Support NeoGAF

[manueldelalas]

Ah yes, the old "We're not bigots, YOU'RE bigots for not tolerating our intolerance!" card. Come the fuck on, choosing to not give your business to people who voted to keep civil rights from gay people is a form of bigotry now? Seriously, come on. I don't personally intend on boycotting Mozilla- this browser was created by and is supported by thousands of people who are not this guy- but let's not kid ourselves here: voting for Prop 8 is a real piece of shit, vile thing to do, and it isn't bigotry to (rightfully) be wary of giving business to those who supported it.

So according to you, 52% of California people are bigots that should be burned on a fire? They have less rights than the 47% that voted against prop 8?

I'm sorry, but it's you that is really intolerant, he did that with his own money and supported this with his own free time. To defend a type of society is not illegal (it was voted in democracy), and people shouldn't be punished for their beliefs.

 

[Dead Man]

So according to you, 52% of California people are bigots that should be burned on a fire? They have less rights than the 47% that voted against prop 8?

I'm sorry, but it's you that is really intolerant, he did that with his own money and supported this with his own free time. To defend a type of society is not illegal (it was voted in democracy), and people shouldn't be punished for their beliefs.

Less rights? In what way? And he would be punished for his actions (donating money to a bigoted cause), not his beliefs. If he hadn't tried to fuck people there would be no story, he could be a hateful little wanker to his hearts content.

 

[Enron]

America is so fucked up. This hateful shit is not something a company can consider, but someone's sexuality or any number of other things is? Fuck that. And fuck anyone that supports that.

Edit:L Also, it would have been a bit simpler if you had fucking said that in the first place.

I mentioned it in post 58, 64, and 76!

And no, you misunderstand. Sexuality cannot be considered either. Race, sexual orientation, political affiliations are all off-limits.

 

[FrontalMonk]

you know, I'm as progressive and pro-LGBT as the next guy, probably more so, but I think the buck has to stop somewhere on this. I mean, ok, sure, he donated to a prop 8 group, and prop 8 sucked and was shit. But can't we hold out the hope that the guy can separate his personal and professional life? Like some others have said, I'm sure there are a lot of CEOs out there that are shitty people, but lead their companies to great things. I'm reserving judgment for now. IF Eich actually has some agenda with Mozilla motivated by this then yes, by all means, fuck 'em. But it sounded in his blog post like he wanted his personal beliefs to be just that, personal. If it doesn't affect his judgment, I say let him do his job.

 

[manueldelalas]

Less rights? In what way? And he would be punished for his actions (donating money to a bigoted cause), not his beliefs. If he hadn't tried to fuck people there would be no story, he could be a hateful little wanker to his hearts content.

I quote: "and it isn't bigotry to (rightfully) be wary of giving business to those who supported it."

 

[Dead Man]

I mentioned it in post 58, 64, and 76!

And no, you misunderstand. Sexuality cannot be considered either. Race, sexual orientation, political affiliations are all off-limits.

Your mentions were not direct enough for my simple brain, apologies. If you had said that political donations were off limits directly I may have understood.

And I hate to break it to you, but people get fired or get not hired/promoted for being gay all the time. It may be illegal, but it happens enough that I didn't think it was.

I quote: "and it isn't bigotry to (rightfully) be wary of giving business to those who supported it."

It isn't. At all. Should people not have the right to avoid doing business with certain companies? Should they not have the right to talk about their feelings on companies? You want a free pass for the guy, which means he would have more rights than other people.

You should really look up what bigotry is. If the poster had said all CEO's were shit, you could make a case that it is anti CEO bigotry. They were saying it isn't bigotry to be wary of giving business to companies run by bigots. And it is not. It is not even close. It is making informed decision based on the actions of actual people, not classing all members of a group together and in a negative light.

 

[Enron]

Your mentions were not direct enough for my simple brain, apologies. If you had said that political donations were off limits directly I may have understood.

And I hate to break it to you, but people get fired or get not hired/promoted for being gay all the time. It may be illegal, but it happens enough that I didn't think it was.

And every single one of those people have got one hell of an EEO lawsuit.

If corporations actually ignored EEO legislation, they wouldn't spend so much time and money on ensuring compliance.

 

[Dead Man]

And every single one of those people have got one hell of an EEO lawsuit.

I hope so, but don't believe they have, since it takes a complaint to get to that point. Most people just take it and walk.

Edit: Your edit assumes employees are aware of their rights and have the means to enforce them. Not very often the case for most of the workforce. For a large corporation to do that, it may be folly, but for the vast majority of small businesses I doubt they get called out on it very often.

 

[stilgar]

Please don't boycott Mozilla. thx

 

[ab.aeterno]

I mentioned it in post 58, 64, and 76!

And no, you misunderstand. Sexuality cannot be considered either. Race, sexual orientation, political affiliations are all off-limits.

IIRC, sexual orientation is only a protected class at a state level for 12 states. There's, as of yet, no federal protection.

 

[manueldelalas]

It isn't. At all. Should people not have the right to avoid doing business with certain companies? Should they not have the right to talk about their feelings on companies? You want a free pass for the guy, which means he would have more rights than other people.

You should really look up what bigotry is. If the poster had said all CEO's were shit, you could make a case that it is anti CEO bigotry. They were saying it isn't bigotry to be wary of giving business to companies run by bigots. And it is not. It is not even close. It is making informed decision based on the actions of actual people, not classing all members of a group together and in a negative light.

It's witch hunting, that's what it is, it's a terror machine, you and the people that support this shit are persecuting every person that has a different opinion or belief, because you think you are better than them morally, and that your opinion should weight more than the opinion of others.

You are discussing that a company that makes a web browser, which is a software for PCs should not promote a certain person who is absolutely qualified for the job, because of supporting his own beliefs. That's intolerance, sorry to break it to you.

Voting and supporting prop 8 is not intolerance, and people that support it have the same rights as you and their vote counts exactly the same as yours.

 

[Enron]

I hope so, but don't believe they have, since it takes a complaint to get to that point. Most people just take it and walk.

Edit: Your edit assumes employees are aware of their rights and have the means to enforce them. Not very often the case for most of the workforce. For a large corporation to do that, it may be folly, but for the vast majority of small businesses I doubt they get called out on it very often.

Employees generally are aware of this particular right - it's the most visible anti-discrimination law and probably among the most visible laws period, having been reinforced by headlines and popular culture over the years.

IIRC, sexual orientation is only a protected class at a state level for 12 states. There's, as of yet, no federal protection.

Could have sworn sexual orientation was by now federal - its only explicitly listed for federal employment. Sexual orientation is on the books in ~ 24 states, however.

 

[Zabka]

Voting and supporting prop 8 is not intolerance, and people that support it have the same rights as you and their vote counts exactly the same as yours.

If voting to limit a minority's rights isn't intolerance then what would you call it?

 

[Van Owen]

People sure love to pick and choose what is an outrageous offense that requires boycotting.

Apple and Google fucked over workers for years keeping their wages low, and tried to fuck people over on ebook prices. Where is the boycotts and outrage?

Oh wait, some guy donated a grand probably on the basis of religious reasons, but I shouldn't respect his religion or beliefs because it's ok to bash Christianity just not Islam or Judaism, so I might as well boycott the entire browser, company, and everyone else working for the NPO.

 

[crozier]

I think we need far, far more separation between personal and work life. This boycott serves the exact opposite purpose. I don't want my workplace scrutinizing what I do in my off time, which charities I donate to, and what my political beliefs are. I answer to them between 9 and 5, and that's it.

 

[Toadette]

Im gay and use firefox i dont wanna switch back to Internet explorer

 

[E92 M3]

I'm not sure why anyone should care. I could see if he used company funds... but he used his personal money to donate to a cause that he personally believed in. This has nothing to do with the company that he works for.

I agree. I don't care about the personal interests of business leaders (if it's not brought into the business) - as long as the product is solid, that's all that matters. If I found out that the CEO of Panera personally hates Jews, I'd be unhappy, but still eat there. The food is good lol. Life is too short to get stressed about what others think and I have my own problems.

 

[AntoneM]

People sure love to pick and choose what is an outrageous offense that requires boycotting.

Apple and Google fucked over workers for years keeping their wages low, and tried to fuck people over on ebook prices. Where is the boycotts and outrage?

Oh wait, some guy donated a grand probably on the basis of religious reasons, but I shouldn't respect his religion or beliefs because it's ok to bash Christianity just not Islam or Judaism, so I might as well boycott the entire browser, company, and everyone else working for the NPO.

No one has bashed religion in this thread.

 

[styl3s]

"New" CEO.

Unless i hear everyone who actually works on firefox is a racist gay hater i have no problem with the actual browser. Does this actually have any real hands on with the browser? Or does he sit in a office all day like every other CEO and do nothing?

Like i said about the chick-fil-a thing. The chicken doesn't hate me because i am gay. I know a lot of really nice and cool people who work and run chick-fil-a's who aren't homophobic. I know a few people who work on Firefox who also aren't homophobic. Although it's amusing to see people cry for boycotts on something like this while supporting other products with actual shitty practices and not shitty views. But this place is full of hypocrites.

 

[FrontalMonk]

I think we need far, far more separation between personal and work life. This boycott serves the exact opposite purpose. I don't want my workplace scrutinizing what I do in my off time, which charities I donate to, and what my political beliefs are. I answer to them between 9 and 5, and that's it.

ALL OF MY YES AND THIS.

There's a long standing rule of professionalism when it comes to the workplace: The two things you don't discuss are religion and politics. A guy I worked with up until recently is one of the coolest dudes I know, mid 50's IT manager who moonlights as a DJ, and I didn't know until I friended him on facebook that he's a Catholic and a Republican. I'm Atheist and a Democrat. Yet, we still got along. Why? Because work shit stays at work, and personal shit stays personal. End of story.

 

[manueldelalas]

If voting to limit a minority's rights isn't intolerance then what would you call it?

It's not intolerance, because the law is not discriminating people, that law is equal to all. If the law says only a man and a woman can have a valid marriage, the law isn't saying that a gay man can't marry a woman or that a straight man can marry another man, it's not intolerant, because it's not against minorities.

By your same argument, a monogamist law is also intolerant, because there are people who would like to marry more than one woman (or vice versa) and the law doesn't permit that. There are also people that want to marry girls bellow 16 or 17 years, there's also people wanting to marry another member of their family (brother, cousin) and the law don't permit that either.

Also, prop 8 was a proposition made by the people of California, born from the people, and voted by a huge majority (like 80% I think).

 

[Cromat]

I don't agree with it but as long as he does not impose his views on the company there is no reason to boycott it.

 

[ab.aeterno]

persecuting every person that has a different opinion or belief, because you think you are better than them morally

Ironically, this applies to the passing of Prop 8.

Voting and supporting prop 8 is not intolerance, and people that support it have the same rights as you and their vote counts exactly the same as yours.

What the fuck would you call it then? Just because something is democratically decided upon doesn't mean that it's not intolerant, particularly when it's, you know, limiting people's rights.

 

[ElFly]

They get money from search engines every time you use the browser's built-in search.

Yeah but you are not giving money to the Mozilla company.

If I gave money to an antigay non for profit organization every time you posted on GAF, would you boycott GAF?

 

[Dead Man]

Employees generally are aware of this particular right - it's the most visible anti-discrimination law and probably among the most visible laws period, having been reinforced by headlines and popular culture over the years.



Could have sworn sexual orientation was by now federal - its only explicitly listed for federal employment. Sexual orientation is on the books in ~ 24 states, however.

So not federally protected. Awesome. Hard to be aware of something that isn't actually a right for a lot of workers. I would humbly suggest that race is the most well known and visible protection in employment rules.

It's witch hunting, that's what it is, it's a terror machine, you and the people that support this shit are persecuting every person that has a different opinion or belief, because you think you are better than them morally, and that your opinion should weight more than the opinion of others.

You are discussing that a company that makes a web browser, which is a software for PCs should not promote a certain person who is absolutely qualified for the job, because of supporting his own beliefs. That's intolerance, sorry to break it to you.

Voting and supporting prop 8 is not intolerance, and people that support it have the same rights as you and their vote counts exactly the same as yours.

I will not tolerate others intolerance of my existence, sorry. That isn't intolerance, that is self defence. And go cry me a river with your terror machine madness, utter rubbish. Boycotts of companies are legal, and a tool used by all stream of society, that I agree with and disagree with, I don't think there is anything nefarious about them.

Voting against gay rights is not intolerance, but not wanting to support a person that does that is intolerance. What a wonderful web of bullshit you have constructed for yourself.

 

[DERF]

As an individual you should have the right to donate to who you please.

 

[manueldelalas]

Ironically, this applies to the passing of Prop 8.


What the fuck would you call it then? Just because something is democratically decided upon doesn't mean that it's not intolerant, particularly when it's, you know, limiting people's rights.

No it doesn't applied and I already answered the second paragraph.

 

[ab.aeterno]

It's not intolerance, because the law is not discriminating people, that law is equal to all. If the law says only a man and a woman can have a valid marriage, the law isn't saying that a gay man can't marry a woman or that a straight man can marry another man, it's not intolerant, because it's not against minorities.

"Gay people can still marry! Just to people of the opposite sex!" Give me a fucking break. This is most insane mental gymnastics I've read on here in a while. A law crafted and passed on the basis of it limiting marriage to exclude same-sex marriage isn't discriminatory? Sorry, I'll be unable to take seriously anything you post from here on out.

 

[Dead Man]

It's not intolerance, because the law is not discriminating people, that law is equal to all. If the law says only a man and a woman can have a valid marriage, the law isn't saying that a gay man can't marry a woman or that a straight man can marry another man, it's not intolerant, because it's not against minorities.

By your same argument, a monogamist law is also intolerant, because there are people who would like to marry more than one woman (or vice versa) and the law doesn't permit that. There are also people that want to marry girls bellow 16 or 17 years, there's also people wanting to marry another member of their family (brother, cousin) and the law don't permit that either.

Also, prop 8 was a proposition made by the people of California, born from the people, and voted by a huge majority (like 80% I think).

I can't even begin to imagine a mind that could think those are even correct points, let alone worthy of consideration.

People sure love to pick and choose what is an outrageous offense that requires boycotting.

Apple and Google fucked over workers for years keeping their wages low, and tried to fuck people over on ebook prices. Where is the boycotts and outrage?

Oh wait, some guy donated a grand probably on the basis of religious reasons, but I shouldn't respect his religion or beliefs because it's ok to bash Christianity just not Islam or Judaism, so I might as well boycott the entire browser, company, and everyone else working for the NPO.

Who is bashing Christianity? Go get worked up something that happened, not that you imagined. Go join manueldelalas over in the crazy cave.

 

[RedShift]

It's not intolerance, because the law is not discriminating people, that law is equal to all. If the law says only a man and a woman can have a valid marriage, the law isn't saying that a gay man can't marry a woman or that a straight man can marry another man, it's not intolerant, because it's not against minorities.

...What?

 

[ElFly]

As an individual you should have the right to donate to who you please.

And the rest of the world has a right to say that people donating to certain causes are douchebags.

Freedom of expression is not Freedom from consequences for your expressions.

It is only the freedom from the gov limiting your expressions.

Expressions.

 

[manueldelalas]

"Gay people can still marry! Just to people of the opposite sex!" Give me a fucking break. This is most insane mental gymnastics I've read on here in a while. A law crafted and passed on the basis of it limiting marriage to exclude same-sex marriage isn't discriminatory? Sorry, I'll be unable to take seriously anything you post from here on out.

Sorry but it's not mental gymnastics, it's common sense.

If the law said "People that define themselves as gay, cannot marry", sure that's intolerant, but the law does not say that. I gave you concrete examples of things the law doesn't permit and some minorities would want, but you didn't answer them.

I'm sad that your intolerance doesn't allow yourself to read anything else I post seriously, I hope you take an introspective look at yourself and learn to respect the opinion of others.

 

[CornBurrito]

Also, prop 8 was a proposition made by the people of California, born from the people, and voted by a huge majority (like 80% I think).

And?

Rights shouldn't be something you vote on. If 80% of California wanted to re-institute segregated schooling or slavery that wouldn't be acceptable.

 

[Uno Venova]

I definitely don't agree with his personal actions, FF is the best browser for me so I will continue to use it though.

 

[CornBurrito]

Sorry but it's not mental gymnastics, it's common sense.

If the law said "People that define themselves as gay, cannot marry", sure that's intolerant, but the law does not say that. I gave you concrete examples of things the law doesn't permit and some minorities would want, but you didn't answer them.

I'm sad that your intolerance doesn't allow yourself to read anything else I post seriously, I hope you take an introspective look at yourself and learn to respect the opinion of others.

It most certainly is not common sense. You have a fundamental disagreement of what equality actual is in this context. I suppose that's fine. But to others you are basically trying to treat apples the exact same way you treat oranges.

 

[RedShift]

Sorry but it's not mental gymnastics, it's common sense.

If the law said "People that define themselves as gay, cannot marry", sure that's intolerant, but the law does not say that. I gave you concrete examples of things the law doesn't permit and some minorities would want, but you didn't answer them.

I'm sad that your intolerance doesn't allow yourself to read anything else I post seriously, I hope you take an introspective look at yourself and learn to respect the opinion of others.

If I wrote a law that was like "No one is allowed to use wheelchairs", and then was like, "Oh, it's not discriminating against people who can't walk, people who can walk aren't allowed to use wheelchairs either" that'd be as stupid as what you're saying.

Oh, or a better example: claiming a law against abortion isn't discriminating against women because men aren't allowed abortions either.

 

[The Technomancer]

Sorry but it's not mental gymnastics, it's common sense.

If the law said "People that define themselves as gay, cannot marry", sure that's intolerant, but the law does not say that. I gave you concrete examples of things the law doesn't permit and some minorities would want, but you didn't answer them.

I'm sad that your intolerance doesn't allow yourself to read anything else I post seriously, I hope you take an introspective look at yourself and learn to respect the opinion of others.

I...uhm...wow

 

[ElFly]

Sorry but it's not mental gymnastics, it's common sense.

If the law said "People that define themselves as gay, cannot marry", sure that's intolerant, but the law does not say that. I gave you concrete examples of things the law doesn't permit and some minorities would want, but you didn't answer them.

I'm sad that your intolerance doesn't allow yourself to read anything else I post seriously, I hope you take an introspective look at yourself and learn to respect the opinion of others.

I respect your right to have such a stupid opinion.

The right to marriage is meaningless if you cannot choose the person you marry to.

Are you married? I am and I would be p pissed if the government had forbidden me from marrying my wife. I don't know why it'd be different for gay people?

Please explain why gay people should not marry the people they choose to.

 

[WARP10CK]

So now that firefox is evil what should we use not IE not SAFARI not Chrome any tips besides the ones mentioned ?

 

[Carcetti]

Ah yes, the old "We're not bigots, YOU'RE bigots for not tolerating our intolerance!" card. Come the fuck on, choosing to not give your business to people who voted to keep civil rights from gay people is a form of bigotry now? Seriously, come on. I don't personally intend on boycotting Mozilla- this browser was created by and is supported by thousands of people who are not this guy- but let's not kid ourselves here: voting for Prop 8 is a real piece of shit, vile thing to do, and it isn't bigotry to (rightfully) be wary of giving business to those who supported it.

Yeah, that's about all that needs to be said about 'what about TRUE BIGOTRY /tears'.

Sorry but it's not mental gymnastics, it's common sense.

If the law said "People that define themselves as gay, cannot marry", sure that's intolerant, but the law does not say that. I gave you concrete examples of things the law doesn't permit and some minorities would want, but you didn't answer them.

I'm sad that your intolerance doesn't allow yourself to read anything else I post seriously, I hope you take an introspective look at yourself and learn to respect the opinion of others.

You might want to check the part of you that generates common sense. There might be a malfunction.

 

[Pyramid head]

It's witch hunting, that's what it is, it's a terror machine, you and the people that support this shit are persecuting every person that has a different opinion or belief, because you think you are better than them morally, and that your opinion should weight more than the opinion of others.

You are discussing that a company that makes a web browser, which is a software for PCs should not promote a certain person who is absolutely qualified for the job, because of supporting his own beliefs. That's intolerance, sorry to break it to you.

Voting and supporting prop 8 is not intolerance, and people that support it have the same rights as you and their vote counts exactly the same as yours.

Holy shit. Your grasp on the basic definitions of certain words is so poor it's like your brain is wired backwards.

Businesses are not automatically entitled to your custom. If a business, or employee of, conducts themselves in a way which a customer might find utterly repugnant for example, they're free to take their custom elsewhere. That's basic consumer choice, not intolerance.

If a person however, wishes to deny or otherwise limit the rights of certain other people, for no other reason than out of sheer ignorance and bigotry, then that's pretty clearly intolerance.

Oh wait, some guy donated a grand probably on the basis of religious reasons, but I shouldn't respect his religion or beliefs because it's ok to bash Christianity just not Islam or Judaism, so I might as well boycott the entire browser, company, and everyone else working for the NPO.

Nobody mentioned religion but I don't see why it would matter if his donation was religiously motivated. A bigot is still a bigot whether their bigotry is born out of religious dogma or their own recognisance.

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

I'm okay with a boycott. These things mean a lot, so why not? Some people have to be willing to take the L when they find out they were on the wrong side of history.

 

[manueldelalas]

http://i.imgur.com/PNv7hzp.gif[IMG]

...What?[/QUOTE]
I don't think it's that difficult to understand.

The law itself does not discriminate between people (well, there are some laws that try to discriminate "positively", but that's another discussion); if you are gay or not, that's not the law's problem; if you want to marry two women and have a marriage of three (or more) people, that's not the law's problem, if you want to marry another member of your family, good for you, but that's not the law's problem.

If the law does not discriminate people, then it's not intolerant. "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California"; that's prop 8, and it's not intolerant, because it's equal to all people on California, and that specific law does not give rights to some people or take it from others.

 

[Alucrid]

did manueldelalas come back in time from a future where everyone is an idiot?

 

[RedShift]

I don't think it's that difficult to understand.

The law itself does not discriminate between people (well, there are some laws that try to discriminate "positively", but that's another discussion); if you are gay or not, that's not the law's problem; if you want to marry two women and have a marriage of three (or more) people, that's not the law's problem, if you want to marry another member of your family, good for you, but that's not the law's problem.

If the law does not discriminate people, then it's not intolerant. "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California"; that's prop 8, and it's not intolerant, because it's equal to all people on California, and that specific law does not give rights to some people or take it from others.

The law has no effect on straight people.

The law makes it so gay people can only marry people they don't love.

How are you not getting how that's discrimination?

 

[crozier]

I'm okay with a boycott. These things mean a lot, so why not? Some people have to be willing to take the L when they find out they were on the wrong side of history.

Hollywood blacklist. Totally ok too?

 

[Mr. RHC]

Seriously wtf, what is wrong with some people...

Whatever I hope Mozilla pull themselves together and provide a full proper statement.

I think I'm gonna write a letter to Mozilla.

 

[The Technomancer]

I don't think it's that difficult to understand.

The law itself does not discriminate between people (well, there are some laws that try to discriminate "positively", but that's another discussion); if you are gay or not, that's not the law's problem; if you want to marry two women and have a marriage of three (or more) people, that's not the law's problem, if you want to marry another member of your family, good for you, but that's not the law's problem.

If the law does not discriminate people, then it's not intolerant. "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California"; that's prop 8, and it's not intolerant, because it's equal to all people on California, and that specific law does not give rights to some people or take it from others.

Would a law saying "Only a marriage between two people of the same race will be valid or recognized" be intolerant? I mean, it applies to everyone equally.

 

[Tamanon]

I'm okay with a boycott. These things mean a lot, so why not? Some people have to be willing to take the L when they find out they were on the wrong side of history.

I assume you boycott any company with a Republican in any position of power then.

This just seems like a witchhunt to me, and makes no sense. I understand the bigotry angle, but I don't see how it impacts the company as a whole.

 

[CornBurrito]

I don't think it's that difficult to understand.

The law itself does not discriminate between people (well, there are some laws that try to discriminate "positively", but that's another discussion); if you are gay or not, that's not the law's problem; if you want to marry two women and have a marriage of three (or more) people, that's not the law's problem, if you want to marry another member of your family, good for you, but that's not the law's problem.

If the law does not discriminate people, then it's not intolerant. "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California"; that's prop 8, and it's not intolerant, because it's equal to all people on California, and that specific law does not give rights to some people or take it from others.

I think Technomancer already pointed out the huge flaw in this logic. But while your law is equal on the surface, it very much isn't equality as we have come to understand it.

I'm going to ask you to be honest here. Would you be fine if a law was passed in the United States that forbade (and retroactively made invalid) marriage between members of the opposite sex, and allowed only for same sex marriage?