reached through positive personal interactions. But if those interactions are forced with the threat of legal repercussions, it will only delay and obscure or potentially destroy that desired understanding.

@theht said:

I don't think it's very reasonable to compare being gay to being belligerent or a neo-nazi.

I agree! I wasn't trying to compare one's sexuality with one's political beliefs or someone being a jerk. I was offering examples of people that I might wish to not be forced to serve, and as I don't hold negative feelings about any group based on their sex, race, gender, orientation, age, whatever else, those were just the examples that I could personally use.

@milkman said:

Again, I don't care what your religious beliefs are. It's wrong.

The irony is that this is the exact thing that the store owner who doesn't want to serve the gay couple would say.

I agree with you that it's wrong. But who are we to legally force another human being to act based on nothing more than our own moriality?

What situation are we in when we can force a person, a person equal to us, who has done nothing but held to her beliefs, to live and work how we want her to?

#161 Edited by Shadow (4977 posts) -

On the one hand, they're driving down traffic to their site from Firefox users. On the other hand, they're driving up membership by appealing to the very large "anyone who says anything bad about gays ever should die in a fire" portion of the internet. There are dickheads with terrible world views who are higher-ups in every nearly every company, and the Firefox product has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. It's like the whole boycotting Ender's Game thing because Orson Scott Card is against gay people. Yeah that makes him a bad person, but it also has zero to do with the movie which doesn't even mention any form of sexuality, gay or otherwise.

As a marketing strategy to drive up user numbers, this is a genius stunt on the part of OkCupid. I'm not saying that was their sole purpose in doing this, but it was certainly a factor. When you run an internet software company, you don't just stop supporting a browser on a whim because of a change in that browser's leadership, without considering every possible outcome.

#162 Posted by Jay_Ray (1070 posts) -

@joshwent: I disagree with your stance but respect your opinion. I do not have enough faith (especially in certain regions) for there to be enough social justice to prevent segregation as you would hope.

On topic, I see no problem in OK Cupid informing there users (some of whom are directly affected) of this CEOs opinion. Only people who are fully informed can make a proper decision, even if it is as simple as what browser to use.

#163 Edited by TheHT (10884 posts) -

@joshwent said:

You can't make laws against assholes. There are bigots and dumb people and any kind of regulation can't change that. But in fact, allowing people to segregate when the government isn't involved would have the same effect that you (and I) already want it to.

That's not quite the ambition though. Not changing the hearts and minds of individual assholes, but trying to change the laws that run contrary to the basic principles of the civilization. Freedom from discrimination, not freedom to discriminate. You might still be looked down upon by some, but in the eyes of the law and the land you won't be.

Why would it matter then? It's a step towards the bigger picture, one where the hateful and misguided fall further into obscurity, taking with them parts of what divide us.

I don't see how a passive approach would be better. Letting capitalism somehow weed out discrimination rather than have the code that is the framework of the society refined to closer approximate its ideal.

#164 Posted by MikeJFlick (438 posts) -

I like firefox too much to care what opinion the CEO has.

#165 Edited by Brodehouse (9586 posts) -

@spaceinsomniac said:

If something is illegal, it's pretty much always punishable by prison or a fine. In this sense, he did not use his financial resources to attempt to make gay marriage illegal. He used his financial resources to not make gay marriage recognized by our government.

Well if that isn't the most incredible shifting of the goalposts I have ever seen. It's not that they're making gay marriage illegal, it's just that any document you have that legally states you have been married to another person of the same sex is null and void. It's not that we're making what you do into something you can be punished for, yet.

(There's a video that goes into all the problems that can be faced by a gay married couple entering a state that does not recognize their marriage, especially if they have adopted children. But I am SOL in regards to ever finding it again.)

It's an action from someone who gave a "charity" a very small donation, likely out of guilt, and likely because he believed that it was the right thing to do, according to his faith.

Then he is the latest of billions upon billions to harm others because of what his "faith" told him was the right thing to do. Perhaps next time he should ask the people he's directly affecting how they feel about it. That he thought it was the right thing to do based on his faith in no way absolves him. You know what would absolve him? An actual apology.

But that doesn't make it any less true that marriage, for millions and millions of religious people, is a considered a religious rite between a man and a woman.

Their misunderstanding of both the history of marriage and Constitutional law might lead them to think it's a religious rite, but that in no way constitutes them having a religious right for it to be one. Unfortunately, Christianity or any other religion doesn't actually get to define marriage, because they have no authority over it. Marriage is a secular right afforded to any citizen of the country (in the West, at least), and authority over who is and is not considered legally married has nothing to do with any pastor or verse.

That's a very compelling point, but that's not what you suggested when you said "I will continue to attempt to use my financial resources to make your marriages and relationships illegal and punishable by prison." That was complete hyperbole.

It's not a hyperbole if you're honest about the history of gay treatment by the religious. It's a promise found in doctrine.

Wow. Now THAT is some hate. On your part, that is.

I don't like religion because it makes good people do terrible things and fully believe they're doing good. As evidenced in this thread. Steven Weinberg said that the best will do the best they can, the worst will do the worst they can, but it takes religion to make the best do their worst.

When did I ever claim that the religious never harmed homosexuals throughout history? I'm talking about religious people here and now, in the US, which is what we're actually talking about. Catholics once persecuted Christians with torture, but I don't fear that from the current Pope, or think that "he's not campaigning for it now because no one else would stand for it anymore, but if he could again, he would." That is absolutely ridiculous. Hate and violence go against everything that most religions truly stand for. Turn the other cheek, hate the sin but love the sinner, judge not least ye be judged yourself, let he who is without sin cast the first stone, etc. There's a lot of that in the Bible. You don't have to look too hard to find it.

There is absolutely nothing ridiculous about the notion that if the Catholic church continued to have temporal power as they did in medieval times, they would not begin the same abuses. We are twenty years removed from a Eastern European genocide between Protestants and Catholics and Muslims, but you imagine that it would be impossible for a bloody schism to ever happen. I'd advise you to walk through some Belfast neighborhoods wearing orange and see exactly how schismatic the Christian religion continues to be. I don't know how you can possibly think that. They have a book supposedly dating back millennia, that is never supposed to change or be altered, suggests everything that exists in this world is meaningless and commands the faithful to scorn and villify homosexuals.... but you think it's absolutely ridiculous that they might start acting like they did when they had power if they were given power again.

I think it's unlikely that any Christian religion ever has that power again, because Western civilization has advanced past a point where they can remain relevant. Which is why they focus so much of their missionary work in Africa and other developing nations, they're the only place where education has not surpassed their bleak worldview. They'll become increasingly less relevant here because the majority of the Western world prefers the freedom and standard of living of their secular lives to the bloody, 3rd century dogma they find in their religious lives.

You can't talk about this topic without "even fucking mentioning religious people." That's the entire point of the argument against gay marriage. That's the actual debate here, and what makes this such an interesting topic.

What debate? What point? They don't have a point. They feel they have a religious right to control the rights that a secular, non-religious government offers to specific members of the population who the religious don't like.

Seriously. They do not have a point. All they have is that they don't like that some people are capable of receiving rights that they also enjoy, and they feel that they have personal ownership of this right. They're wrong. They do not have a point.

Before I go into your questions, I want to state that I'm not actually entirely tuned in to American employment standards and labor laws, and my understanding of Canadian ones are functional at best. So I might not actually know what laws are enforced where.

Do you believe that a Jewish owned and operated restaurants should be forced to offer ham, bacon, and sausage? Probably not.

No, cause it's kind of patently silly. A law that prevents businesses from discriminating against their customers does not force them to sell a specific product. Especially because of the religion/ethnicity of the owners. That makes less than no sense.

Do you believe that religious bakers and wedding gown designers should be forced to create cakes and dresses for gay marriages that they believe to be an affront to God?

If they're working for a company, then I don't understand how they would not be.

Also, why are you drawing the line at gay marriages? They consider homosexuals to be an affront to God. If they're allowed to refuse helping gay customers plan their weddings, they'd be allowed to refuse to serve gay people food, or refuse to sell them groceries. They'd be allowed to refuse to serve black people food, as long as they claimed it was a religiously inspired feeling.

Do you believe that religious business owners should be allowed to refuse service to gay people, even though the service they provide has nothing to do with marriage?

Aha. Last question makes sense now. I would say yes, but only because I don't like religion, and such an action would reveal the ignorant, bullying, hateful side of it to any reasonable person. Legally, I would say no, for all the obvious reasons.

Do you believe that religious business owners should be forced to provide birth control to their employees, despite it being against their religion?

I definitely don't know shit about the American health care/insurance industry or the laws surrounding workplace benefits. But if birth control is stated as a benefit within the plan, then yes. They have no more right to deny them birth control than they do denying them vision coverage that's already been guaranteed. A Christian Science business owner is not allowed to prevent his employees from getting inoculations.

If the situation is that they're trying to get birth control added to it, and someone is refusing on religious grounds, then they've lost the argument. Other people do not have to follow the rules of your religion. Religious laws are for the people in those religions, and that's it. Secular laws are for people living in those secular nations.

Do you believe that religious owned and operated hospitals should be forced to provide abortion services for their patients, despite it being against their religion?

I actually don't know if there's strange not-for-profit laws around Catholic-owned hospitals, so I don't know if they somehow fly under the standards of whatever the governing body is (the FDA?), but I would have to assume that hospitals have some pretty strict guidelines, and refusing to serve the public seems like something they'd have a problem with. But once again, the entire American medical system seems completely jacked up and broken to me.

I do love the idea of "religious hospitals" and "religious businesses", which I've heard a lot lately. As if a corporation can have religious beliefs. My corporation will be a Buddhist, that way it can never die, it just comes back as a Taco Bell.

#167 Edited by OfficerMeatbeef (74 posts) -

@milkman: @joshwent: A person acting belligerent and a person being gay are two very different things. If a person comes into your store and is being an asshole, then obviously you can refuse them serve. Someone getting a swastika tattoo is a choice and one that represents hate of a certain group of people. No one was born with a swastika tattoo.

Being gay is not a lifestyle choice. It's a person's born sexuality. Refusing to a serve someone who is gay is the same thing as refusing to serve someone because they are black. Again, I don't care what your religious beliefs are. It's wrong.

Yes yes yes. Also, I apologize for the wonky formatting here, I'm having a real problem getting the forum stuff to remove and change what I want to change.

@joshwent said:
The irony is that this is the exact thing that the store owner who doesn't want to serve the gay couple would say.

I agree with you that it's wrong. But who are we to legally force another human being to act based on nothing more than our own moriality?

You are right, they probably would say that. And they would be wrong. If you believe in not being a total asshole in this life, they are wrong. Simple as that. Who we are "to legally force another human being to act based on noting more than our own morality" is kind of the entire basis of laws governing civil rights; guess what, there are still people TO THIS DAY who believe people of a different skin color to them are sub-human and should be exterminated. This is "their morality" and ABSOLUTELY we need to legally force them to not just murder everyone who doesn't look like them because that is fucked up and wrong.

Here's an easy test: does your belief that something is "wrong" fuck over a group of people who are trying to live as they were born and not hurting anyone? Then it is YOU who are wrong, and you need to change that belief. If you understand that but still refuse to change, well too bad, fuck you, you're making the world a worse place for innocent people and you need to change, and there's no reason the rest of society should accept your shitty belief because doing so just serves to allow it to strengthen and propagate its horrible message, just as if it was a deadly virus we had the tools to treat but didn't.

We don't really put these laws into practice expecting them to change the awful mindset of the people who need them in place, we put them in to prevent them from hurting others and to make it clear that their beliefs are hurtful and cannot be allowed to stand.

#168 Posted by OfficerMeatbeef (74 posts) -

@brodehouse said:

I do love the idea of "religious hospitals" and "religious businesses", which I've heard a lot lately. As if a corporation can have religious beliefs. My corporation will be a Buddhist, that way it can never die, it just comes back as a Taco Bell.

Heh, now I know you're kinda saying this as a joke, but it takes on a certain seriousness when we remember that a corporation has been for most intents and purposes legally designated as a person, and the very idea that they can thus have a religious belief is indeed a serious legal issue that has been in debate as recently as just a week or so ago. Is that ridiculous? Yeah, pretty much. But it's not something we can just mention as such and brush aside because it IS still law and thus can't just be ignored for the nonsense it is.

#169 Edited by Brodehouse (9586 posts) -
#170 Posted by ArtisanBreads (3749 posts) -

Is he making it so gay users can't use the browser? I'm all for gay rights and I find homophobes extremely sad and backwards...

I mostly use Chrome now, but a message like that would never make me switch browsers. I'm not going down the dark hole of boycotting products because I do not agree with what the CEO does with his own money.

Exactly. I'm sure if you knew enough about any of these CEOs you could make some judgement. CEO A is a shitty dad, CEO B cheats on his wife, CEO C is a scumbag whose company pollutes. In the example of C, that's what actually matters. Making a moral judgement on one man, and then a company from that, is very selective.

#171 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (3556 posts) -

@spaceinsomniac said:

If something is illegal, it's pretty much always punishable by prison or a fine. In this sense, he did not use his financial resources to attempt to make gay marriage illegal. He used his financial resources to not make gay marriage recognized by our government.

Well if that isn't the most incredible shifting of the goalposts I have ever seen. It's not that they're making gay marriage illegal, it's just that any document you have that legally states you have been married to another person of the same sex is null and void. It's not that we're making what you do into something you can be punished for, yet.

That "yet" is you inferring hateful intentions, and making a "slippery slope" argument. I don't think that some states not allowing gay marriage to be legal is the first step to locking up people for the "crime" of homosexuality, just like I don't think legalizing gay marriage throughout the country is the first step to an eventual path leading to priests and rabbis being forced at gunpoint to marry gay people.

And in case you missed my earlier comment, I do support gay marriage. I also support legalized pornography, blasphemy, pre-marital sex, and many other things that various religions condemn. You don't outlaw sin. Sin is a very subjective thing. You outlaw things that cause people to hurt one another.

But I do have a big problem with the idea of forcing religious people to go against their beliefs.

@joshwent said:
I'll just end this by saying that no one's moral code is affected by laws. If someone hating jews or asians or anything is made illegal, their hate will persist. Progress and change are only reached through positive personal interactions. But if those interactions are forced with the threat of legal repercussions, it will only delay and obscure or potentially destroy that desired understanding.

This is also a very good point.

I don't like religion because it makes good people do terrible things and fully believe they're doing good. As evidenced in this thread. Steven Weinberg said that the best will do the best they can, the worst will do the worst they can, but it takes religion to make the best do their worst.

That's a good quote. I'm sorry to see that you have such a negative view of religion, though I will admit that history is full certainly of absolute atrocities done in the name of god. I can definitely see where you're coming from, even though I don't have such a pessimistic view of modern local religion.

Online
#172 Edited by Darji (5294 posts) -

@milkman: But it is their store and their choice...

For example some restaurants do not allow kids should they also be forced to allow children? It is their choice however they live with the consequences of their choice. Let us take the baker that do not make wedding cakes for gay people because he thinks it is against his believes. With this kind of statement you will lose much more than a few customers for your beside the gay couples. So as long he can live with these choices he should be allowed to. Just like in Japan where they do not allow foreigners in certain bars.

And yeah forcing people to do this will just result in more hate.

#173 Edited by Brodehouse (9586 posts) -

@spaceinsomniac: The religious are not being forced to violate their faiths, they're not being allowed to extend their faith into other people's lives. That my pharmacist believes in marriage in no way emboldens her to deny my girlfriend birth control in order to make my girlfriend lead a Christian life. It is up to my pharmacist to follow her religion's rules, it is not up to my girlfriend to follow her pharmacist's religion's rules. Surely, you understand the difference? 'Sin' is a Christian concept that is only relevant for Christians. Christians are compelled to not sin. To them I say, go forth young Christians, and never sin again... and leave the rest of us alone. Whether or not I'm going to 'sin' is in fact no one's business other than mine.

#174 Posted by MikeinSC (895 posts) -

OK, so it's wrong to "cancel Colbert" over a comment he made --- but boycotting Firefox is cool?

I guess consistency is a bit much to expect.

Do these clowns recognize that, with this action, they are responsible for the beliefs of every single browser company, PC manufacturer, etc. If Mozilla is specifically bad because of their CEO's contribution --- man, I guess it means that they support Google's blatant data mining and violation of privacy since they didn't call out Chrome.

#175 Edited by Brodehouse (9586 posts) -

@mikeinsc: Actually, that's not how it works. Disliking one person's actions and acting on it in no way obligates that person to act on others whose actions they dislike. Your argument states that standing up for any injustice obligates a person to stand up for every injustice imaginable. That is silly.

The only way they can be hypocrites in this situation is if they also donated to Prop 8, or they defend someone else for donating to Prop 8. Not if they 'fail' to stand up for any and every issue under the sun.

Furthermore, the core of their decision rested on the fact that 8% of the matches they've made would be harmed by Prop 8. They explained credibly why this is a company issue.

#176 Posted by chazzlabs (20 posts) -

I certainly agree with the sentiment, but I wouldn't stop using it because of one person's bigotry. If Mozilla as a company, however, promoted this idea, it'd be a different story.

#177 Posted by Example1013 (4834 posts) -

hashtagbeingawomaninthegamesindustry.blogspot.com

#178 Posted by pyromagnestir (4243 posts) -

@mikeinsc:

Colbert's comment was also a joke meant to cast a light on someone else being a stubborn and insensitive to Native Americans, in no way were they sincere beliefs of his, and people just missed the point. While this other dude's actions were seemingly sincere on his part. That's a pretty big difference.

Online
#179 Posted by MikeinSC (895 posts) -

Disliking one person's actions and acting on it in no way obligates that person to act on others whose actions they dislike. Your argument states that standing up for any injustice obligates a person to stand up for every injustice imaginable. That is silly.

If one is holding one up as somebody you shouldn't work with due to your disagreements with their stances, fine. You are also, simultaneously, implicitly condoning everybody else's stances that you don't call out. Sorry, that is the way it works. That is why large, real companies don't spend their times criticizing the stances of their suppliers, etc. Because it's not your job to police them and if you argue one is bad, then you're arguing the others are not. Does CBS, for example, discuss their stances on the beliefs of individuals involved with any of their advertisers? No. Because they don't have the desire or time to police all of their advertisers stances.

"Why are you criticizing (company x) for (stance a) when (company y) has the same stance or has this (offensive stance de jour b)?" is not an unusual or unfair question. If somebody wishes to hold themselves up as the paragons of virtue, then they had best be pure as the wind-blown snow.

Colbert's comment was also a joke meant to cast a light on someone else being a stubborn and insensitive to Native Americans, in no way were they sincere beliefs of his, and people just missed the point. While this other dude's actions were seemingly sincere on his part. That's a pretty big difference.

No, it's OK because you LIKE Colbert. That is, literally, the only difference. At least own up to it.

Did Snyder NAME the team? No. He just said he isn't going to change it. It's not his job to change a name. Colbert made a racist joke --- and when your entire tired and lame schtick is "my political opponents are all racists or idiots", then expect blowback.

I'll say this: If a conservative made the same joke for the same reason, you know who would be on the front lines condemning him/her? Colbert. That is who.

Fuck that useless hypocrite. A tired, boring cliche show that ceased being humorous years ago.

#180 Posted by MikeinSC (895 posts) -

The religious are not being forced to violate their faiths, they're not being allowed to extend their faith into other people's lives. That my pharmacist believes in marriage in no way emboldens her to deny my girlfriend birth control in order to make my girlfriend lead a Christian life. It is up to my pharmacist to follow her religion's rules, it is not up to my girlfriend to follow her pharmacist's religion's rules. Surely, you understand the difference? 'Sin' is a Christian concept that is only relevant for Christians. Christians are compelled to not sin. To them I say, go forth young Christians, and never sin again... and leave the rest of us alone. Whether or not I'm going to 'sin' is in fact no one's business other than mine.

Using this logic, vegan restaurants should be illegal. A place of business should not be forced to carry products they oppose. You are free to go elsewhere, of course.

I definitely don't know shit about the American health care/insurance industry or the laws surrounding workplace benefits. But if birth control is stated as a benefit within the plan, then yes. They have no more right to deny them birth control than they do denying them vision coverage that's already been guaranteed. A Christian Science business owner is not allowed to prevent his employees from getting inoculations.

No employer can deny you anything. They can just opt to not PAY for it. That's the whole issue. A company shouldn't be required to PAY for something the executives find offensive.

#181 Edited by MonkeyKing1969 (2568 posts) -

Every year for the past few years I look at testing on all the browsers. Every year they all change what they do better or worse, but mostly you find that for the past few years Chrome is judged best. There are some nice features in Firefox, but all the browsers catch up here and there, so in the end what you use doesn't matter.

I have often found Firefox to be less stable on some machines and often the reason why a page some patron at the library bring.for whatever reason. Often when people have an issueswith e-mail,so I just say, "Try to switch to Chrome, IE, or Oprah" and tah-f'ing-dahh their e-mail "miraculously" works."

I had a guy get angry at me once, he said, "Look we will look up the functionality of these browsers right now - Firefox is best" He types in the search and the first four results are a security issues with Firefox that were happening that week....talk about Karma...I just say, "Ah, yeah, why don't you just open your mail with another browser today...'kay."

What I wanted to say, "Dude, I was using Mosaic and downloading winsock.dll from my universities FTP server while you were peeing on the potty. Don't tell a librarian how a fucking browser works on hardware 'he' has intimate knowledge of...you fucking sorry-ass hump!!!"

#182 Posted by GERALTITUDE (2923 posts) -

Awesome, I support this wholeheartedly.

Anyone who doesn't like gay people because they are gay should be melted to ash.

With exception to the extremely elderly and the mentally deficient I guess.

#183 Posted by Darji (5294 posts) -

@geraltitude: And everyone who does not like rich, poor, men, woman,and other things that I like.

It is no crime to not like certain people no matter the reason. It is only a crime if you attack these people. Everyone hates something or dislikes someone other people like that just does not mean they are right or wrong. Why not respect these people too. Hatred will not get you any respect. And this goes for both sides.

#184 Posted by NMC2008 (1231 posts) -

Chrome = Primary

Firefox = Porn Snatcher

I am not boycotting shit.

#185 Posted by GERALTITUDE (2923 posts) -

@darji said:

@geraltitude: And everyone who does not like rich, poor, men, woman,and other things that I like.

It is no crime to not like certain people no matter the reason. It is only a crime if you attack these people. Everyone hates something or dislikes someone other people like that just does not mean they are right or wrong. Why not respect these people too. Hatred will not get you any respect. And this goes for both sides.

No.

Not everyone is ok Darji. And Yes, you can be wrong for what you believe. Why in the world do you believe everyone is entitled to think whatever they want?

If I hate black people for no reason I'm as a big an asshole as the jerk who says it to their face or bottles them at a bar. As an arab who has met hostility in a thousand different venues I tell you straight up all racists are the same to me.

Hating someone for what they are naturally - gay or whatever - is far different from saying "Oh I don't like corporations".

Give me a break. We are not, as human beings, supposed to stand for this bullshit. Your opinion is basically allowing hate to exist. If you think hating people who are hateful is equivalent you are a lost cause.

Respect them?

End of conversation.

#186 Edited by MikeinSC (895 posts) -

Why in the world do you believe everyone is entitled to think whatever they want?

Because s/he's not a judgmental ass?

If I hate black people for no reason I'm as a big an asshole as the jerk who says it to their face or bottles them at a bar.

So, you advocate punishing thought. Lovely. Quite progressive of you. This is what you're saying: ACTIONS are irrelevant to you. The THOUGHT is what makes you bad.

As an arab who has met hostility in a thousand different venues I tell you straight up all racists are the same to me.

Might want to avoid mirrors. You seem to be projecting a lot here. Can you list these "thousand different venues" you've dealt with hostility? Because hate crime stats from the FBI have never backed up this belief of a backlash against Arabs inside the US.

Hating someone for what they are naturally - gay or whatever - is far different from saying "Oh I don't like corporations".

While I'm touched God has decided to grace us with His presence, I'm curious as to why you think you're entitled to think this. I don't have a problem with it, but you seem fond of thought crime laws, so you might want to explain how your thoughts aren't a crime.

Your opinion is basically allowing hate to exist

And your thoughts on people you deem to be racist...seems less than affectionate. Just sayin'. Hate exists in the world. Somebody disagreeing with you on a topic isn't the CAUSE of it.

If you think hating people who are hateful is equivalent you are a lost cause.

I know...it's different because you say so. And since you have control over what is permitted thought (I'm curious as to how you gained this power), I suppose you control that.

Respect them?

Don't worry. Not a threat others think the same of you.

#187 Posted by teaoverlord (173 posts) -

@mikeinsc: He never said thoughts should be illegal, just that you don't have to respect people's hateful opinions.

#188 Posted by MikeinSC (895 posts) -

If thinking something is just as bad as doing something then, yes, he is advocating thought crime.

I wonder if he knows Orwell didn't intend for that to be a GOOD idea.

#189 Edited by teaoverlord (173 posts) -

@mikeinsc said:

If thinking something is just as bad as doing something then, yes, he is advocating thought crime.

I wonder if he knows Orwell didn't intend for that to be a GOOD idea.

Hating someone because they're gay shouldn't be an acceptable opinion, but that's not what thoughtcrime means.

#190 Posted by alwaysbebombing (1539 posts) -

Well the CEO of Firefox has stepped down, so we can all go home now.

#191 Edited by JJOR64 (18908 posts) -

@alwaysbebombing said:

Well the CEO of Firefox has stepped down, so we can all go home now.

It's the number 1 thing trending on Twitter right now.

#192 Edited by Darji (5294 posts) -

@teaoverlord said:

@mikeinsc: He never said thoughts should be illegal, just that you don't have to respect people's hateful opinions.

No he did not say it should be illegal but they should die.

Anyone who doesn't like gay people because they are gay should be melted to ash.

That is the difference here. He is hating as much as the people hate. Even more since Brendan Eich does not want these people dead at all. There is a difference between hatred and respect. Just because you respect or better accept other people does not mean you have to agree with them. Again if I think he is wrong in his views I do not forcefully try to destroy his life or attack him but rather ignore him. As long it is legal people should be able to express their free opinion. He did nothing illegal he just gave money to an organisation which actually tries on a LEGAL way something they believe in. Just like the opposite site.

Again living in a free country and democracy does not mean you opponent side has no rights and no right of free speech.

Edit: Congrats Internet mob. Looks like free speech and free opinions are ok as long they the opinions of the mob.. I am glad at least Colbert did not have to go.

#193 Edited by Brodehouse (9586 posts) -

@mikeinsc said:

If one is holding one up as somebody you shouldn't work with due to your disagreements with their stances, fine. You are also, simultaneously, implicitly condoning everybody else's stances that you don't call out. Sorry, that is the way it works. That is why large, real companies don't spend their times criticizing the stances of their suppliers, etc. Because it's not your job to police them and if you argue one is bad, then you're arguing the others are not.

You are fundamentally incorrect. This is a textbook false dilemma. Your supposition says that if I speak out against racism, but do not simultaneously speak out about sexism, then I have condoned sexism. It is not entailed.

Does CBS, for example, discuss their stances on the beliefs of individuals involved with any of their advertisers? No. Because they don't have the desire or time to police all of their advertisers stances.

They actually do, they have entire public relations departments that focus on exactly this. Advertisers are vetted, advertisements are pulled constantly. This is a part of Matt Rorie's job. Conversely, corporations are also interested in public relations activities that will make their consumers happy, sometimes at the cost of other businesses or industries. Do you feel as if business ethics are new and mysterious?

"Why are you criticizing (company x) for (stance a) when (company y) has the same stance or has this (offensive stance de jour b)?" is not an unusual or unfair question. If somebody wishes to hold themselves up as the paragons of virtue, then they had best be pure as the wind-blown snow.

It is an unusual question. It is the very definition of black and white thinking. It supposes that in order for anyone to argue anything, they are required to argue everything. It is nonsense on a massive scale.

@mikeinsc said:

Using this logic, vegan restaurants should be illegal. A place of business should not be forced to carry products they oppose. You are free to go elsewhere, of course.

You see, there's a slight difference between restaurateurs and legally licensed medical doctors. One is under a slightly stricter code of ethics.

Legitimately, how old are you?

#194 Posted by RazielCuts (2930 posts) -

@darji: What I don't think you get in any of these threads you end up magnetising yourself towards is that yes, you're entitled to free speech and say how you feel about certain topics but then don't be surprised when in turn everyone else is entitled to say how they feel on that subject. That is called true freedom of speech, just because you end up being in the minority in how you feel about things doesn't mean that the system is corrupt or unfair or no one is entitled to free speech, it just so happens to mean that more people side against you. That's it, nothing more.

And your whole illegal/legal argument is a complete non issue. No, it's not illegal for him to have those opinions but in turn is it illegal for me not to give him my custom for having those opinions.

#195 Posted by pyromagnestir (4243 posts) -

@mikeinsc said:

No employer can deny you anything. They can just opt to not PAY for it. That's the whole issue. A company shouldn't be required to PAY for something the executives find offensive.

Employers shouldn't be able to dictate what is or isn't offensive to their employees outside of the workplace. So as long as they aren't using the birth control to have sex when they should be working it really shouldn't be up to them.

@mikeinsc said:

No, it's OK because you LIKE Colbert. That is, literally, the only difference. At least own up to it.

Did Snyder NAME the team? No. He just said he isn't going to change it. It's not his job to change a name. Colbert made a racist joke --- and when your entire tired and lame schtick is "my political opponents are all racists or idiots", then expect blowback.

I'll say this: If a conservative made the same joke for the same reason, you know who would be on the front lines condemning him/her? Colbert. That is who.

Fuck that useless hypocrite. A tired, boring cliche show that ceased being humorous years ago.

If you really can't see the difference between one person making a joke in order to point out something insensitive taking place and another person giving their money to support an anti-civil rights movement then really there's no point discussing anything further. If what's his face wants to come out and say he donated ironically and it was all a big gag or something, then hey! Whatever! I think giving money to a organization trying to keep people from getting married is going a bit far for a joke that really doesn't seem very funny, but whatever.

Online
#197 Edited by Darji (5294 posts) -

@razielcuts said:

@darji: What I don't think you get in any of these threads you end up magnetising yourself towards is that yes, you're entitled to free speech and say how you feel about certain topics but then don't be surprised when in turn everyone else is entitled to say how they feel on that subject. That is called true freedom of speech, just because you end up being in the minority in how you feel about things doesn't mean that the system is corrupt or unfair or no one is entitled to free speech, it just so happens to mean that more people side against you. That's it, nothing more.

And your whole illegal/legal argument is a complete non issue. No, it's not illegal for him to have those opinions but in turn is it illegal for me not to give him my custom for having those opinions.

Oh I do not argue about that. It is just really ironic that a group that wants respect and no hatred, hates so much on people with other beliefs or opinion. I am just arguing with these people that they have the same rights as they have. And that they are not wrong because there is no right or wrong.

#198 Posted by Darkstalker (712 posts) -

i hate this thread.

right to say anything is not right to do anything. people need to look at what freedom of speech actually is.

its shocking how many people would be fine with a business not allowing black people.

were missing the real point here: people still think firefox is a great browser. this needs to stop!

#199 Posted by spraynardtatum (2606 posts) -

I really disagree with the butthole former CEO at Firefox but this whole situation reminds me of The Scarlet Letter to a certain extent. Something about the internet dog pile/public shaming of an individual just rubs me the wrong way. I know I've taken some of my strong opinions too far in the past (on this website no less) but something about this whole debacle just doesn't add up for me.

I think people need to be careful about how much action they want taken against someone for an opinion they hold. We all make mistakes. I'd never defend his actions to give money to prop 8 but I think the people here that want him to burn for it need to take a breather. Prop 8 wasn't instated. This guy just wasted his dumb money for a dumb purpose. Why all of a sudden OKCupid decided to raise hell is a mystery.

Yay for gay marriage but boo for discrimination of any kind.

#200 Edited by Vuud (1943 posts) -

So naturally the only thing to do next is find everyone who voted wrong on Prop 8 and make sure they lose their jobs. That's the only way to preserve our free democracy.