Read a history book about this period in fifty years and we'll see if comparisons to slavery and Nazis still  confuse you. Or you could read newspapers from those eras and hear how accepted these things were then and get the same point. Slaves "already didn't have rights" before the civil war either, do you think it was wrong for them to want them?

So basically it's okay for him to send money to support legislation that treats homosexuals as "different citizens" as some kind of freedom he has but it's not okay for those same people to boycott what they see fit to boycott? Am I missing something here? What's hypocritical here is that this is being looked at as supporters of gay marriage being bad for showing their support for their cause because someone else showed support for a counter-cause. This is the way these battle are won. This is politics. The other side is going to be nasty and do whatever they can to stop this from happening. It's quite clear in the news every day that there are a fucking ton of people who want to squash this movement and they will do whatever is necessary. So those who support it are going to have to get dirty from time to time as well. You're asking people to be open-minded about people with closed minds. Tolerance of intolerance doesn't work. This isn't fighting against something for legitimate reasons backed up by any facts. It's just people being hateful and spiteful.

Let's not pretend that this has only been a recent struggle for gays and that they haven't earned it. The only reason it's as big of a deal now is because they're winning the support they need to overturn these things and those who don't like it are crying up a storm. Calling themselves victims of some kind of bullying which is about as laughable as saying the government isn't corrupt. The fact that we even bother arguing about calling it civil union or marriage is because some people claim the term "marriage" belongs to their religious beliefs. Yet they don't bother arguing against atheists or other religions being able to use the term "marriage" and the concept of marriage predates any modern religions so for any of them to lay claim to it is ridiculous. It's quite simply just one more little battle they're waging. They can't stop them from being gay, they can't stop them from raising children, they know they're going to lose not allowing them to marry but hey let's get the last laugh and tell them they can't call it "marriage". It's a last ditch effort to continue to treat homosexuals as "other" citizens.

Every point here is so well made and well said.

Other countries don't belong in this discussion, just because something is worse in another country doesn't mean that it can't be better here. And by your logic, wasn't Eich the one originally at fault anyway cause he 'actively campaigned' to prevent gay marriage? Your points contradict each other. Both OKCupid and Eich were well within the constraints of the law for what they did, but Eich did something that was seriously morably questionable (if not outright wrong), and OKCupid along with the Mozzila employees all exercised their freedom of speech to make a point against Eich. By your logic, if someone hated your race or wanted to infringe on your rights, and came into a major position of influence and power, would you simply calmy discuss it, and not take action against it? Like in case of a politician running for office, you wouldn't vote for them, and would probably try to convince others not to as well, correct? That is exactly what OKCupid and the employees did. Neither lobbied with actual money to politically prevent Eich to take his position as Eich did to prevent gay marriage, but they peacefully protested by posting on social networks and by posting a brief message on the homepage before users entered the site. All they did was exercise speech, that's it, and they made their opinion clear, and they took the high road compared to what Eich did. 

Yeah let's all be open minded and accept Hitler as the visionary he really was instead of shaming him for the few bad things he did that were considered immoral by society.

This has nothing to do with open mindedness or equality. There is something called moral. It's a thing that humanity bases a lot of stuff on and something that is constantly changing. Not everybody likes it but we all have to deal with it because of the pressure of society.
People love to attack other people that don't conform to the mainstream morals because that makes them seem part of society, which is all every individual wants.

This is nothing new. It's caused wars and revolutions all over history. People today will say it has changed the world for the better while people of yesterday will say it is harmful. Problem is, you have to always side with the people of today or you will be the social outcast.

If there was actual objectivity or equality people would have the right to live by their own morals but they can't because laws are based on a particular set of morals that are molded by today's society. If you don't agree you are pretty much fucked.

 Which brings us to the CEO. He practiced his right of free speech and after that everyone else did theirs. Problem again being that the other people had today's mainstream morals on their side. So he had to concede.

Simple Story. Nothing to get worked up about. He was not the first or the last individual screwed by morals.

Isn't it ironic that homosexuals attack those who disagree with them? If you say that being against a homosexual is taking away "one's rights" or harming a group, then why harm or attack a group for having a differing opinion? That seems hypocritical

No. It would be ironic and hypocritcal if homosexuals said they are against hetrosexual marriage while at the same time promoting gay marriage. But they do not, they attack people's opinions who are against the idea that homosexuals should not be able to adopt or marry for example.

If you feel this way then don't cry when a traditional marriage supporter attacks you and gets you fired from your job.  I guess this is acceptable in America land of the Free.

Being African-American is biological and is part of DNA but sexual orientation, drug addiction, pedophelia, beasteality, incest are all choices based on attraction to that lifestyle. Please don't compare homosexuality to blacks, whites Chinese, French...don't lie and degrade someone's ethnic makeup to further your own agenda

skin color and where you stick your penis shouldn't be equal or related

Well for one thing I don't live in America. Second of all why would I lose my job from an attack by someone who supports traditional marriage? Not only do I have no problems with people who believe in traditional marriage but do you think that firing someone because of their pro-gay position in a pro-gay country is really that good of an idea?