By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Will Those Who Claim To Be Open Minded Actually Be Open Minded One Day?

What i find fascinating is that OKcupid is a powerful enough force to cause a CEO resignation.



Around the Network
Kasz216 said:
What i find fascinating is that OKcupid is a powerful enough force to cause a CEO resignation.


It was not just OKcupid, he was under heavy pressure from his own staff to be removed. Mozilla is supposed to be a community organisation whose own guidelines claim to value equality, diversity and inclusion. Pretty bad look for a community organisation to have a bigot whose own views are contrary to the rest of the organisation.



PDF said:
thismeintiel said:

Like I said before, it's not like these people merely voiced their opposition to his views and personally decided to stop using Firefox. No, they wanted him gone. And they weren't going to let up until Mozilla got rid of him. Now, if this behavior is okay to you, my question is, where does it end? Is it okay to go to every company, go through their ranks, find everyone who doesn't support gay marriage, and have them ousted? Get rid of anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of the work force in America? If that sounds preposterous to you, then why was it okay to do that in this instance?

This question has already been answered.  There is a big dfference between the CEO - the face of the company and just some employee working the mail room.  It obviously would not be in the best interest of the company to layoff a third of its workforce.

I think the problem is you view this issue as if the guy simply said I like Pizza over hamburgers, and then the people freaked out and wanted him fired. Like theres no right or wrong side on the issue, just difference of opinion.  This is not the case, there is a morally correct answer.

People claiming not to be anti-gay but pro "traditional marriage" is like someone saying they are not racist they are just pro-segregation. 

So, if he shared your opinion, you'd be fine with him still being CEO, even though supporting or not supporting gay marriage doesn't affect his ability to do his job in the least.  And you say a mail guy is fine, but the CEO, not.  So, what I'm getting is that those who do not support gay marriage shouldn't try to work hard and make something of themselves, since the pro gay marriage movement will just see that he is fired.  Yea, nothing wrong with that at all.  :-/

Your last few sentences are just the same demonizing of the opposition I spoke of.  It's really unnecessary.



thismeintiel said:
Well, after reading the comments, it seems I have come to the consensus of the opposing opinion. It is okay for there to be two sides of this debate, yet only one side has the right to support their side (whether it be with money or by voting) without fear of losing their job. See, that just doesn't sit well with me.

Maybe you don't get it. The point is, if a homosexual CEO paid money in a state where straight and gay people can marry, in order to take away rights from straight couples and leave the rights of gay couples the same, then yes, I, as a gay man, would support that he gets fired.

This is not simpy an opinion. You can express your opinion, but not actively try to take people's rights away or to block them from getting equal rights. Similarly, if a woman CEO donated money to an organization/ a campaign forcing companies to hire 80% minimum women, I would want her fired. Because it's no longer an opinion. You're messing with people's rights.



PDF said:
thismeintiel said:
PDF said:

This question has already been answered.  There is a big dfference between the CEO - the face of the company and just some employee working the mail room.  It obviously would not be in the best interest of the company to layoff a third of its workforce.

I think the problem is you view this issue as if the guy simply said I like Pizza over hamburgers, and then the people freaked out and wanted him fired. Like theres no right or wrong side on the issue, just difference of opinion.  This is not the case, there is a morally correct answer.

People claiming not to be anti-gay but pro "traditional marriage" is like someone saying they are not racist they are just pro-segregation. 

So, if he shared your opinion, you'd be fine with him still being CEO, even though supporting or not supporting gay marriage doesn't affect his ability to do his job in the least.  And you say a mail guy is fine, but the CEO, not.  So, what I'm getting is that those who do not support gay marriage shouldn't try to work hard and make something of themselves, since the pro gay marriage movement will just see that he is fired.  Yea, nothing wrong with that at all.  :-/

Your last few sentences are just the same demonizing of the opposition I spoke of.  It's really unnecessary.

Personally I wouldn't of mind if he kept his job.  I wasn't campaigning for his removal.  I just stand by the right of the people who did push for it.  They have the right to free speech just as much as him.

He has the right to his beliefs as we all do, when people decide to share their beliefs they do so at the risk of backlash from people.  We all experience this, but as the CEO he does not only speak for himself.  He speaks for the company and is held to a higher standard.

I am not demonizing the opposition just holding light up to the painful truth.  How is being anti-gay marriage any different from being anti-interracial marriage? 

My point is that if this is how they are going to go about things, it won't help their cause, only hurt it.  Forcing your opinion on someone by seeing them lose their job when they don't agree with you, as opposed to debating it and/or fighting it out in the political and legal arena, is only going to spread hate and anger.  This also sends the message that pro-traditional marriage supporters better not advance too far in life, as they will be harrassed and made an example of.  These are all things gays have had to go through in the past and claim they are fighting.  It's like having an anti-bullying cause that encourages bullying the bully (I'm not saying Eich was a bully, but I'm sure those who campaigned against him would).  It's counterproductive.  It really makes them no better.

And the difference is there is some underlying racism if you are against interracial marriage.  But there doesn't have to be gay hate if you are for traditional marriage.  Many don't mind gays having all the rights that come with marriage (apparently some states don't grant all the rights, so that should definitely be changed for the time being), and wish no ill fate for them, but just want to perserve what they call the "sanctity of marriage."  Personally, I think it's silly to be fighting over the word marriage (or more accurately, the government's acknowledgement that you are married), and that goes for both sides.  But, I can see the merits of both arguments.  I just don't think people's livelihoods should be screwed with, just because they fall on one side or the other.

Anyway, I have to go to bed, as it's getting late here.  It was good debating with you, though.



Around the Network

Why is gay marriage such a big deal in the land of the free? Ain't that irony? A country found on such principles to encourage freedom in a still feudal world (at that time anyway) and yet people still take issue with gays 240 years later. There aren't harming no one, so move on.

I mean until 1967 (in the UK), they were treated like criminals and the insane and yet despite being treated so awfully they still exist now. Proves that banning or repressing something doesn't work on stuff like this



Xbox One, PS4 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)

'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin

Prediction: Switch will sell better than Wii U Lifetime Sales by Jan 1st 2018

We'll no point in arguing with the majority of homosexual backers here but oh we'll yes I guess homosexual marriage should be legal and coincide with the downfall of American society. More than 50 percent divorce rate also help. And people say things haven't changed since the good old days. American "land of the free to do whatever you want; divorce who you want; marry who you want; get pregnant and live off of welfare if you want; abort babies if you want; spend all the inflated money you want; repress cigarettes but promote cancer causing birth control if you want; condemn spending money on war but give all money to single mothers you want; avoid addressing the economic impact divorce has had on American society all you want". Ah good old America no wonder we are doing so great.



I don't get why people mention divorces as a bad thing. I know that about 4-5 decades ago when most women didn't work and depended entirely on their husbands were oppressed and couldn't get a divorce even if they wanted to. As far as I'm concerned, a sad, oppressed life is much worse than getting a divorce. It means that nowadays most people choose to be with whom they're married to.