By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
thismeintiel on 04 April 2014
Edit Thread
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.