Skip to main content

Lise Iwon (R) holds a picture of her late partner of 32 years Peg Laurence during a Marriage Equality Act signing at the State House in Providence, Rhode Island, May 2, 2013. Rhode Island became the 10th U.S. state to extend marriage rights to same-sex co
Lise Iwon holds a picture of her late partner of 32 years Peg Laurence during a Marriage Equality Act signing at the State House in Providence, Rhode Island, May 2, 2013.
When I was in grade school a black family moved into our neighborhood. My mom wondered aloud, "What are they doing in our neighborhood". Meaning, why are "those" people living in a white neighborhood? Yet the last presidential election she in which she was able to cast a vote, she voted for Barack Obama.

A few years later I recall watching Anita Bryant leading an anti-gay march on the evening news. I asked why the lady who promoted orange juice on TV hated those people so much. My mom said, “Because it isn’t natural.” I recall my answer was, “But they are people,” which got me an icy glare and no answer. When I was a senior in high school my mom was working with a woman who’s son had just come out as gay. The woman had disowned her son over it. My mom could not understand how anyone could disown one of their children. A year before she passed away I told her of two gay friends going to Hawaii to marry. She said she did not understand it, but hoped that they would have a happy life together.

Follow me below the fold for more.

Recently Mozilla hired as their CEO Brenden Eich, who donated $1,000 to support California's anti-gay Proposition 8. Three board members have resigned and employees are up in arms over his appointment as CEO. The uproar over Eich's appointment as CEO became so bad that he resigned after only two weeks on the job.

Research about Eich led me to a Tea Party Facebook page with the status update and linked story below.

We've all heard this argument from the right before, that those of us on the left are the ones that intolerant because we refuse to tolerate the beliefs of the right.

I am a tolerant man. I judge people by their character, not by race, color, creed or sexual orientation. I firmly believe that the vast majority of us on the left have a very similar viewpoint. Where I draw the line is by actions. If you are a bigot, I am going to call out your bigotry and shame you. That is not me being intolerant. That is standing up for those who are oppressed and giving them a voice.

What the Tea Party and their conservative brethren are are bullies - that is a simple fact. I have had a lot of experience in my life with bullies. This is a part of how bullies work. They blame the victim and claim they are the misunderstood victim in all of this. If you have a belief that causes harm to others, if you have a belief that because you are [fill in the blank: white, straight, Christian, etc.]  and that makes you better than [fill in the blank: African-Americans, homosexuals, atheists, etc.]. Then you are a bigot and your views are outdated, backwards and have no place in modern society. You are not a victim, you are nothing more than a loud, vocal bully.

The comments on the Tea Party status update are typical of the right, how tolerant they are while at the same time showing their true colors as a group of bigoted backwards-thinking people. I feel sorry for them. I really do. Going through life so full of hatred is a sad, sad thing.

My mom, a child of the Great Depression, was able to evolve on her viewpoints about color and sexual preferences. She realized that her beliefs were wrong-headed and she consciously changed them. I think the defining moment for her was when her co-worker disowned her son. My mom could never imagine doing that to one of her own children.

I often wonder what will be the defining moment for those on the right. What will it take to get them to accept people as they are? When will they finally understand the words that Thomas Jefferson wrote so many years ago:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Today, the pursuit of marriage equality is just one more battle being fought so that one more group of people can pursue the happiness that they have so long been denied.

Originally posted to Daily Kos Labor on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 04:30 PM PDT.

Also republished by LGBT Rights are Human Rights, LGBT Kos Community, and Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (157+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli, Crashing Vor, pixxer, Dallasdoc, anodnhajo, elpacifico66, Tara the Antisocial Social Worker, Neon Vincent, deha, Pluto, RandomNonviolence, Nannyberry, ontheleftcoast, VinnieSaltine, rudyblues, Susan Gardner, Elizaveta, karmsy, jck, librarisingnsf, Chrislove, Chitown Kev, Laconic Lib, Steveningen, dewtx, Shippo1776, JeffW, jhb90277, Dave the Wave, on the cusp, BMScott, vcmvo2, devtob, TrueBlueMajority, mrkvica, terremoto, RepresentUsPlease, Glen The Plumber, misshelly, wintergreen8694, gizmo59, GDbot, Susan from 29, MinnesotaMom, kevinpdx, pimutant, emmasnacker, Egalitare, aitchdee, RadGal70, Bronx59, Texknight, METAL TREK, kimoconnor, seefleur, alwaysquestion, The Hindsight Times, thomask, Dave in Northridge, ruleoflaw, hamjudo, vickijean, SoCalJayhawk, eeff, Nebraska68847Dem, numble, mumtaznepal, hbk, Jollie Ollie Orange, karma5230, Dirtandiron, Lencialoo, tampaedski, alpaca farmer, dandy lion, Res Ipsa Loquitor, ramara, SlightKC, jacey, ranton, Naniboujou, ladybug4you, Matt Z, pcl07, NCJan, Ian S, CA Nana, zozie, jan4insight, Lucy Montrose, johnosahon, tobendaro, ER Doc, flowerfarmer, skn, One Pissed Off Liberal, wasatch, post rational, 1BQ, hayden, anshmishra, Gardener in PA, peteri2, Free Jazz at High Noon, twigg, smrichmond, ladybug53, diggerspop, ratcityreprobate, monkeybrainpolitics, Temmoku, CenPhx, Cadillac64, Hastur, 99erinOregon, rose quartz, 3rock, Volt3930, IndieGuy, walja, GeorgeXVIII, noweasels, SpaK, bunsk, Debs2, Words In Action, Daulphin, kefauver, jplanner, FogCityJohn, Oh Mary Oh, llywrch, angrybird, niteskolar, Youffraita, myrmecia gulosa, Australian2, howabout, richardvjohnson, msdobie, radarlady, FindingMyVoice, triplepoint, sngmama, glitterlust, BobBlueMass, Catlady62, GreatLakeSailor, Arahahex, WC, Risen Tree, Most Awesome Nana, terrybuck, Dodgerdog1, EdSF, MadEye, Old Sailor

    "Republicans only care about the rich" - George W. Andersen - my late Father (-8.25, -7.85)

    by Mark E Andersen on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 04:30:00 PM PDT

    •  sometimes... (27+ / 0-)

      and then you have alan keyes.

      A learning experience is one of those things that says, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' Douglas Adams

      by dougymi on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 04:54:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Ah. "If I ain't experiencing it firsthand, (10+ / 0-)

      it doesn't exist."

      How very American.

      Real Democrats don't abandon the middle class. --John Kerry

      by Lucy Montrose on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 06:30:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sorry you missed the point. (9+ / 0-)

      While we are self-righteously slapping ourselves on the back for destroying a man's career for holding a different opinion than ours regarding a momentous social change, maybe we should stop and ask what we have really done in this case.

      Stuck it to the man? Humiliated a bigoted millionaire? Won one for the underdog? Hardly. We simply lynched a man with whom we disagreed.

      He had worked his whole life to create Mozilla, and this was a chance for him to make his mark. There was nothing in Mozilla or his leadership that was ever anti-gay. Funny, Mr. Eich's entirely private opinions on gay marriage were the same, at the time, as Barack Obama, another famous bigot and monster.

      I guess we now have a liberal "black list" of who is acceptable for employment, who can hold professorships, who can take leadership inside the Democratic Party. It excludes Catholics, Muslims, most black minsters, and various other monstrous human flotsam otherwise known as "American citizens who disagree with us activists." What a shameful and intolerant thing to have done.

      This is nothing to be proud of, defend or excuse. It is simply a liberal McCarthyism and just as rotten: illiberal, abusive, self-righteous, mean-spirited and inhumane. We destroyed a man's life for a private political opinion and laugh because we stuck it to the man? Have we no shame?

      As a liberal, count me out on witch hunts, purity tests and mindless cyber lynchings of people who disagree with us.  

      If this is the future of liberalism, it doesn't have one and doesn't deserve one. We will have become our enemies.

        •  you're fighting back (0+ / 0-)

          after the goddamn war has been basically won. It's a late hit. Penalty - 15 yards

          •  Won? Really? (5+ / 0-)

            Uh, what?

            This isn't freedom. This is fear - Captain America

            by Ellid on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 05:03:36 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Just like the GOP claimed (5+ / 0-)

            that Rose Parks "ended racism".  

            Shirley Chisholm was right. Our Republic is in deep trouble.

            by Big River Bandido on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 06:11:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  If I had to be honest. (0+ / 0-)

            I understand the fervor of the advocates. As I do the fervent anti-abortion activists because of their religious beliefs. But I would work closely with and promote either person depending on their work performance and competence, not their private beliefs. If they injected their beliefs into their work, that would be a different story.

            The world is too small an opinions far too diverse to develop purity tests for employment and life. We need to work with and create even with those with whom we disagree on even important issues. When some gay activists objected to a black minster who had ascended to a leadership role in Richmond, I knew we had gone to far.

            The Democratic party, especially, has to be a big tent. It needs Muslims and Catholics who oppose abortion and gay marriage, pro-gun advocates in West Virginia as well as gay advocates and pro-choicers from the East, all under the same tent, and with no purity tests or witch burning. We can honestly disagree on even important issues and not vilify or destroy those we disagree with We can and mist work together. Have to.

            And that means no liberal blacklisting, as happened with Mr Eich.  

      •  I'd like to think that having a "private opinion" (20+ / 0-)

        is one thing, and actively contributing to an effort to make that opinion into law and thereby impose it on all of society, is something else.

        Being subjectively, privately "against" marriage equality is one thing. Donating money to support an effort to prevent people from having it, is something else.

        I'd like to think Mr. Eich was condemned for his actions, not his opinions.

        •  Donating a few bucks is not piercing the privacy (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dallasdunlap, MHB

          veil by any means.

          This is NOT a trend progressives want to start.

          By very definition of being a progressive opinion holders tend to not be the individuals in power.

          Do we want to start a trend that you can be fired for donating to NORMAL?

          Do we want to start a trend that you can be fired for donating to civil rights movements circa 1960's?

          •  Castles made of straw... (12+ / 0-)

            Do we want to start a trend of saying someone was fired when they were not fired?

            Do we want to ask strawman questions?

            When did you stop beating your wife?

            •  The question is obvious (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Do we want an employee's political donations and private political affiliations scrutinized by their employer ever?

              The answer is no.

              By making this non public (as far as I can tell) donation a major issue, people are encouraging employers to constantly monitor all political affiliations of their employees.

              Me thinks you may need to re-read the definition of straw man lol.

              But it was a bit funny, your unformed strawman accusation, was itself a strawman argument. It would be even funnier if you had known that in the first place :)

              If anything my argument is a slippery slope argument.  

              •  Hilarious (5+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                SpaK, Miggles, MKSinSA, Risen Tree, Dodgerdog1

                I find it amusing that you decided to link to wikipedia, presumably after looking up that very page to figure out what I was saying, and by doing so providing an example that I was completely accurate in calling you out for using the tactic.

                Not only that, you provided yet another one in your failed attempt at mockery with:

                "people are encouraging employers to constantly monitor all political affiliations of their employees."

                To be fair, you're quite good at winning arguments with imaginary people.

                •  Read what he is saying. (0+ / 0-)

                  You are completely avoiding the issues he is raising and failing to engage, while congratulating yourself for winning some debating point none of us care about.

                  His points are critical, vastly important and crucial to seeing why what was done to Eich was wrong and a threat to freedom, coalition building and the future of liberalism if we become a cyber lynch mob out to enforce orthodoxy on parties, companies, universities, NGOs, individuals, etc. we don't agree with.

                  Someone has tried to make a distinction between having a private political or social opinion, and making a donation to support that view. What on earth? So you are entitled to an opinion, privately, so long as you do nothing to advocate, support and work towards achieving it? How on earth is that freedom or democratic? Believe what you want, but give up your rights as a citizen if you ever want a top tech job or professorship?

                  Companies must now monitor employees personal political lives and contributions, and demote or disqualify those who don't march lockstep with an agenda that most Catholics, Muslims and black Ministers do not agree with?

                  Welcome to 1984. What we are seeing here is a kind of mindless activism that divides the world into us and them, with no quarter given, and actual lives destroyed, actual human lives, because their belief is not ours.

                  That is sheer McCarthyism in action. Liberals ought not to ever behave like this after what we done in the 1950s to destroy so many good people's lives back then because their beliefs were deeply unpopular. That witch hunt has been a talisman for the abuse of freedom of thought ever since, and to  see it re-emerge on our side is chilling and unacceptable.

              •  This is a tough one for me (0+ / 0-)

                His donation was probably discovered because California has to disclose anyone who donates over $100 to a ballot initiative, and the LA Times set up a database where you can search donators.

                While I agree that a private donation should be off limits, anything made public should be fair game because—especially as CEO—you are representing the company.

                Eich may not have known that his donation would be made public knowledge and come back to bite him years later. Perhaps this disclosure law needs to be revisited. Transparency is important but a single $100 donation is not exactly going to swing an election, the disclosure limits should be targeted at larger donations. Regardless, once that his donation was made public, Eich had to act or be willing to accept the backlash.

                •  This one is why I am semi on the fence about (0+ / 0-)

                  THIS action as well.

                  being a CEO is somewhat opening yourself to the public scrutiny.

                  But at the same time CEO's politicians and celebrities do have some rights to privacy.

        •  True, he didn't just vote in a poll--he gave (15+ / 0-)

          1000 dollars to ban consenting adults of legal age, from the legal right to marry each other, thereby affecting their ability to inherit, affecting custody issues, and sadly, whether one partner can visit another partner in the hospital or be that person's agent in the hospital.

          Sit in a room with a gay couple and watch as the family of the one in the hospital kicks the other out, because the family as NIK status, but the significant other doesn't.

          Bigotry especially when it's codified in our laws, HURTS people in ways that many cannot imagine.

          That's why I will not shed one goddamn tear for the Greene family if HL should go under. I am boycotting them. Does that make me intolerant? Does that make me a bad liberal for wanting to do whatever I CAN as a woman to preserve my rights from the likes of them?

          In this new America, where 1 dollar equals 1 vote--anyone with 1000 dollars or more to throw at any campaign or cause has a distinct advantage over me and my one singular regular vote that isn't worth cash or a cushy revolving door job after the fact.

          Having a difference of opinion is one thing. Using your power to deprive human beings of their human rights, and their civil rights is quite another.

          "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

          by GreenMother on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 10:47:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  STANDING OVATION (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            This isn't freedom. This is fear - Captain America

            by Ellid on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 12:18:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  X2 (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            nosotros no somos estúpidos

            by a2nite on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 12:31:19 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  You are deeply shocking to say this. (0+ / 0-)

            I understand your emotional and sincere feelings about this. But you cannot destroy people who don't agree with you, exclude them from the Democratic party or insist that anyone who opposes you is unworthy of holding a job, being a CEO, a professor or being a party leader.

            Hobby Lobby is acting publicly and legally as a company to attack a policy and social value we support. That is different than having a company employ a person who disagrees with us privately on that issue fired and or driven from his position.

            What you have done is now made private political views and contributions a means to destroy peoples livelihoods. That can cuts lots of ways. What if a person gave to the Communist Party? What if they gave to an atheist organization? What if they gave to an anti-public nudity advocacy group?

            Where do we get off demanding every major employee of a company follow our political views? That excludes Musilms. Catholics and millions of people from ever holding a job or heading a company. That is deeply wrong, abusive and inhumane. And anti-freedom for all. Remember Thomas Paine.

            If Eich had used his position for political purposes and had Mozilla work against gay marriage, then boycotts and complaints would be fine to call for. He never did any such thing. He privately felt a certain way and gave money to a group who felt the same.

            That should and must be the right and freedom of everyone to do without suffering a cyber-lynch mob destroying their lives.

            •  I am no intention of destroying anyone (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Ellid, wishingwell

              But I won't allow them to build their platform on my back either.

              Nor should you.

              I don't chase individual people around the internet to punish them. However, corporations are not people. And corporations that seek to use their political clout and their unlimited financial resources to deprive others of their human rights? Those are fair game.

              Mozilla didn't want to deal with that and dropped that guy like a hot potato.

              Lots of gay people use the internet. And lots of allies to the GLBT community use the internet. Customers want to pay for a service, but that doesn't mean they want to fund a group that is going to use that money to take away their civil rights and that includes equal protection, the right to privacy, and the ability to pursue happiness.

              Its sort of difficult to do that, if any random bubba out there thinks he can kick your ass or kill you on a whim because you don't have sex in the pre-approved manner dispensed from some anonymous street preacher out there.

              I also boycott BP, Hobby Lobby, the Koch Brothers, and Wal Mart. I am not out to destroy anyone, but I recognize there are plenty of CEOs who feel it's okay to help foment a world where its practically legal to destroy me as a woman or my friends that are gay, or no white.

              Cross that human/civil rights line and I will do all I can to lawfully make trouble for an institution or corporation or what have you.

              "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

              by GreenMother on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 05:29:20 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  sorry for the word salad--I seem to be (0+ / 0-)

                afflicted with that this month.

                "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

                by GreenMother on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 11:12:38 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Oh, thank you SO much (0+ / 0-)

              For using the "you're so emotional" card against a female poster.  Sexist much?

              Shame on you.  Go troll in another thread.

              This isn't freedom. This is fear - Captain America

              by Ellid on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 05:08:38 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  I agree with you 100% (6+ / 0-)

        The amazing thing to me is how many people have made a huge leap from supporting marriage equality -- a cause which I support -- to assuming that anyone who, for any reason whatsoever, chooses to support the older definition of marriage, is ipso facto "a bigot."

        In fact, there is a world of possible reasons why one could choose to come down on one side or the other on that social issue. A person could have nothing against gay people and simply disagree as to whether defining marriage to include same-sex marriages is good for the institution of marriage. And there could be a lot of reasons for that. To take one example: I'm in favor of same-sex marriage, but I'm dead set against polygamy. A lot of people have worried that allowing same-sex marriage will mean that polygamy will soon have to be legalized as well. Whether that's likely or not, it's a fear some people have.

        There could be a lot of reasons that a person would choose to come down on one side or the other of, as you said, a sweeping social change. To go on witch-hunts against people who disagree(d) on this issue is not a good thing.

        In fact, it's very frightening to me to see how quickly things seem to be moving from "Hooray, the good guys won!" to "Now we need to identify the bad guys and make them suffer!" Can't the good guys be a little more gracious in victory than that?

        •  The struggle is far from over. (10+ / 0-)

          This is premature:

          "Hooray, the good guys won!"
          Eich knows this, and hasn't recanted his position on it.

          Il est dangereux d’avoir raison dans des choses où des hommes accrédités ont tort. - Voltaire
          Don't trust anyone over 84414 - BentLiberal

          by BentLiberal on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 07:46:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  no it's not (0+ / 0-)

            we did win on marriage equality. At this point it's just going through the formality of the courts. I'm willing to bet in the next 2 years almost all the states will have worked through all the cases and appeals and with DOMA struck down states have to accept out of state gay marriages... so yeah. it's de-facto victory.

            •  But in the context of this thread (0+ / 0-)

              the commenters were claiming that the fight is over and that there's not reason to call out people like Eich. My comment was contending that the fight is not over and people like Eich are still fighting it from their side.

              Il est dangereux d’avoir raison dans des choses où des hommes accrédités ont tort. - Voltaire
              Don't trust anyone over 84414 - BentLiberal

              by BentLiberal on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 09:12:34 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  the fight is over (0+ / 0-)

                If this was football we've got a 40 point advantage and a minute left on the clock. The only thing that could save them is a national amendment and I don't see that happening. We're basically running down the clock.

              •  You are missing the point. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                Saying you disagree with people who advocate against gay marriage is fine. But what happened to Eich was different. He was destroyed and vilified.

                Most Muslims, Catholics, Mormons, Hindus and others oppose gay marriage and always will. Are you calling them all bigots and monsters and demanding they give up their beliefs or no longer qualify to have full and free economic and professional lives because their sincere private beliefs and contributions disagree with yours?

                NO muslims as tech CEOs. NO Catholics, NO Mormons. All discriminated against in employment and life and put on a blacklist because they disagree with you.

                I beg you to read about McCarthyism. Watch some of the documentaries and feature films about that awful period when people who had been communists or leftists -- still fringe views most people don't care for -- were barred from holding jobs, fired, hounded, destroyed. Pete Seeger could not even get on the radio anymore. Because he has been a commie.

                What was done to Eich is the same awful thing. It was not heroic, it was not decent and it was deeply undemocratic and divisive. Please, think about this the way it should be. Black lists are deeply illiberal and unworthy of our movement.  

                •  I think I have to agree with this point... (0+ / 0-)

                  I didn't like the fact that he made that contribution, but that was six years ago. He was not a CEO at that time. I worry about this action because I think it gets to the point that if you are a good Catholic, Mormon, Southern Baptist, Muslim or other 'conservative" religion that does not support gay marriage, then you can't be a CEO or other high representative of a corporation. I don't know that I can go that far. We know that the Mormons and Catholics in particular were very active in campaigning for Prop 8 in California. Lots of money was expended by them to help push for their views. Does this make all Catholics and Mormons culpable if they gave to their church at that time. I think we are saying it does if we are for the action against Eich. I don't like what he did, but I'm a bit uncomfortable in denying him a job that he probably would be very good at because he did it. I'm just a bit unsettled about this still.

                  •  Well said. (0+ / 0-)

                    The way to win is to meet with and persuade those who disagree, not bar them from jobs, party positions, etc. It would drive traditional people who favor left policies outside of gay marriage right out of our movement, to our tremendous detriment. Imagine Hispanics saying tot themselves, I like Democrats, but our pastors  and priest are being called hateful bigots within the party.

                    There goes the Democratic party.

                    Gay marriage is something that has to evolve and develop, not be the subject of jihads. And vilfication of those who don't go along with it is just intolerance in a different form.

            •  Victory? In what universe? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              valmont, Liberal for Life

              LGBT Americans aren't a protected class nationwide, not in housing, education, employment, or any of a thousand other everyday, ordinary aspects of daily life that straights take for granted.   Worse, legal marriages in one state are not always (or even frequently) valid in another, meaning that a man in New York who's legally married and can enjoy every tax benefit and statutory advantage that implies can be transferred to Kansas and find that he can't visit his husband in the hospital, his employer can fire him for no reason other than he has a husband, and his landlord can throw him out without warning.

              Tell me again about how the victory is won for gay rights?  

              This isn't freedom. This is fear - Captain America

              by Ellid on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 12:25:01 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Nearly 30 states still deny gays the right to (18+ / 0-)

          marry and you call that victory? And in some of those states only a federal court is making it possible, some states are revving up to challenge that so the number could drop before it goes up.

          And gays still don't have federal protection from workplace discrimination. Damn right they have to fight like hell to make sure they're right to simply live and work in this country isn't being squashed by people like Eich.

          And I addressed your sophistry below but I'll restate it here

          I don't care what your reasons are to deny someone their basic rights are -- if you do you're a bigot. You can call it something else all you want but that shit still stinks.

          You don't like gay marriage? Fine, don't have one. But don't think you can tell Bob and Steve they can't marry because it makes you "uncomfortable" or you think it's "sinful". That exact same bullshit argument was made against blacks and whites getting married. And if was BIGOTRY, not "science" or "sincerely held beliefs" or some other euphemism.

          Food processed to be nothing more than simple starches with two dozen flavorings and stabilizers added to make it appear to be food isn't "food". It's "feed" -- what you give to livestock to fatten them up for slaughter.

          by ontheleftcoast on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 07:59:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm for same-sex marriage (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            But I'm 100% against legalizing polygamy. I think polygamy would be very bad for our society. Is that a bigoted position? I'm curious.

            •  Wait, are you headed to marrying goats? (8+ / 0-)

              Do I have to go down this same tired road of strawmen? Polygamy! Child brides! Goats! Sorry, not going to even bother with you anymore.

              Food processed to be nothing more than simple starches with two dozen flavorings and stabilizers added to make it appear to be food isn't "food". It's "feed" -- what you give to livestock to fatten them up for slaughter.

              by ontheleftcoast on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 08:15:26 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Yes (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Miggles, scribblingTiresias, Ellid

              I would consider it a bigoted position. If three people love each other equally why do you want to stop their relationship?
              I'm not even being sarcastic here. Polygamy and Incest (between consenting adults) should be legal. They are illegal for the same reason same sex marriage is not legal in some states. Religious reasons.

              •  I don't want to "stop their relationship" (0+ / 0-)

                I want to not put a legal, societal stamp of approval on an institution that I believe is bad for women -- and I think polygamy is.

              •  p.s. (0+ / 0-)

                I thought bigotry was about some kind of prejudice against a group. The argument was made that no one who opposes same-sex marriage does so because of concern about the actual societal institution; they do so because of hatred of gay people. That may be -- I'm in favor of same-sex marriage so I'm not in a position to comment on the motives of those who oppose it.

                But now if opposition to polygamy is actually bigotry against some minority -- who's the minority I supposedly hate? And where's the evidence that I'm motivated by hatred of them rather than by a concern for whether polygamy is an institution compatible with American values?

            •  Speaking as a polyarmist (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Risen Tree, AdamSelene

              How am I (and  my two partners) harming you?  In any way?  I mean, besides giving you the ickies.

              Because "100% against" seems like you have a very big issue with my private life, which as far as I know is harming no one.

              So...I think my honest answer to your question:

              Is that a bigoted position? I'm curious.
              is "maybe".  Because...why do you feel that way?   Can you defend it rationally?

              Minority rights should never be subject to majority vote.

              by lostboyjim on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 07:04:23 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I couldn't care less about your private life (0+ / 0-)

                I'm concerned with the nature of our society overall, and I don't think it's in the best interest of our society to legally sanction polygamy. You can privately do whatever you want, so long as it isn't outright abusive. But as soon as you start demanding legal recognition for a re-definition of marriage that includes 3-way and 4-way splits, etc., you're asking for a change in a societal institution. At that point, the rest of society has a right to weigh in about whether we want to go along with it.

                •  Sounds like right-wing talking points (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Ellid, a2nite

                  "re-definition of marriage", "change in societal institutions".   I hear that on Faux News.

                  You start talking in broad "change is bad" statements as opposed to stating, you know, actual harm.  Which leads me to believe you DO care about my private life.

                  Minority rights should never be subject to majority vote.

                  by lostboyjim on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 11:24:05 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I think a society in which polygamy is legal (0+ / 0-)

                    and normal is bad for women. If a few people work out private arrangements on the side, that isn't a big enough deal that I would want to bother them about it. But developing a societal expectation that women should not expect to be the sole partner to their husband is bad for women, and as a feminist, I'm opposed to it.

                    •  A society devloping from the current one? (0+ / 0-)

                      Or from a void?

                      Is it not interesting that you do not consider that it could end up more with women having multiple partners than men, that being the expectation and the norm even?

                      So, the idea isn't wrong on the face of it on those grounds, just how you imagine the idea will bear out...

             that reason to be 100% against it?

                      You know, I remember stories about the expectations a certain wing that rhymes with blight had of gay marriage would affect the country...

             seems like only yesterday, even.

                  •  Believe me, I couldn't care less about your (0+ / 0-)

                    private life. I don't know where you live or how old you are or anything else about you, and I really don't care. But in this society, women are not trained to expect to be one of 2 or 3 or half a dozen wives sharing one husband, and I think that's worth taking a stand for.

                    By the same token, I'm against legalized assisted suicide, but if a few people find ways to take their lives, I wouldn't want to harass the people who helped them. It's entirely possible to say that, on the one hand, it is not in the best interest of our society to make something the norm, and on the other hand, it's also not a good idea to persecute the few people who do it.

                  •  I refuse to go along with the canard (0+ / 0-)

                    that only right-wingers care about the good of society, while liberals only demand "rights" and refuse to talk about responsibilities. That in itself is a right-wing talking point. If we liberals can't talk about what's good for society without being accused of sounding like Fox News, we have a problem.

            •  NOT THE SAME THING (0+ / 0-)

              This isn't freedom. This is fear - Captain America

              by Ellid on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 12:25:57 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

                •  Could have (and DID) fool me (0+ / 0-)

                  Good God in heaven.  The straw men are going up in flames.

                  This isn't freedom. This is fear - Captain America

                  by Ellid on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 01:28:44 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No straw men at all (0+ / 0-)

                    I asked a sincere question to try to find out how folks here are defining bigotry. I got some interesting answers. Sorry if you missed the point.

                    •  Sorry, but I read the rest of the thread (0+ / 0-)

                      Being deliberately disingenuous as a cover for trolling?  Not pretty.  Not at all.

                      This isn't freedom. This is fear - Captain America

                      by Ellid on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 05:10:08 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Whoa, now it's trollery? (0+ / 0-)

                        I'm not being disingenuous at all. I suspected that since some people here thought there could be no reason other than bigotry for anyone to oppose same-sex marriage -- a cause which I support, by the way -- then it was possible that some thought that having any opinion in favor of retaining any form of traditional Western monogamous marriage would equate to bigotry. And in fact, it turns out that some people in this conversation think that if you hold the opinion that marriage should be between two people (of either sex), you're a bigot. And that you must be out to get polyamorous people, etc. I don't think everyone here thinks that, but it was interesting to me that the people who replied, did. This is a usage of the word 'bigot' that I'm not familiar with, and now I'm wondering how widespread it is. And I'm seriously wondering how any of us can have rational conversations about proposed changes to a social institution such as marriage, if the pro-change people make accusations of bigotry every time someone opposes a change -- regardless of their reasons for the opposition.

                        I suspect you're using the word 'troll' in a new way too, but if you care to point out where the trollery lies in trying to establish the grounds we're arguing on, please do.

                        •  Sorry, but blatant bigotry against same-sex couple (0+ / 0-)

                          is not a fit subject for "rational conversations."  That you could think otherwise is reason enough to stand by my characterization of your posts.

                          We're done here.  Well done, you.

                          This isn't freedom. This is fear - Captain America

                          by Ellid on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 06:32:16 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  In a civilized society, *everything* must be (0+ / 0-)

                            a fit subject for rational conversations. Otherwise the entire idea of a civilization falls apart. The fact that you think some subjects are, apparently, fit only for screaming, yelling and hurling accusations is very frightening.

            •  Why exactly is polygamy "VERY bad for society ?" (0+ / 0-)

              You seem so sure of this point.

              Yet there is, of course,  historical record that OTHER societies,  given their beliefs and their circumstances,  have found  polygyny or polyandry an extremely successful strategy for stabilizing society and facilitating the transmission of culture. (The Ottoman Empire comes to mind.)

              Admittedly,  it's also demonstrable that polyandrous communities are few, far between, and often a temporary expediency in hard times.  

              It's likewise true that the known "polygamous" societies have tended to be oppressively patriarchal ... begging the question of whether the problem is in the practice of plural marriage or moral failings of Patriarchy in general.

              So,  you are, of course entitled to hold what is after all a very popular opinion and one with which few people would bother to argue.

              But at the base ... is there anything more than a very popular thought habit at work?

              •  Yes, I've done a fair bit of reading on it (0+ / 0-)

                And I am opposed to the idea of societally training girls to expect to have to share a husband with other wives -- which is where we could easily end up if polygamy were legal. I think polygamy puts women in a very precarious position, undermining their power within the family and often forcing them to "compete" with other wives for their husband's attention. I think the institution most amenable to supporting equal partnerships is marriage defined as a relationship between two people, be they both of the same sex or one of each sex. As a feminist, I am opposed to polygamy.

                You are, of course, entitled to hold what is, after all, a very liberal-sounding position. But at the base -- have you put any thought into it or is it just a desire to appear open-minded at work?

                •  As a Feminist myself ... I'm not that enthralled (0+ / 0-)

                  with "marriage" ... at least as understood by Christians and Jews for the past thousand years ... as being particularly "pro woman".

                  (I assume you've read Shulamith Firestone  as well as Betty Friedan, right? )

                  And as for females being "groomed" to please and serve males... it's not like WE do that today, anymore, at all at all  -- not in pre cana counseling, and not in consumerist mass media.

                  So to answer your question:  Yes!  I've put a great DEAL of thought into the history and anthropology of the institution of marriage.  And I will freely concede that ENORMOUS progress has been made in freeing up sexual roles in diadic nuclear families.  

                  I sould  even conjecture, that Gay and Straight culture influenced each other in the last two generations, so that "mixed marriages" became more egalitarian, and "peer pair bondings"  became more monogamous. (And frankly,  there were plenty of Butch/Femme couples that needed lessons from The Feminine Mystique, themselves.)

                  Still,  for the longest time, I too held  the default opinion that while various forms of  "open", "group", or "communal" marriage might offer some advantages under some situations ... it was self evident and obvious that when women in the Nation of Islam started writing and speaking in defense of "Man Sharing" -- there was something terribly wrong and bad about THEM.

                  So, it IS after a great deal of thought, and considerable reading that I have come to ask

                  "What's ... aside from the "yuch factor" and our  bias against Mormons and Moslems  ... is so inherently wrong about Polygamy that it can even be used as an argument against Marriage Equality?"

                  That husbands abuse wives?  

                  That offered the remedy of divorce, 50% of families avail themselves of it -- so that there are so many stepfathers, that some of them must inevitably molest their stepdaughters?  

                   And this is MORE likely to occur when there is only one wife in the family?

                  Were you to say "MEN are bad for women" ... I would not necessarily agree -- but I would certainly see the point.

                  When you say, in the same way, "POLYGAMY is bad for women" ... I can see a lot of examples where this has been the case -- but I have to ask:
                  "Is the problem the POLYGAMY, or is it the MEN ?"

                  •  I'm glad to see we've both thought about it (0+ / 0-)

                    At this point, changes to the law to legalize polygamy aren't even on the table, so it can remain a theoretical point, for the moment. If and when it becomes an actual issue, we can all look at more facts. I haven't yet been convinced that polygamy is good, and since it would be a massive change to our culture and our legal structure, I would need to be convinced that it would be an overall plus. I haven't seen that yet.

                    •  Originally you said "VERY bad for society" (0+ / 0-)

                      as if that were a self-evident proposition.

                      Sadly, that's pretty much what it is  .... "self-evident" ... not in need of any discussion or consideration ... because it is so obvious.

                      Until fairly it was equally the "obvious" that the reproductive imperative defined  "same sex" marriage into a "travesty" ... like men with artificial breasts,  wearing dresses.

                      What might be "as obvious" is: where it has been tried, polygamy ... in patriarchies ... is not so very good for women.  But closely examined, it is patriarchy itself that is not so very good for women.

                      Certainly,  as 21st century westerners, not to mention Feminists, "not good for women" is by OUR definitions "not good for society."  

                      From the point of view of medieval Christians, Jews and Moslems  -- WOMEN are "not good for society" ... hence the harems, double standards, slut-shaming, and other cultural artifacts designed to contain female sexuality and assure masculine control of women. their property and their children -- which, truth be told would include "diadic nuclear families" almost as much as "traditional extended families."

                      You do understand that the "enormous change in our culture and legal structure" has been galloping along pretty much since Victoria was Queen?

                      When Victoria was a girl, in the West, among Christians, marriage was pretty much indissoluble. Women were at best second-class citizens with no voting rights ...  highly circumscribed rights of person and property, and with only limited means available to the very few to improve their situation.

                      Frankly ... the changes necessary to accommodate people whose cultures have mandated polygamy ... for those with the means to afford it ... are NOT actually that great.  

                      Israel did so,  from Independence until the present day -- in theory, at least.  Those married polygamously in  countries where polygamy is legally supported, continue to BE married under Israeli civil law ...

                      In the US, at this time, the fact is ... there are Moslems, and Animists  who still marry polygamously -- and yet would like to come to the United States, to do what immigrants do.

                      As communities, they will, if history is any guide, voluntarily abandon polygamy within a generation or two, and adopt OUR customs of divorce and unofficial concubinage in its place.

                      But the question, unasked is:  can polygamous families immigrate into the United States at all ... or are they neccessarily excluded as  "morally undesirables."

                      So, it IS sort of "an issue" right now.

                      It's just an issue that the Vast Majority, in it's Infinite Wisdom, chooses not to engage

                      So ... I ask again:  "What is your reasoning? " ... aside from the obvious  "I'm not comfortable with it" and "I haven't been persuaded yet" ?

                      •  I don't see a compelling argument (0+ / 0-)

                        to change the definition of marriage. I think there is too much evidence that polygamy is not good for women, and furthermore, it is a burden on our legal system to re-write the laws to deal with polygamous marriages and divorces. That's it. If people want to immigrate to the US, presumably they want to fit in with our culture and our system of laws, and that includes monogamous marriage (not that actual sexual fidelity can be legally enforced). The burden of proof is on those who want to change our society and our legal system to accommodate a different arrangement. They're the ones asking for a change, so they need to demonstrate that the net effect on our society will be positive.

                        •  Interesting expectation. (0+ / 0-)

                          You demand a class prove their lifestyle not be harmful to society...

                          ...while it is illegal.

                          Would you argue that it would be fine for Uganda to require the same of anyone trying to change their laws regarding homosexuals?

                          Would you have stood up and argued pre Loving that blacks had to prove marrying whites wouldn't be the end of American society?

                          Your argument doesn't reduce well. I'd look carefully to where it's stemming from.

                          My guess is "ick".

                          •  No, because your examples pertain to (0+ / 0-)

                            classes of people -- sexual orientation, racial groups. Uganda's law is persecuting a class of people. Miscegenation laws denied the equal right to marry to racial classes.

                            Polygamous marriage pertains to a legal arrangement, not a class of people. If people want to introduce a new legal arrangement into our system of laws -- and that's what writing laws defining the specifics of polygamous marriage and divorce would be -- they need to argue that the new laws would be a benefit to our society. I've presented reasons why I think they would not be. If someone wants to actually add these laws to our system, the burden is on them to make a case.

                          •  Hrm, interesting. (0+ / 0-)

                            You're contending no one on this planet is born polyamorous?


                            Not a single one.

                            Every single person who is polyamorous made a conscious, I assumed you would argue hedonistic, choice in a single moment in their adult life.

                            There was no gradation before, at which point they realised. Noone is born that way.

                            Like I said... interesting.

                            I'm sure you can back that up.

                            Like I said, scratch to far here... and it all comes back to "ick".

                          •  I have no idea if anyone is born polyamorous (0+ / 0-)

                            But people can pursue a polyamorous lifestyle if they so choose. When they ask society to use the court system and the tax code etc. to legally regulate their relationships, that's when they need to make a case that this will be of benefit to society.

                          •  I have no idea if anyone is born gay (0+ / 0-)

                            But people can pursue a gay lifestyle if they so choose. When they ask society to use the court system and the tax code etc. to legally regulate their relationships, that's when they need to make a case that this will be of benefit to society.


                          •  Your argument works only if you concede (0+ / 0-)

                            that allowing couples of the same sex to participate in the already-defined institution of marriage represents a change to the actual institution of marriage. That's precisely the grounds that the anti-equality people were arguing on.

                            But in fact, allowing same-sex couples to marry did not require a significant change in definitions. Whereas writing the marriage, divorce, inheritance, child custody and tax laws, etc. for 3-way or 4-way arrangements would, in fact, be introducing new legal structures into our system.

                          •  Really? It's "hard"... cool, it's ok to discrim (0+ / 0-)

                            inate, if the inclusive option is "hard"?

                            If it was have been difficult to rewrite laws to accommodate them... we shouldn't let/have let gays marry?

                            (p.s. it's not like there is NO rewriting to do)

                            Wow... you know what was hard? Changing laws about if being of a certain colour gave you certain rights or not.

                            Of course, I don't propose to compare the struggles of the polyamorous to those struggles.

                            But FUCK THE IDEA that legal acceptance should only come to small groups if it's easy to allow it.

                            That is pernicious well beyond this argument.

                            It doesn't hurt my position that you've got nowhere to go without it though.

                          •  Again, re-writing the definition of marriage (0+ / 0-)

                            to include new structures and arrangements would be a substantial change to the entire institution. People who want the new arrangements need to make a case that they will be of net benefit to society.

                            Marriage itself isn't intended simply to benefit couples. The reason it's enshrined in laws is that it is of benefit to society to have certain relationships legally defined and protected. If having a wife share her husband with two other women is of sufficient benefit to society that our laws should be re-written to protect such an arrangement, then surely a case can be made for introducing the new structure into our system. I haven't seen a compelling case for it, though.

                          •  p.s. To show discrimination, you have to show (0+ / 0-)

                            that other people are being allowed to do whatever-it-is and that it's unfair to exclude one group.

                            There is no state in the US that allows some people to marry more than one person, therefore no one is being excluded in a discriminatory fashion.

                          •  Black people could marry. (0+ / 0-)

                            White people could marry.

                            Why let black people marry white people?

                            Straight people could marry.

                            Gay people could marry (straight people).

                            to show discrimination, you have to show that other people are being allowed to do whatever-it-is and that it's unfair to exclude one group.
                            What group is being unfairly excluded here?

                            Who said society had to allow you to marry outside your race or inside your sexual orientation? If you're not being denied the right altogether (because the love bit doesn't matter in your definition)... no discrimination, RIGHT?

                            I think civil rights would be in a very... interesting... state  if your definitions of discrimination had of been allowed to hold sway.

                          •  So let's say someone wants to make up a (0+ / 0-)

                            structure in which marriage is redefined as a master-slave relationship, because that's how some BDSM people love, and then legalize it for the master to own half a dozen slaves, because that's part of it too. And then we argue that some people are born with a predisposition to BDSM styles of loving. By your logic, we would have to legally honor arrangements in which one person owns half a dozen slaves, provided that the slaves originally entered the arrangement of their own free will. And we would not be allowed to ask whether enshrining that kind of arrangement in our legal codes is good for society.

                            If refusing to alter the legal code to honor any arrangement people want counts as "discrimination," then it's discriminatory not to allow the hypothetical relationship I just outlined -- is it not? What would be the difference?

                          •  See the part where I said "not in and of itself" (0+ / 0-)


                            Owning a slave has been deemed in and of itself illegal.

                            Just like things gays have been compared to.

                            So, already answered.

                            Nothing in a polyamorous marriage (easier than saying polygamous without specifying I also mean polyandrous because obviously) is otherwise in an of itself illegal.

                            But, seriously, keep up, I already covered this one for you so you wouldn't look foolish traipsing down that path.

                          •  I will grant that you came at it from an (0+ / 0-)

                            interesting angle. Some plaudits there.

                            Especially given the intersection of BDSM/Poly.

                            But, really, all you did was dress up "if we allow gays to marry, what's to stop someone marrying their turtle (and the kiddy stuff)"...

                            Well, because both are illegal (pretty much just consent for the turtle, and HOLY FUCK CONSENT PLUS EVERYTHING ELSE for the other).

                            Now, you proffer initial consent in your version. Irrelevant, it's illegal for other reasons.


                          •  If you didn't get it, you just dismissed examples (0+ / 0-)

                            that destroy your argument because those examples were about classes of people.

                            I proffered that being polyamorous was a class of person just as much as being gay and was daring you to argue otherwise (because, if you'd tried, you'd look very foolish)...

                   went WOOOSH

                            Now, either argue that anyone who is polyamorous isn't a class of people who can be born or discover they are that way... just like being gay...

                            ...or deal with my examples reducing your position to reveal its absurdity.

                          •  I will concede that people can be born (0+ / 0-)

                            polyamorous. I don't think it matters.

                            Now build a case that their preferred form of relationship must be enshrined in our legal codes.

                          •  That's easy. (0+ / 0-)

                            Unless it's an activity that "in and of itself" is otherwise deemed to the detriment of society and thus rendered illegal (I'm sure gays loved the comparisons that were made in this regard), and everyone is consenting adults, to do OTHERWISE is to discriminate, pure and simple.

                            I don't care how fucking hard it is for the inclusiveness to occur, to deny equal marriage rights to someone who was born loving a particular way? I think there's a word for that...

                          •  What is the activity that polyamorous people (0+ / 0-)

                            are denied the right to do, that other people are allowed to do?  

                          •  Be married to a person they love. (0+ / 0-)

                            You're making it this easy?

                            Now, you might argue, plenty of people love someone they're not married to...

                            Well, often that's not love, but lust.

                            The person might just be polyamorous, and/or would realise it if society was more accepting.

                            And they're not legally stopped from marrying that person, they just have to divorce the one they don't love anymore.

                            Now, if someone truly loves two people deeply. And is married to one...

                            ...the law denies them the right to be married to a person they love. (and divorce doesn't work, because the state of "denied the right to be married to a person they love" just shifts)

                            Anything else?

                            It really is just down to "ick", I'm not sure you know how ingrained it is.

                          •  And seriously, I need to ram this home... (0+ / 0-)
                            I will concede that people can be born (0+ / 0-)

                            gay. I don't think it matters.
                            Now build a case that their preferred form of relationship must be enshrined in our legal codes.


                            Now, as a "practical" matter, countering the arguments of the bigots might be necessary to win support from the middle for the change... but that is a sad state of affairs, and should not be required!

                          •  Because there *is* no right to be in a 3-way (0+ / 0-)

                            marriage in our society. It is not the case that the majority is allowed to legally marry 2, 3 or half a dozen people, and that polyamorous people are excluded from participating in that arrangement. We have no legal definition of a marriage involving more than 2 people in our codes. We have no definition of polyamorous divorce (would it be the case that all 3 people have to agree to divorce? What if two people want out but one person contests? How do we do property division? Does the one person who's leaving take 1/3 of the property? What if the marriage began as a two-way marriage and gradually added more people -- does that affect property division? etc. etc.)

                            No one in this society has the right to be married to more than one person at a time, therefore there is no discrimination going on here.

                          •  Noone in society has the right to be married to a (0+ / 0-)

                            person of a different colour...

                            therefor there is no discrimination going on here.

                            Said every bigot pre Loving.

                            Your arguments are reduced so VERY VERY easily.

                            I know you don't like anything difficult... so denying people rights is ok, because granting them would be difficult... but if you're going to put some effort in at all, a bit extra wouldn't hurt.

                            I am ignoring the part about the specific legal arrangements... BECAUSE THE DIFFICULTY IS NOT RELEVANT SO I DON'T GIVE A FUCK.

                            Desegregation was fucking difficult. So it shouldn't have happened? No... wait... I don't mean to strawman... your argument wouldn't transfer across as that "it shouldn't have happened", but that "blacks should have had to argue vociferously that it was WORTH the difficulty"...

                   I said, interesting.

                          •  It's not about whether it's difficult (0+ / 0-)

                            It's about whether it's desirable. I don't think it's desirable. I think redefining marriage to include all kinds of configurations of different numbers of people would not represent a net gain.

                          •  And I don't care that you don't think it's (0+ / 0-)


                            Because if that was the litmus test on whether black people or gays got to have their rights...

                            ...that a member of the majority thought it was "desirable"... well, FUCK.

                            Equal rights don't have to offer a net gain to society.

                            They don't even have to allow the status quo.

                            Apply your position to ending slavery for the south.

                            Think they thought it was a net gain?

                            Over HOW LONG can this gain be realised?

                            What criteria are you using? (GDP, overall happiness? something else?)

                            Why do YOU get to pick?

                            Btw, when you say something is not desirable because you the benefits realised would be less then the effort expended... a "net gain"... you're are saying it DIFFERENTLY that not desirable because it's difficult, but without DISTINCTION.

                          •  p.s. (0+ / 0-)

                            Let me give you an analogy. A person running a business can register their business as something called an S-corporation, which gives them certain rights and protections, and also certain responsibilities, fees and taxes. If there were a law saying people of one racial group or sexual orientation are not allowed to form an S-corporation, that would be blatant discrimination and such a law should be struck down, in my opinion. Anyone who said that gay people shouldn't be allowed to run businesses would rightly be called a bigot.

                            But now if someone says that we should also allow businesses to register as Z-corporations (a term that I just made up), and some people want to argue that the proposed terms of the new Z-corporation won't be good for our society because of some way that Z-corporations could more easily get away with abusing workers, or something like that -- that's not discrimination against any class of people. That's opposing the introduction of a new legal arrangement.

                            Laws defining how things work in a 3-way, 4-way or N-way marriage would be defining new legal arrangements. Therefore it should be possible to argue about whether those structures are good for society without being accused of being bigoted against any class of people.

                        •  You have made exactly the argument (0+ / 0-)

                          Are you referring to the whole of Islamic civilization
                          that Prop 8 supporters and their out-of-state sponsors made ...

                          THEY need to demonstrate that the net effect on our society will be positive.
                          I'm not sure that that's an established principle at law.  

                          However, I'm almost certain there is another principle:  that the State has a burden to prove its legislation does not have a negative effect on some of it's citizens and not on others.  It was under that standard that DOMA was overturned and it's State equivalents are being overturned one after the other.

                          During the run-up to those court decisions a lot of ink was spilt, and a lot of bandwidth occupied,  in comparing "same sex marriage" to both polygamy and bestiality.  In other words "eeew!!"

                          "Eeew!" isn't an argument.  It's a reaction.

                          But given that for centuries most of the Moslem world,  some  of the Asian and  much of the African DID practice polygamy -- quite comfortable that they were moral and responsible people living in ongoing and successful cultures ...

                          I had knee jerk reaction, too:  Mariage Equality is only fair, and not at all harmful to Society ... but POLYGAMY ???  How can I defend THAT ?  

                          That led me to re examine:  "what exactly is wrong with polygamy ... except that people who don't know much about it,  really really hate it a lot." ??

                          The best I could come up with was "Mormon Fundamentalist Cultists."   They "marry" very young girls -- sometimes their own daughters, some say. They leave the support of their wives and children to the County Welfare.  And they force the "surplus" boys out of the Cult before they are old enough to be sexual rivals.

                          Of course ... the ability of these criminal patriarchs to do these things is based very largely in the fact that "Spiritual Wives"  and their children have no standing under the domestic laws of Arizona and New Mexico

                          As to the burden of changing our legal system:  To  detail the enormous changes in marital law in the last 150 years  ... without even considering the recent  decision to allow persons of the same sex to marry each other -- that's a couple of semesters of Women's Studies or Civil Law classes right there.  THAT's why we HAVE legislators, pay them regular salaries, and expect them to legislate on a regular basis.  (Granted, the Republic House should have it's pay docked for shoddy workmanship and slacking off on the job ... but "Constitution" and all that.)

                          The reasons immigrants come 'here' is not so much their passion for our culture, customs, and language ... so much as  the opportunities we offer for gaining wealth, and escaping whatever it was "back home" that forced them to leave.

                          So there came a point, in order to "be consistent" in my advocacy of Marriage Equality, I had to adopt a position of "So ... what exactly IS wrong with Polygamy ?"

                          I have yet to see a reply that doesn't boil down to "Eeeew!" -- same as "Gay Marriage."

          •  Hang on (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Risen Tree, Ellid

            When the case gets to the Supremes asking that their gay marriage be recognized every where then we will have won.  My husband and I were married in Las Vegas.  We live in Michigan.  Our marriage is recognized in every state.  Why should gay marriages be any different?
            They aren't.   It's just a matter of time.

            No one should be able to vote on someone elses rights.  Do you think the South would have voted to end slavery and give blacks their rights?

        •  I don't know how to say this "nicely" but I'll try (4+ / 0-)
          A person could have nothing against gay people and simply disagree as to whether defining marriage to include same-sex marriages is good for the institution of marriage.
          There was a time in this country when people who felt strongly about the male-female definition of marriage, could have organized, recognized the suffering and discrimination faced by same sex couples and have done something about it more to their liking.  They could have worked to create laws instituting marriages with all rights for same sex couples but create them under a different name.  I know there is a debate about that status "meaning" the same, but my point here is that their "Christian compassion" didn't lead them to do that for some reason.

          It REALLY seems to me that the people who are "concerned" about the institution of marriage should look to the actual socio-emotional and economic problems that lead to the many broken and stressed out marriages between men and women.

          The idea that same sex marriage is a major worry for anyone just strikes me as projection.  It reminds me of when the hurricane hits, "it must be the gays".  So now it's my wife and I are fighting so "its the fault of gay marriage".

          Here is the real reason for marriage problems and as soon as the self deluded learn to take a look at their fearful souls and gain a little self awareness, we can all get on with reality:

          In a new study titled "Red States, Blue States, and Divorce: Understanding the Impact of Conservative Protestantism on Regional Variation in Divorce Rates," which will be published later this month in the American Journal of Sociology, demographer and University of Texas at Austin professor Jennifer Glass set out to discover why divorce rates would be higher in religious states like Arkansas and Alabama -- which boast the second and third highest divorce rates, respectively -- but lower in more liberal states like New Jersey and Massachusetts.

          It was previously thought that socioeconomic hardships in the South were largely to blame for high divorce rates, however Glass and her fellow researchers concluded that the conservative religious culture is in fact a major contributing factor thanks to "the social institutions they create" that "decrease marital stability."

          I'm not liberal. I'm actually just anti-evil, OK? - Elon James White

          by Satya1 on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 09:12:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  There are lots of things that could have been (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Dallasdoc, Risen Tree, Ellid, a2nite

            accomplished, that would make this country more the land of opportunity, but you know, there has been this growing fear that somewhere out there--someone is getting something awesomely good, and they just don't deserve it.

            Whether it's love, or money, or vacation time, the vote, health insurance, a living wage, or reproductive self determination--doesn't matter.

            Your right, it is a lot of projection and the politics of envy and greed.

            The fact is, GLBT people are legal citizens of this country and that means that they too get to participate in this Democratic Republic. That means that they too get to fight for their rights and defend them too. This irks the people who are used to calling all the shots for everyone.

            This guy is complaining about what? I remember when people were afraid to be known publicly as Gay, because only losing a job would have been the least of their troubles. They and their partners faced the very real threat of physical assaults or even murder. Gay bashing isn't something that happens online.

            It was something that happened in the real world and harmed and killed real people. And for what? They loved someone of the same gender.

            The only way for people in the GLBT community to be safe is to demand the same legal status and that includes titles, as their heterosexual counterparts. And even that's not a total guarantee of safety. But it gives them the standing they need in the courts to prosecute people who harass them or try to harm them simply for being visibly gay. And slowly this will take the stigma off of them. I think that bothers the opposition the most.

            How dare one be visibly gay and not be publicly stigmatized!

            "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

            by GreenMother on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 10:59:35 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Wrong (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Miggles, ScottinSF, Risen Tree, Ellid

          Clearly you're a troll or pretty damn ignorant. Would you have asked for more kindness towards the klan in the 60s too?

          There are no legitimate moral reasons to be anti-same sex marriage. People who choose to be against it are hateful bigoted scumbags no matter what.

        •  It is no longer 1994. Here in the year 2014, it (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dallasdoc, Risen Tree

          most definitely is bigoted to be against marriage equality.

        •  Bigots Yes (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Risen Tree, Ellid

          If folks who support "traditional" marriage work to not let all marry, then yes they are bigots in our country.  Our country has changed and those blocking change need to get out of the way.

        •  Witch hunt? Really? REALLY? (0+ / 0-)

          And "gracious in victory"?  Dude. This is not Nelson Mandela setting up a truth & reconciliation commission.  This is a minority that STILL doesn't have equal rights nationwide, and you think this is "victory"?  What are you smoking?

          This isn't freedom. This is fear - Captain America

          by Ellid on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 12:21:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Please don't use the "lynching" metaphor. (17+ / 0-)
        We simply lynched a man with whom we disagreed.
        That and your sparkling brand new user id show that you've not interacted here much.

        Il est dangereux d’avoir raison dans des choses où des hommes accrédités ont tort. - Voltaire
        Don't trust anyone over 84414 - BentLiberal

        by BentLiberal on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 07:44:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Would you say the same thing (14+ / 0-)

        If this had been a man who had advocated white supremacy?  Said that women had no place in STEM fields because of their menses?  Used his money to fund a Kickstarter to make a Fu Manchu movie?

        Calling someone who is a bigot for his bigotry and boycotting the company that has put him in a position of high authority over others is no more intolerant than refusing to shake hands with a Klansman.  Good God.

        This isn't freedom. This is fear - Captain America

        by Ellid on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 07:49:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Liberals sometimes overreach and do (6+ / 0-)

        some pretty stupid stuff that starts to look every bit like the extreme right.  I see self delusion of lefties and smug sanctimonious attitudes at DK every time I log in.  I get some of that.

        However, you've missed here.  You compare the reaction to lynching and McCarthyism and that is just more misdirected overreach.  You equate his opinion with Obama's and that is just wrong since you obviously don't know the nuance of their thoughts at the time.  Nor can you show that Obama made the same Prop 8 contributions.   No one strung up Mr. Eich and it is cringe inducing that you want to use that term here.  Nor did anyone, just like McCarthy, make up some bogus charge against him.

        No, most people only pointed out that Mr. Eich has shown intolerance for same sex families.  It's cute that others may characterize this as him supporting traditional marriages, but that is just a lie by omission.  Many of us happen to support both kinds of marriages.  Those attitudes are not mutually exclusive.

        For me, there's a bit of overreach on both sides, but one thing is clear.  Mr. Eich is the one with the intolerance problem and he gets to live with that whatever may come of it.  He's alive, wealthy and still has plenty of pals to hang out with, no doubt.  He's free to do what he wants and the rest of us have our choices as well.

        The tragedy is that all this defense of the high placed Mr. Eich goes on while the decades long constant discrimination against line level, low income working people is ignored by the corporate media.

        And the real hoot here is that liberals are taken to task by the extreme right for not tolerating Mr. Eich's intolerance.  The right contradicts themselves and most of them don't know it and some are just playing with language to provoke more liberal poutrage.  They may as well come out and say:

        There are only two things I can't stand in this world.  People who are intolerant of other people's gender orientation, ... and people who are LGBT.

        I'm not liberal. I'm actually just anti-evil, OK? - Elon James White

        by Satya1 on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 08:41:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Life, Liberty, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS! (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SpaK, GreatLakeSailor, Risen Tree, Ellid

          Hello, Chunny Gump!

           Although I've been reading The Daily Kos for several years now, I've NEVER felt so moved as now to respond to a Troll Attack like now! Yes! To pent: I've NOW officially joined my Brothers and Sisters here SPECIFICALLY to respond to your ASININE comment!
           So, if I 'just happened' to donate money to a short little tin-pot tyrant in 1930's Germany, who promised to incinerate all the Jews in ovens - that would be OK?
           So, if I 'just happened' to donate money to a bunch of sheet-wearing racists in 1890's South, who promised to lynch all the 'browns' on crosses - that would be OK?
           NEWS FLASH! You are responsible for EVERY action you take - even SPEECH! And, as we've so sadly been told, that money IS SPEECH!
           You can't have it both ways! Either money=speech, or it DOESN'T! Quit being a COWARD, and own up to your own EVIL! For NO-ONE who believes in the CONSTITUTION would so deprive their fellow citizens without just cause!          

        •  A little nuance, please, (0+ / 0-)

          GODWIN REDACTION and his inner circle never "promised" a genocide.  And when they promulgated one, they were at great pains to keep the details from the very people who had been chanting "The Jews are Our Misfortune" in the streets.

          Similarly, the "Good Klan" took a public stance of repudiating and excoriating the "Bad Klan" which actually carried out lynchings.

          My point is:  the Vast Majority of Europeans and Britons held negative views of Jews ... of the "If only they would all just go away" variety -- and the GODWIN REDACTIONers simply took the existing popular opinion and implemented it in exaggerated form.

          Likewise: in the 19th century  not even the New England Quakers were eager to have Africans marrying into their families,  much less competing with them in the whale oil business.

          The "Vast Majority" of Klansmen held opinions not very far out of the mainstream for the time and place.

          And it was these large numbers of people who  held opinions weakly that the murderers held strongly that provided protections, justification and most importantly FUNDING to their Evil Twins.

          So ... in this case ... A thousand bucks isn't a HUGE contribution to the cause of bigotry.  Not in comparison to the total fundraising of the Prop 8 promoters .. and not in comparison to the personal fortunes of Mozilla higher-ups.

          But it IS a significant contribution.

          The more vile because "it's not THAT unusual."

      •  If the future of liberalism has us calling out (6+ / 0-)

        bigots instead of acting like weenies, then I am all for it.  This fuckhead that you are so sad about donated buttloads of money to a hateful campaign.  Besides, the Supreme Court just got finished emphasizing that money = speech in yet another decision, and following that logic, any donation to a campaign is public speech, not a private opinion.  I guess it sucks to be him and be called out for the bigot that he is.  Ask me if I care.

      •  WTF??? (5+ / 0-)

        Who is "we" here?  This was purely a case of the free market acting in its own best interests, just as conservatives always claim it should be.  Eich was not fired, he resigned.  He did so when the employees of his own company basically said to the board "either he goes, or we go". That's just economics, plain and simple.

        The idea of Eich's "destroyed career" is simply ludicrous.  The guy was a fucking CEO.  He'll be able to get another job.  It's not like he was blacklisted, or given a dishonorable discharge, or had his security clearance revoked — things that have routinely been done to LGBT folk for decades.  I'm sure that somewhere, all the overpaid white guys in corporate America will make room for one of their own.  The 1% have the best welfare plan in the world.

        Shirley Chisholm was right. Our Republic is in deep trouble.

        by Big River Bandido on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 06:10:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  ^^^this^^^ (4+ / 0-)

          YES YES YES.

          This was purely a case of the free market acting in its own best interests...
          Funny how, when A&E decided to keep Duckhead, the cry was "the public can't tell a private company whom to fire and hire." And now this guy is a freaking martyr for resigning?  For what cause?  I'll bet there are lots of Mozilla employees who "support traditional marriage" (whatever the hell that actually means) and aren't gonna need to quit.
      •  Wrong! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Risen Tree

        It has been pointed out that if he had said he was wrong he would still have his job. Please re-think your views.

        Here's what you don't get:  This is not about his free speech. This is about a man who is head of a company that is for all.  That is what you don't get.  Say what you want, just don't own a company and expect to get away with hate any more.

      •  HR. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BigD145, Risen Tree, AdamSelene, madhaus
        I guess we now have a liberal "black list" of who is acceptable for employment, who can hold professorships, who can take leadership inside the Democratic Party. It excludes Catholics, Muslims, most black minsters, and various other monstrous human flotsam otherwise known as "American citizens who disagree with us activists." What a shameful and intolerant thing to have done.
        I think maybe you're thinking of the GOP, not the DNC here.    To categorize all activists as  a single group that makes decisions like some star-chamber cabal is disengenuous to say the least.
        count me out on witch hunts, purity tests and mindless cyber lynchings of people who disagree with us.
        You might want to remind yourself what a LYNCHING actually is before you throw that word around like you're on Fox News.  
        We destroyed a man's life
        A multi-millionaire lost his CEO job.  Cool definition of "destroying a man's life".. to each his own.

        Minority rights should never be subject to majority vote.

        by lostboyjim on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 07:14:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  "We" ? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Risen Tree

        This was basically done by his own employees, the people who have to work under him, not the "vast left-wing conspiracy."

        Your comment is so full of the same comments that trolls on the right have made over and over again in regard to this case:

        First - he wasn't just "holding a different opinion" but also acting on it in the form of financial support.

        Second, your use of "lynch" is inflammatory. He tendered his resignation after he became the focus of controversy.  And how often has that happened to people you agree with? How often has this, er, "lynching" been done by right-wing organizations? How many gays and lesbians have been lynched lost their jobs due to their sexual orientation? I know of several in my personal circle.

        Third, your equivalence with President Obama stating that he didn't agree with same-sex marriage when he was up for election. Is this the golden standard? It was okay to be against rights for gays and lesbians in 2008 because the President was against it too?  It is OK to support the TPP if the President signs it? Are aerial drone strikes OK too? Is NSA full-n data collection wonderful when a Democratic administration does it?

        Fourth "destroyed a man's life" .. tell me that again when  he's cast out in the gutter somewhere and lives in a homeless shelter.

        Fifth the false comparison to McCarthyism.  McCarthyism was a set of policies and hearings perpetrated BY THE GOVERNMENT, and ensnared many who were only SUSPECTED of being gay, Communists, too sympathetic to labor, etc. Correct me on the details if you must (as it was before my time). We have proof here the guy's a bigot.

        Yes, we're intolerant of bigots -- which is usually only seen as a bad thing by those same bigots on the right.

      •  It's quite simple. (0+ / 0-)

        If every person who spoke out against Eich had instead donated $1000 to make it LAW that NO bigot could be a CEO...

        THEN you'd have some equivalence to kvetch about.







      •  To say nothing of the fact... (0+ / 0-)

        ...that if Eich had been fired or threatened with same for his political contributions or support, it would seem to have been a violation of California Labor Code Sections 1101, 1102 if he was employed in California.

        Fortunately, everyone involved insists his resignation was not forced.

    •  Repub Women (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Repub women are the worst.  They are traitors to their gender.  They think this is about them.  No repub women this is about all women and our place in society.  History will not be kind to repub women.  They disgust me most of all.

  •  We don't believe in bigots' rights (55+ / 0-)

    We don't believe in the right of billionaires to buy our government.

    We don't believe in the right of the well-off to not pay taxes to support the rest of us in our society.

    We're intolerant, all right.  And damn proud of it.

    We have always been at war with al Qaeda.

    by Dallasdoc on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 04:36:00 PM PDT

  •  So six years ago the guy donates $1,000 to a (6+ / 0-)

    cause you didn't like?

    Hmmmm. Let me see.  What was the position of the President of the United States at that time?

    Gotta love it.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 04:38:37 PM PDT

    •  False equivalence. (37+ / 0-)

      1.  Obama said he wasn't in favor, but didn't donate any money to oppose marriage equality.
      2.  Obama says his position on marriage equality has changed over the past 6 years.
      3.  No indication from Eich that his position has changed.

        •  Let me add this for my record (6+ / 0-)

          Yes, I was aware then that Obama was against same-sex marriage in 2008 and said so...far too frequently, in my opinion and I have criticized the President on those grounds.

          But Obama also stated that he was against Proposition 8 based on the fact that his notion was that a Constitution should be expanding rights and not limiting them.

          Yes, it was a bit of a two-faced position that the President took at that time but he never held the same exact position as Eich.

          •  Yes it was two-faced. Absolutely. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            doc2, solublefish, anime1973

            The salient point is that things have changed one hell of a lot since 2008.

            In 2008, prop 8 won a majority of California voters.
            Only two states had legalized same-sex marriage/civil union: Massachusetts and Hawaii.

            It's not like the guy was Fred Phelps. He was mainstream in 2008.  On the wrong side of history? Sure, but all of us get caught there on something at some time.

            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

            by dinotrac on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 05:31:47 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No. (6+ / 0-)

              The salient point is that on the critical issue as to whether the state of California should add an amendment to their constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman, Eich and Obama were opposed.

            •  That is true but (8+ / 0-)

              Eich could have shown that his views have evolved and said you know what, I donated back then and I have since changed my mind and I now support marriage equality.

              What did we get???  

              Crickets and some ridiculous statement on Indonesia and a my personal views won't affect how I act as CEO.

              He still feels the same way.

              That is why it is false equivalence to say that it is the same as President Obama who has since evolved and seen the light.  

              Eich has not.

              Why yes there is a war on women and minorities.

              by karma5230 on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 05:49:24 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  He could have, but why? (0+ / 0-)

                Has he actually done something that interferes with anybody's rights?

                LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                by dinotrac on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 05:51:59 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Um, yes. That's what his advocacy for Prop 8 was. (6+ / 0-)

                  Him interfering with other people's rights. It might not matter to you because it wasn't your personal rights that he participated in getting the government to deny you access to, but it doesn't mean that he didn't actually act to interfere with other people's rights.

                  •  He contributed $1,000 six years ago, and, at that (0+ / 0-)

                    time, it was not seen as interfering with people's rights. Even if it were, it was certainly a more benign act that the late great Senator Robert Byrd's actions as an official of the Ku Klux Klan.

                    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                    by dinotrac on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 06:11:19 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Except both Byrd and Hugo Black (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      AJayne, Cadillac64

                      later repudiated what they did.  Memory serves, so did George Wallace and Lee Atwater.  Eich did not.

                      •  Fine -- they repudiated. But they had one hell of (0+ / 0-)

                        a lot more to forgive than this guy does.

                        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                        by dinotrac on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 06:39:11 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Robert Byrd and Hugo Black (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          AJayne, librarisingnsf

                          did not participate in the violent actions of the KKK.  They were young and realized that if they wanted to do anything in life, they had no choice but to at least join this organization that dominated their lives in their towns and states.  Eich was not young, he felt no social pressure to do what he did, his future certainly wasn't on the line if he didn't contribute.   And he still hasn't admitted what he did was wrong.

                          •  Or so they say. What about the 150 or so people (0+ / 0-)

                            that Byrd recruited into the KKK? Did none of them take part in violent acts?

                            It's easy to forgive serious transgressions if you want to.  Not easy to forgive relative minor transgressions if you don't.

                            And, honestly, what is there to admit?  Making a legal donation to a political cause?

                            Doesn't sound on a par with lynching to me.

                            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                            by dinotrac on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 08:27:20 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Except Byrd or Black never lynched (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            anyone.   And trivializing what Eich did by proclaiming it's nothing more than a politcal contribution is, quite frankly, disingenuous.  This man was contributing to support an amendment that would take away rights from people.  And all your rationalizations and comparisons to others' behavior won't change that.  He was supporting something that would make life more difficult for many of his fellow citizens, based solely upon who they were.  Face up to the fact that this isn't about free speech or political correctness or even a difference of opinion.  This man was actively supporting the theft of the rights of others.  Nothing less.

                          •  That's my understanding, though you really don't (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            know about Byrd's recruits, do you?
                            Might have been some real bad there.

                            You're fond of that disingenuous word while accusing me of trivializing a legal $1,000 donation.

                            But ...gosh... I'd rather trivialize that than trivialize more than mere Klan membership, but moving up the ranks and recruiting many others into the organization.

                            That's pretty terrible -- and forgivable.

                            But this darned exercise of political free speech --- protecting by the Constitution, which is something you cannot say of KKK violence -- is so much more horrible that it must brand this man forever as evil, evil, evil.

                            Disingenuous my ass.

                            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                            by dinotrac on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 08:57:54 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I guess neither Robert Byrd nor (0+ / 0-)

                            Hugo Black never did anything to protect the Constitution, huh?

                            And they both later repudiated what they had done.  The fact remains that Eich hasn't.

                            And characterizing it as a merely $1,000 legal contribution misses the point of what it was for, which you seem to keep avoiding.  This contribution was in support of something that hurt a lot of people, including children.  

                            Eich had every right to do what he did.  (Although it is interesting that you fall back on the Citizens United rationale that money equals speech.)  The group that protested his appointment as CEO also has every right to (it was their free speech as well).  And the board had every right to decide this guy was a liability to their brand.  You can say whatever you want and do whatever is legal.  That doesn't give you a pass to avoid the consequences of that speech or those actions.

                          •  Money does equal speech. (0+ / 0-)

                            You haven't read much on the law of free speech, have you?

                            Lots and lots and lots of things equal speech.
                            Even nude dancing.

                            And I'm fine with not avoiding the consequences of your speech.

                            The topic, if you'll recall, was "Liberals:We're the intolerant ones?"

                            In my not so humble opinion, this incident would support a conclusion of "yes".  

                            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                            by dinotrac on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 06:30:52 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  "And I'm fine with not avoiding the consequences (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            of your speech."

                            Then I don't understand why you seem to be having a problem with what happened here.  The guy did something really stupid, refused to renounce it and got himself canned.  Sounds like an everyday occurrence in the workforce all over the country.  I can't expect to publicly fly in the face of the values of the company where I work, be non-repentant, and expect to keep my job, why should he?

                            I used to work for a place that required a security clearance.  I knew I could lose my job if I engaged in any illegal activity whatsoever -- no illegal drugs, no DUIs.  Hell, they even could suspend your clearance for too many speeding tickets.  And, as a government contractor, you sure as hell kept your politcal activities to a minimum to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.  Those were the explicit and implicit terms of my employment, and, if I wanted to keep my job, I followed them.  And I wasn't even a manager in this company, let alone the CEO.  Why is everyone so shocked, shocked, I tell you, that actions outside work have consequences for your employment.  Is unemployment so endemic that no one works for a living any more and they've become completely forgotten what it's like?

                          •  That's OK. I have trouble understanding why you (0+ / 0-)

                            have a problem with the guy.

                            I consider political speech, within very very few limits, to be sacrosanct.  The Constitution may not come into play outside the arena of government action, but governments are not the only threats to freedom.

                            That same freedom applies to you, of course, and to me.

                            The single biggest issue with the case at hand, in my view, is whether or not he could lead the employees and associates of Mozilla.  The answer would seem to be no because he cut and ran before making any serious effort.

                            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                            by dinotrac on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 07:12:54 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I have a problem with this guy (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            because he chose to work to limit the rights of others.  People he didn't know.  People who were not doing him or anyone else any harm.  People who were only seeking to live their own lives, protect their families and be treated by the law as the equals they are.  And, quite honestly, it escapes me that you don't get how evil that is.

                            "The single biggest issue with the case at hand, in my view, is whether or not he could lead the employees and associates of Mozilla.  The answer would seem to be no because he cut and ran before making any serious effort."

                            He couldn't lead the employees and associates of Mozilla because his actions were in direct conflict with their values, not to mention the values of Mozilla's customers.  How well do you think Fred Phelps would do as governor of Massachusetts?

                          •  This guy is not Fred Phelps -- who is dead, btw. (0+ / 0-)

                            And what a sorry, sorry world we live in if everybody must think in lockstep to even work together.

                            What next --

                            You own guns?
                            Sorry. You can't work here and I hate you.

                            Eat meat?
                            Sorry. You can't work here and I hate you.

                            More pertinent:
                            Sorry. You can't work here and I hate you.

                            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                            by dinotrac on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 04:30:10 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  People don't need to be in lockstep (0+ / 0-)

                            to work together.  Using Fred Phelps as an example is to make the point that sometimes people's ideas are so diametrically opposed to the people they would lead that it simply won't work.  Just because marriage equality is obviously a trivial issue to you (you seem incapable of understanding how ugly what this man did was), doesn't mean it was to the employees and customers of Mozilla.  Even if he had renounced what he did, it would not have become an issue.  The fact that he wouldn't meant he continued to believe he did the right thing. And that was unacceptable.  His actions supported taking away people's rights.  Why don't you find that outrageous?

                            As far as your examples are concerned, this guy wasn't some lowly employee being persecuted by the whims of his boss.  This guy was appointed the CEO and is the public face of the company.   These people are usually contract employees who can't be fired except under certain conditions.  And they usually land on their feet, unlike the people who work for them and can be fired "at will."  If nothing else, this guy can go work for NOM or the Family Research Council as their tech guru.  I'm sure they'd embrace him with open arms.

                          •  Fred Phelps would be a different case because he (0+ / 0-)

                            actively and publicly courted trouble.

                            This guy? He made a perfectly legal donation, right along with many other people.

                            One thing strikes me as curious -- I keep hearing about $1,000, but not about anti-gay work activities. For that matter, I haven't read about any other anti-gay activities. What did he actually do?

                            A cigarette smoker in the work place threatens my health.
                            A cigarette smoker in the privacy of his home invites cancer on his own.

                            Assuming there is no actual Phelps-like activity, the biggest mistake this guy made was not to address the issue with the Mozilla people.  Not really leadership material, I guess.

                            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                            by dinotrac on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 05:20:35 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The $1,000 donation (0+ / 0-)

                            to take away people's rights isn't enough of an issue?  Why does there need to be anything else?

                            As far as "the privacy of one's home," if Eich's church had denounced marriage equality and forbid its members to marry someone of the same sex, that would private.  Once Eich decided to take those views into the political arena and to stop other people from getting married, that was a public act, and subject to scrutiny just like any other public act.  

                            It was like the reaction to what Dan Cathy said a couple of years ago.  He spoke out against both marriage equality and divorce.  Why no issue with what he said about divorce?  Because he wasn't giving money to groups that were trying to legally stop people from divorcing.  If he and his family members decide divorce is wrong, that's up to them.  It's when you support people who attempt to legally impose your religious beliefs on others that it's a problem.

                            And, yes, he should have addressed it and repudiated it.  It would have solved the issue.  His choice.

                          •  No, it's not. What a horrible country if legal (0+ / 0-)

                            political activities warrant such action.  Such sentiments must make my father spin in his grave at Arlington Cemetary.  Not the kind of country he gave his life for.

                            I'm hard-pressed to go further without risking the anti-free-speecher's darling, Godwin.

                            And -- money = speech.

                            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                            by dinotrac on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 06:52:16 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Again, it's his right to do what he (0+ / 0-)

                            did.  It's not his right to be free of the consequences for what he did.

                            I'm guaranteed by the Constitution that I can say whatever stupid, hateful things I like without government interference.  But, the Constitution doesn't guarantee my employment after the fallout from the stupid, hateful things I said affects my company's bottom line.

                            As far as legal political activity is concerned, you can advocate for anything you like.  You can be a strong advocate for removing all restrictions on the creation and use of child pornography, for example.  By the same token, I think it wouldn't be surprising if your employer found it a little troublesome to have an employee on their payroll who took a public stand such as that, and that they would strongly consider removing you from that payroll as a a result.

                            You seem not to grasp that as soon as you enter the realm of politics, your expectations of keeping that private disappear because, by its very nature, politics is public business.  And your expectations to have no consequences for whatever stand you take disappear, too.

                          •  You seem to forget the average American's most (0+ / 0-)

                            powerful political act: the casting of votes.

                            And, ummm...that, my friend is by secret ballot.

                            Not everything makes you a public person, nor should it.

                            If you want to contribute a few bucks to HRC, nobody should come and demand you to leave your job because you support somebody whose "stand by your man" example is damaging to the rights of women.

                            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                            by dinotrac on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 09:31:15 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Votes are not political contributions (0+ / 0-)

                            the last time I checked.  Are you actually making the argument that there should be no transparency in people's political contributions?  And how does that work vis-a-vis money equaling speech.  Does that make money in politics sign language?  Or whispers?

                            I think you still don't get this -- if the person who is the public face of the business alienates people by what they do, the business has the right not to elevate them to be their CEO. And, quite honestly, if you have any public position in your company and your political activities fly in the face of your clients' and employees' opinions, then your clients have every right not to patronize you, your staff has every right to quit, and your management has every right to determine if your activities are hurting their business and act accordingly.  It happens all the time.  It's called free enterprise.  Again, you get to do whatever you want, but you also get to suffer the consequences.

                          •  Let me quote you (0+ / 0-)
                            You seem not to grasp that as soon as you enter the realm of politics, your expectations of keeping that private disappear because, by its very nature, politics is public business.
                            Voting is very much in the realm of politics and more valuable than any financial contribution most of us can make.

                            Discussing races with our friends is also in the realm of politics and potentially more valuable than any financial contribution most of us can make.  I hope you don't think sitting down at dinner or lunch with your workmates should make you a public person.

                            There is an important concept in First Amendment jurisprudence -- the idea of a chilling effect of free speech.  The idea is that certain things can cause people to self-censor for fear of recrimination, and that is incompatible with First Amendment rights.

                            There is also a notion of spheres -

                            I would think supporting a candidate comes in the same category.  If I wear a Hillary 2016 badge, should my name and address be plastered all over the internet.  There's a big difference between what I want to share with my friends and what I want to share with the world.

                            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                            by dinotrac on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 01:24:32 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  If you wear a Hilliary Clinton button (0+ / 0-)

                            you have no expectation of privacy unless you only wear it at home when no one is visiting you.  Which kind of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?  Isn't the point of buttons, bumper stickers, etc. to draw attention to the candidate and to your support of that candidate?  How, precisely is that "chilling" to political discourse?  It encourages it, doesn't it?

                            And there are employers that prefer you not get into politics in the workplace.  If you want to work there, you have to follow their rules.  

                            We either take politcal stands and take whatever comes with that, or we keep our mouths shut.  That's simply the way it works.  Their are celebrities that are active in politics and they take the criticism that goes with it.  Others are either apolitical or keep their opinions under wraps because they don't want it to affect their careers.  That's a choice we all make every day.  This man made his choice and had consequences for it.

                          •  Yes, you are broadcasting to those around you that (0+ / 0-)

                            you have a political preference -- and you have accepted what comes with that.

                            But...should wearing a Hillary button in San Francisco subject you to abuse from somebody in Boston?

                            Are we now forced to cower in our homes because surrender is now all or nothing?

                            Seems wrong to me.

                            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                            by dinotrac on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 04:48:05 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  "But...should wearing a Hillary button in (0+ / 0-)

                            San Francisco subject you to abuse from somebody in Boston?"

                            Wow, those are some mighty long arms.  Or did you mean someone might stop liking you on Facebook.  Oh, the agony of being less liked on social media.  It's a tragedy, I tell ya.

                          •  Trying to remember -- were you the one claiming (0+ / 0-)

                            that I was disingenuous?

                            I might have the threads crossed.

                            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                            by dinotrac on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 04:40:30 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Per Merriam-Websters: (0+ / 0-)

                            "disingenuous: not truly honest or sincere : giving the false appearance of being honest or sincere ..."
                            I can assure you I was sincere in what I said.  And brutally honest, too.

                        •  Oh well, it's nothing much, just a political (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Ian S, Dallasdoc

                          contribution that helped pass a state constitutional amendment that prevented some people from giving or receiving medical insurance for/from their partner, prevented others from ever receiving social security payments from a now deceased partner, prevented some people from adopting, prevented others from visiting a sick partner in the hospital...

                          Whatever. Just as long as it didn't hurt you.

                    •  It doesn't matter if it was "seen as interfering". (7+ / 0-)

                      It was interfering. It was governmental discrimination. Just because you want to pretend that it didn't hurt people doesn't mean that it didn't. And that you refuse to see that hurt really says something about you.

                •  huh? what doesn't that have to do with anything (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  NCJan, Cadillac64, CenPhx, Dallasdoc

                  Mozilla employees (and volunteers; remember, it's an open source organization) didn't want to work for the man.

                  They have no obligation whatsoever to work for someone they dislike. Whether he "Interfered with others rights" has nothing to do with anything.

                •  Yes, he has. (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  librarisingnsf, Cadillac64, Dallasdoc

                  He has supported a proposition that used misleading ads to restrict the rights of people to marry the person they love.  Some of those people died during the interim that it took to repeal that ban.  

                  Those people lost the dream that Jefferson would have protected for them.  And for those people, it was nut justice delayed, it was justice denied for all time, because they never realized the benefit.  

                  The ACLU is right on the right to speak ones mind about the issue.  They are wrong on the right to use $ to influence areferendum on the issue.  

                  Money is not speech.  Eich can go contemplate how wrong he was  for providing that support (amongst othe things that he can do).

                  If we do not maintain Justice, Justice will not maintain us. -Sir Francis Bacon.

                  by Res Ipsa Loquitor on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 06:22:49 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yeah. Legal political donations (with which you (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Noisy Democrat

                    disagree) should all be made public so that we can persecute whomever we please.

                    As to Jefferson, you clearly do not know your history.

                    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                    by dinotrac on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 06:44:55 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  How is he being persecuted? (0+ / 0-)

                      People who disagreed with his actions decided to act themselves.  They threatened to stop using a web browser.  He decided that it was not to the benefit of his company to stay on (probably a good decision).  This is no different than refusing to vote for someone because of their stance on an issue.  

                      I make commercial decisions all of the time based on the political positioning of corporations and CEOs.  I agree, he had the right to make the donation.  But I have the right oppose the beliefs behind the donation by voting with my feet and my wallet.  Just like I have the right to boycott Chik-Fil-A for the same reasons, and Macy's because their CEO lobbied to slash Social Security, Medicare, and the social safety net.  

                      Political donations are public because they keep politicians honest and, in cases like this, flush out hypocrites.  This is not a case of an employer firing an employee for their political views. That would be persecution.  This is telling a company that you are offended by the views of their chosen public face.  Eich doesn't have some self-evident right to be CEO.  

                      Marriage equality is a huge issue for those who are denied it.  Eich was on the wrong side of the issue at the wrong time.  Because of the funding that came from the right and the lies told about Prop. 8, there were partners who couldn't be with their loved ones in their last moments.  Not many, but even one is too many.  Eich will recover from this.  That partner who couldn't hold the hand of his or her love, never will.  

                      If we do not maintain Justice, Justice will not maintain us. -Sir Francis Bacon.

                      by Res Ipsa Loquitor on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 04:47:25 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  How do your personal views NOT impact... (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Cadillac64, SpaK, Dallasdoc

                ... how you work? HR and employers make decisions based on their personal views every day-- usually in favor of job candidates who most personally resemble THEM. Also, ask Sam Alito and John Roberts how well THEY are able to separate their personal views from their work MO.

                Real Democrats don't abandon the middle class. --John Kerry

                by Lucy Montrose on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 06:29:11 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  If you believe that, then why do you have any (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  problem with the guy?
                  For that matter, why even care about the donation.

                  If his views mean that he does terrible things on the job, you should be able to judge him by his actions.  Toss him out for doing bad things. Happens all the time.

                  You know what we haven't heard? A litany of all the anti-gay things he's done in his tenure at Mozilla. Doesn't mean they aren't there, but that would make this a different conversation, don't you think?

                  LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                  by dinotrac on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 07:17:36 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  "It's not like the guy was Fred Phelps." (9+ / 0-)

              So, we're only allowed to have a problem with bigotry if someone calls us a faggot?

              Oh, as long as he was "mainstream," that makes the bigotry ok? Gotcha. So, everyone, note, per this line of logic, slavery was ok because at one time it too was mainstream.

        •  But Obama did not support same sex marrage in (0+ / 0-)

          2008 and did not support it until 2012.

          The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

          by nextstep on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 05:54:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  So it's "convert or be hounded from your job"? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:


        The word "parent" is supposed to be a VERB, people...

        by wesmorgan1 on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 04:53:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No one asked him to convert (6+ / 0-)

          …to a homosexual.

          •  I haven't seen a reference about him pressuring (0+ / 0-)

            people to convert. Guess I'll go out to La Google and see what's out there.

            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

            by dinotrac on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 05:33:03 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It it implied that he wants homosexuals (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              RightHeaded, Cadillac64, 3rock, SpaK

              …to convert.

              He paid money to annul homosexual marriages, and to deny them the rights that come with marriage. Only if they convert to hetrosexuals will they gain civil and human rights that all other people enjoy.

              The thing is, I don't really care that he opened his wallet in order to harm people.

              I only care that in his heart and mind, he wants to see certain people harmed.

              From this, comes a harm to society as a whole.

              When that comes from a person in a position of leadership -- it has the potential to degrade civilization..

              •  I could as easily imply that you want straight (0+ / 0-)

                people to be marched before a firing squad.

                It would be completely invalid (or so I hope).
                As is your reasoning.

                LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                by dinotrac on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 06:14:56 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  It would be invalid because you (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  librarisingnsf, Cadillac64, Glenn45

                  have no evidence that Pluto has taken any action to have straight people marched before a firing squad.  We have proof that Eich tried to harm gays and lesbians by contributing to a cause that would hurt them.

                •  dino, I think the criteria and conditions (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  dinotrac, Cadillac64

                  …are different in the argument you present.

                  But I will grant you that my argument could be invalidated.

                  •  I was refering solely to the implication (0+ / 0-)

                    that he would support forced/pressured/looking askance conversion attempts.  I think there is a lot of room, and was even more room in 2008, between opposing same-sex marriage and thinking gay people should convert to heterosexuality.

                    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                    by dinotrac on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 06:38:19 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The implication is (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      "Certain common human and civil rights will be withheld from same sex couples."

                      How can they achieve these rights?

                      By becoming hetrosexual and marrying an opposite sex person.

                      Can you think of another way that a homosexual can gain legal "kinship" rights -- which is what marriage is?

                      •  I've known opposite sex gay couples (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Pluto, anime1973

                        married without converting to anything, but that's something very different.

                        I actually wish government would simply stop using the term marriage and stop performing wedding ceremonies.  Issue a form, go before a notary, grant the  legal rights.  If somebody wants a fancy (or not so fancy) ceremony to mark the occasion, so be it.

                        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                        by dinotrac on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 07:01:50 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I believe the "wedding" is the ceremony. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:

                          What the government calls a "marriage" is just a legal "merger".

                          It is a license that changes each person's "legal next of kin" to each other (and their progeny, if any).

                          It does nothing more.

                          Absolutely nothing.

                          •  I don't see a wedding as having anything to do (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Pluto, anime1973

                            with the state. The state should grant and recognize whatever rights we deem appropriate between two people in an intimate relationship.  Sign the papers and be done with it.

                            If you want a ceremony, find a place you want to do it and make the arrangements.  I could envision allowing this degree of state intrusion:  If you really want the wedding to make you married in some legal way, allow for a witness line that can be left blank and finalize it with the signature of whomever conducts the ceremony. So long as it's completely optional and you can become married without it if you choose.

                            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                            by dinotrac on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 08:01:02 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Actually, people go to city hall for a "license" (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            …which is the legal kinship contract (aka marriage). They both appear and sign before a clerk at a window. Sometimes, the clerk will ask them to verbally agree as well. Then it is stamped and recored.

                            At this point, they are legally merged or married.

                            No wedding is necessary. That's all kabuki.

                            There are no laws inside a marriage. There are some accounting privileges, but that's about it.

                            However, two complete law libraries now rule your lives after the marriage ends.

                            One is Marriage law -- which has nothing to do with marriage. It exists to dissolve the marriage contract and return each individual back to their pre-marriage state relatively intact.

                            The other is Probate -- and this is where the civil rights come in. This deals with the rights of kinship relationships and generally comes into play regarding inheritance after one of the partner's die.

                            (A third law library deals with the rights of any progeny that might be acquired.)

                            All the stuff Republicans and the religious  think marriage is about can be found in porn or sitcoms.

                          •  There are legal issues -- but they are really (0+ / 0-)

                            incorporated by reference and not explicitly spelled out in a marriage (kinship? partnership?) license/agreement.

                            The actual documentation, I guess would acknowledge that two people have agreed to enter into the status of intimate partners and recognize their status as a legal one, incorporating all of the legal rights and responsibilities of the relationship.

                            So much nicer than having to litter the thing with fine print -- which could change over the years anyway.

                            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                            by dinotrac on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 08:40:49 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Intimate? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            I think that term is not helpful. It certainly is nobody's business.

                          •  Hmmm. (0+ / 0-)

                            I have trouble imagining the relationship in question being anything but intimate -- isn't that the basis for the freedom from being compelled to testify against your spouse?

                            But what's in a name? A rose by any other name and all that. The only thing I wouldn't want to call it is marriage because that word seems to have acquired all manner of meanings to different people.

                            I see the honor in cowardly ducking the whole mess.

                            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                            by dinotrac on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 09:06:41 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Too bad, that ship has sailed. (0+ / 0-)

                            We tried domestic partnerships and the bigots fought that too. They actually hate us so much that they can't stand the idea of gays and lesbians getting any sort of equality, not even a second class relationship contract.

                            I get it why bigots act like bigots. But what's your excuse?

                          •  I think you misunderstand -- I wouldn't have the (0+ / 0-)

                            state involved in anything called marriage.  Not for gay people and not for straight people. Nothing, nada.  You want to call your legally recognized relationship a marriage? Fine. Call it whatever you want. The state is merely going to acknowledge that you and X have entered into a legally binding agreement that affects a certain number of rights and obligations under the law.

                            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                            by dinotrac on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 11:47:55 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

        •  "Hounded" from job (10+ / 0-)

          I guess that's the free market.

          I don't like it when communists lose their jobs either.

          Or people who don't comply with the dress code.

          Or people who tweet left wing comments.

          Should we all agree to start talking about workers rights in the workplace?

          I'd be down with that--as long as those rights didn't just apply to right-wing CEOs.

          History is a guide, not a destination.

          by NCJan on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 05:06:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Hmmmm (5+ / 0-)

          Betcha you aren't supporting EDNA. It's OK to fire someone for being Gay.  And, no one is converting him.  He wasn't the appropriate choice for the job.  Just wondering if he had contributed to the KKK or Nazi Party how good a fit he would be.  

          •  You'd be incorrect. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dinotrac, doc2

            The word "parent" is supposed to be a VERB, people...

            by wesmorgan1 on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 05:37:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  It's ENDA, not EDNA. And why would you leap (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            to such a conclusion in the absence of any facts?

            As to belonging to the KKK or Nazi Party, both organizations have openly advocated and engaged in illegal acts. Still, if you'll recall, Democrats celebrated a long-time Democratic Senator who was a former Exalted Cyclops of the KKK who recruited more than a hundred people into the klan, which is a whole lot more involvement than a $1,000 donation.

            I think they were right to do that.  Your standards may be harsher.

            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

            by dinotrac on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 05:39:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Said Senator later resigned from the Klan, (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              anon004, scott5js, Cadillac64, Glenn45

              publicly renounced their intolerance, and took a more positive position on equal rights (voted for the Fair Housing Act in 1968, for instance).

              And eventually he admitted to having been young and stupid when he got involved with the Klan - and advised young people to avoid it.

              In short, he grew up and 'fessed up to his mistakes.

              Eich? Not yet. Maybe never.

              If it's
              Not your body,
              Then it's
              Not your choice
              And it's
              None of your damn business!

              by TheOtherMaven on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 06:14:27 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  How do you resign from a donation? (0+ / 0-)

                And, seriously, as a private citizen, why should he have to explain his views?

                Somebody in the thread made the point that people in the Mozilla organization didn't want to work with him.

                I consider that to be a fair concern on both sides.
                You like to know what kind of people you are working for and working with.

                A good leader who wanted to keep that job would have found a way engage those people in a conversation.

                But here's a question for you -- completely hypothetical and not connected to any facts that I know of --

                What if he had done that and said something like this:

                "My religious beliefs say that marriage is between a man and a woman.  I'm sorry that my donation upsets you, but I was acting within the law and in line with my religion.

                People should be judged on their actions and on their character, not on the people they choose to love.  I will follow all applicable laws and I will not permit anybody to be treated differently because of their sexual orientation.

                God doesn't make mistakes, and I believe that we are commanded to love all of his children, gay or straight, man or woman, black or white, or whatever."

                Would he still be a bigot in your eyes?

                LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                by dinotrac on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 06:31:51 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Renounce it for starters. Then say it was wrong. (5+ / 0-)

                  As a bonus, donate $1000.00 to a cause such as marriage equality or that helps troubled queer youth.

                  The first two would be a great start.

                  How do you resign from a donation?
                  I think you know this, but you're just making up dumb arguments.

                  Il est dangereux d’avoir raison dans des choses où des hommes accrédités ont tort. - Voltaire
                  Don't trust anyone over 84414 - BentLiberal

                  by BentLiberal on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 06:48:55 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Don't like my hypothetical, eh? (0+ / 0-)

                    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                    by dinotrac on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 07:03:23 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I answered your deflective/question. (3+ / 0-)

                      It was very easy to do.

                      The 2nd half of your comment was just another big deflection. Defending him for something he didn't do.

                      Il est dangereux d’avoir raison dans des choses où des hommes accrédités ont tort. - Voltaire
                      Don't trust anyone over 84414 - BentLiberal

                      by BentLiberal on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 07:23:31 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You don't read very well. (0+ / 0-)

                        Or you've never heard of curiosity.

                        I very clearly stated that my hypothetical has nothing to do with the facts of this situation.  

                        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                        by dinotrac on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 07:26:11 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Thanks. That's why I didn't reply (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Sven Boogie, Cadillac64
                          my hypothetical has nothing to do with the facts of this situation.  
                          Because you're just arguing to argue and get a rush from it.

                          So I'm bowing out. Feel free to take the last word. I won't be reading it.

                          Il est dangereux d’avoir raison dans des choses où des hommes accrédités ont tort. - Voltaire
                          Don't trust anyone over 84414 - BentLiberal

                          by BentLiberal on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 07:34:12 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  You're right. I do enjoy arguing. (0+ / 0-)

                            It's a way to test your thoughts and to learn.

                            And thank you for the last word, even though you won't read it.  Here it is: May you one day discover the joy of curiosity and learning.

                            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                            by dinotrac on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 07:42:09 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                •  Prop 8 campaign was NOT about marriage (7+ / 0-)

                  It was about defaming, dehumanizing, and degrading innocent citizens in order to strip them of their rights and ensure second-class status. The ads Eich financed made the claim that my mere existence was a threat to the health and welfare of children. This is equivalent to the infamous blood libel against Jews. Eich would not denounce or apologize for this disgusting position. As an American citizen I will not accept that my humanity is a topic for political debate.

                  Cruelty might be very human, and it might be very cultural, but it's not acceptable.- Jodie Foster

                  by CPT Doom on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 07:09:31 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  I didn't see anything about that. Do you have a (0+ / 0-)


          LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

          by dinotrac on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 05:32:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I wasn't referring to a literal "conversion"... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dinotrac, doc2

            ...but rather to all those who are saying "he did nothing to make up for his donation," "he didn't change his position," etc. to justify the public pressure.

            The word "parent" is supposed to be a VERB, people...

            by wesmorgan1 on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 05:38:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I got it right away. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              For some reason others thought you meant converted to gayness (gayity?). I agree with you that this was crazy. As long as the guy didn't discriminate against anyone, we're supposed to be the side arguing that beliefs that don't impact your job performance shouldn't affect your job. Firing someone over their internal thoughts is decidedly non-progressive by its nature. If it is okay for a business to fire someone opposed to gay marriage, why is it not okay for another business to fire someone for being in favor of it?

              •  The "convert to homosexuality" was a joke. Duh. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                anon004, Glenn45

                Eich advocated -- successfully -- for the government to discriminate against a group of people; that action indicates a likely possibility that he would be likely to discriminate against people in the company since he wanted -- and got -- the government to do so.

                He wasn't fired, period.

                He resigned because Mozilla user started to check out other companies for software instead. People who worked for Mozilla were expressing a wariness to work for someone who advocated for the government to discriminate against people and weren't trusting him to also do so within the company, and those workers might start to look for jobs at companies that they could trust more. He resigned because he was driving people away from Mozilla. He wasn't fired.

                •  He was forced out by his board. (0+ / 0-)

                  He lost their support. That is akin to firing for a CEO.

                •  You forgot one little point. (0+ / 0-)
                  Eich advocated -- successfully -- for the government to discriminate against a group of people; that action indicates a likely possibility that he would be likely to discriminate against people in the company since he wanted -- and got -- the government to do so.
                  For all your "likely possibility", there wasn't ONE SHRED of evidence that Eich had EVER behaved in such a manner in the workplace. Even those who worked most closely with him over the course of more than a decade said they were "stunned" to learn of his donation because they never saw ANYTHING in the workplace that would have given them a clue.

                  So, people saying "he might discriminate" or "he's likely to discrminate" vs. firsthand accounts of ZERO discrmination - You tell me which is more credible.

                  Have you read what Mozillans, including LGBTQ Mozillans, wrote about this issue when it came up in 2012?  I have. (A little Google-fu goes a long way.) When there are LGBTQ Mozillans--who work with the guy and have known him far better than you or I ever will--are basically saying, "Yeah, cut the guy some slack," I have a hard time watching him get forced out by public outrage.

                  The word "parent" is supposed to be a VERB, people...

                  by wesmorgan1 on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 08:34:35 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  He had the opportunity to address it... (0+ / 0-)

                    ...and assure people he wouldn't behave like that in the workplace, and all he could bring himself to do was talk about how the company needed to be appealing to the people in Indonesia specifically in the form of those people's being homophobic.

                    Obviously not everyone at Mozilla agreed with the ones you cite because there were individuals there who didn't feel comfortable with him as CEO.

        •  He wasn't hounded from his job. (6+ / 0-)

          People are allowed to not use Mozilla products. Some people started to take a look at what other companies were offering, Mozilla reacted to losing users and Eich resigned. That's not him being hounded from his job. That's the market working. You're acting like God has commanded everyone to use Mozilla software and we're sinning by using something else.

        •  WTF?!! I'm not allowed to express my disgust (5+ / 0-)

          with some CEO's position to deny me fundamental rights because it amounts to "hounding" him? If you want to get an inkling of how bigoted you sound just pretend that the guy had donated to the KKK instead of Prop 8. Sheesh!

          Just another faggity fag socialist fuckstick homosinner!

          by Ian S on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 06:52:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Why stop there (0+ / 0-)

          I would forcefully exile all bigots into the Atlantic ocean. You should be glad I'm not dictator of the United States. You'd be one of the first to go.

      •  So what? He invoked the power of the Presidency (0+ / 0-)

        in opposition. That's worth one hell of a lot more than $1,000.

        As to number 3 -- is there any indication that it hasn't?

        And, honestly, so what?

        Thought police.
        What a world.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 05:23:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, I could call your position "thought police" (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RightHeaded, Cadillac64

          also, but I won't.

          We just disagree on where to draw lines between what's acceptable and what's not acceptable, something that's always determined by each society and which changes over time even within that society.

          BTW, I'm old enough to remember all the groaning from racial bigots when the Civil Rights bills got passed about how their views and culture were being discriminated against.

          •  That's silly. Have I hounded you out of a job? (0+ / 0-)

            Have I done anything to hurt you in any way?

            I've expressed my opinion and, I hope, the reasoning behind it.  

            I'm also old enough to remember all the groaning, as well as the long spate of assassinaitons from Evers to Kennedy to Malcolm X to King to yet another Kennedy.

            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

            by dinotrac on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 05:45:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Eich hurt people. (7+ / 0-)

              His advocacy got the government to discriminate against gay people; but maybe you don't consider the government discriminating against gay people to be hurting them. Of course, you'd be wrong, but maybe you just don't care as long as it was just gay people that were the ones being hurt.

              •  Who did he hurt and how? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                Can you even be sure that his $1,000 made a difference?

                Prop 8 won more than 52% percent of the vote.
                Hell, it won more than 70% of the black vote and had significant support for black churches.

                If you really want to wreak revenge on somebody for the damage they did, perhaps you should lash out against black Californians and their churches.  

                You probably shouldn't do that.  Things have come a long way in a short time.

                LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                by dinotrac on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 06:20:47 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You're just getting more and more preposterous (7+ / 0-)

                  as you contort to defend him.

                  Can you even be sure that his $1,000 made a difference?
                  What nonsense. Collectively, the donations and efforts made a difference.

                  Now you bring up blaming black people, churches and others?

                  Without even getting into the rightness or wrongness of that, I'll just say that you're deflecting. You are employing the but MOM, they did it too defense.

                  You are out of credibility.

                  Il est dangereux d’avoir raison dans des choses où des hommes accrédités ont tort. - Voltaire
                  Don't trust anyone over 84414 - BentLiberal

                  by BentLiberal on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 06:56:37 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Ugh. (4+ / 0-)
                  Can you even be sure that his $1,000 made a difference?
                  Under this logic, no one is responsible for Prop 8 passing because no one's individual support can be solely credited with its passing.

                  I know it's only gay/bi people that were being discriminated against, and you might not give a fuck, but those who were the targets of that discriminate were hurt by it. Even if you want to pretend they weren't.

    •  You are confusing all "rights" (21+ / 0-)

      …with the "right" to harm people or harm society.

      There is no such right legally or morally.

      This is true in your comment above, as well.

    •  Well now... lemme see what Eich did in the (24+ / 0-)

      meantime compared to what the President did... hmm, one helped dismantle Don't Ask, Don't Tell and granted, by executive order -- not waiting for a "do nothing" Congress to act, partnership rights for gays. The other hid in a corner and hoped nobody noticed.

      Nope, sorry, you're analogy and trolling totally fail. Got something more relevant or just more troll nuggets?

      Food processed to be nothing more than simple starches with two dozen flavorings and stabilizers added to make it appear to be food isn't "food". It's "feed" -- what you give to livestock to fatten them up for slaughter.

      by ontheleftcoast on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 04:45:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  "Hid in a corner" -- what a silly thing to say (0+ / 0-)

        Do you have any basis for that?

        Here's a hint:  People who are not in the public eye don't need to hide in a corner to avoid making news.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 05:46:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  There is big difference when it comes to (7+ / 0-)

      changing a (state) constitution and changing a law. Laws are by nature transitory and designed to be changed, constitutions are designed to reflect timeless values, and are suppose to last for generations. Pop 8 and all the other state ballet initiatives, changed constitutions.

      And yeah liberals pressured Obama until he did the right thing, and supported equality. If this guy has also admitted him mistake, he would still have a job, even with the donation.

      -1.63/ -1.49 "Speaking truth to power" (with snark of course)! Follow on Twitter @dopper0189

      by dopper0189 on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 05:00:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It wasn't six years ago (10+ / 0-)

      Apparently this guy was asked to explain his views just before he resigned.

      And unlike Obama, he refused.

      History is a guide, not a destination.

      by NCJan on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 05:04:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  "a cause you didn't like" (11+ / 0-)

      Your attempt to make it sound innocuous rings with homophobia. He advocated -- successfully! -- for the government to actively discriminate against a group of people. That's a bit more than him donating to a cause I didn't like.

      "Tolerate my intolernance!" is the cry of the bigot.

    •  Having a "position" is one thing. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cadillac64, CenPhx, librarisingnsf, SpaK

      Actively, consciously and deliberately taking concrete, measurable steps to make that "position" into law and impose it on all of society, is something else.

    •  Idiot (0+ / 0-)

      Obama changed his views. Eich didn't.

    •  If he'd donated to the KKK 6 years ago ... (0+ / 0-)

      would you say the same thing?  What about if he'd donated to the American Nazi Party?

      You'd better respond that you'd defend him in those circumstances too.  Because otherwise your reaction to this is all about your own homophobia and noting else.

      "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

      by FogCityJohn on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 11:11:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  A lot of fair points (4+ / 0-)

    and yes we are far more tolerant.

    But this whole sad incident has horrible optics for our side. We have lost ground because of this incident, and the whole country on all sides is worse off when nuance and accepting a degree of difference isn't considered.

    Much of the reaction from our side to Eich resembles the right wing knee jerk reactions. We are better than them.

    In this case, I fear, we weren't.

    •  We are better than them and *DID* better than (30+ / 0-)

      them. Standing up to bigots is NOT wrong, ever. Period. End of Sentence. Full Stop.

      If bigots can hide behind "free speech" we'd never be able to call them out and work to make a better society. Eich had ample opportunity to address this problem in the last several years and months and chose to resign rather then make things right. To hell with him. And to hell with the handwringing over it.

      Food processed to be nothing more than simple starches with two dozen flavorings and stabilizers added to make it appear to be food isn't "food". It's "feed" -- what you give to livestock to fatten them up for slaughter.

      by ontheleftcoast on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 04:47:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Mozilla employees didn't want to work for (17+ / 0-)

      A homophobe with a history of making contributions to Rand Paul, who is on record as opposing landmark civil rights legislation, and crypto-Nazi Pat Buchanan.  So Eich stepped down as CEO.  He was antagonizing Mozilla employees and provoking boycotts against the Firefox browser.  The analogous situation would be if a liberal CEO stepped down due to protests by conservative employees.  Please spare us this concern trolling.

      •  How insulting (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        coffeetalk, Noisy Democrat

        and intolerant of you. Concern trolling? Because I have a different opinion yours?

        Not that it matters, but I am gay myself. The disgust over this among many gay friends is widespread. Don't think you represent everyone. Neither do I.

        This is not a black and white issue. And the result of this will be a net negative to the gay cause.

        •  as a gay person also, i disagree completely. (14+ / 0-)

          this will not be a net negative.... in fact, it was largely organized by Mozilla employees and ok cupid (certainly not grindr).... as a gay person, you must know that "we" (as a gay community) weren't organized to do this....
          it wasn't like boycotting target or russian vodka..... most of my gay friends didn't even know. I barely knew about this!

          this was the free market and civil society speaking out against bigotry and homophobia .... a win/win imo. I'm not sure how you see this a negative.

          every adult is responsible for every child

          by ridemybike on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 05:00:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's a negative (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            coffeetalk, solublefish

            Because the overwhelming reaction among  non-gays who know about this will be negative, as it also is to many gays.

            This energizes the intolerant people just when they are losing this issue.

            This could have been dealt with as an internal Mozilla issue as a teaching moment. I agree that Eich did not handle this well. But he would likely have been the total perfect unbiased CEo after this since his every action would have been watched.

            Virtually everyone here is horrified that many writers and directors in Hollywood were blacklisted in the 1950s because they once were (or still were Communist). Their ideology included in some cases excusing Stalins excess. We are rightfully horrified that they were not allowed to work. Yes I know being a CEO and wealthy is quite different.

            But this whole incident has the feel in part of being McCarthyism on the left. If you don't see that this is partly true, then I fear you have different standards based on your ideology.

            •  Could you point me to the concern (6+ / 0-)

              Funny, I didn't see any outrage from the right when a television network fired someone for an ironic tweet about the right wing and a Cheerios commercial.


              The free market giveth, and the free market taketh away, on both sides.

              History is a guide, not a destination.

              by NCJan on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 05:13:52 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  But the point is (0+ / 0-)

                we wish it weren't always like that, especially when it hurts people on our side.

                The right wing wins when we adapt their attitudes, which sadly is what is going on here to a great extent.

                We should be better than that. Unfortunately, they are making us do stupid things, just like they do.

                •  better? (6+ / 0-)

                  don't really care if i'm perceived as "better"

                  .... what I do want is equality.
                  and I would wager that we are in agreement on that.

                  You think this hurts us... I think it helps us.

                  Truth is, what really hurts us, sean, and I'm sure you know this, is our second class citizenship. How in many states we can still be fired or denied work or an apartment.... that we don't have immigration rights for our foreign partners (unfortunately something I know all too well). These are just some of the things that hurt us.

                  Interesting thing about the piece of shit, he had the opportunity to apologize... to do something.... yet resigned instead. His financial support of prop 8 actually HURT people. It sought to take away marriages and the rights and benefits that go along with them. It wasn't like he simply held these homophobic beliefs but never put his money where his mouth was. No, he actually donated to prop 8. He wanted to TAKE peoples rights away.

                  every adult is responsible for every child

                  by ridemybike on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 05:32:25 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  sean, with due respect, (11+ / 0-)

              do you think this originated from within the gay activist community?

              As a teenager I was on the front lines with ACTup. To this day I'm still actively involved in the fight for lgbt rights...
              and, I never got the memo.

              The collective consience has shifted. The injustice is palpable.

              This is nothing like McCarthyism. This is the FREE MARKET and private citizens speaking out against bigotry... taking a stand and saying ENOUGH!

              This is not the government doing it!

              To confuse or equate the two is a big mistake, imo.

              every adult is responsible for every child

              by ridemybike on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 05:20:23 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  As a non-gay person, (9+ / 0-)

              I don't understand why you think the "overwhelming reaction" will be negative.

              My reaction: surprised and pleased by the outcome.

              Re-elect Sean Maloney to Congress, NY-18

              by NYWheeler on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 05:46:27 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  It was an internal Mozilla issue. (6+ / 0-)

              People didn't storm the offices of Mozilla and drag the man out and beat him. He resigned because users were moving to other company's products and workers at Mozilla started applied internal pressure that made the higher ups wonder if they might start seeing workers seeking jobs at other companies. His resignation was the model of it being taken care of internally.

              I don't see McCarthyism, I see people making their own individual choices, i.e. no one is required to use Mozilla products. Apparently there are a lot of people who think Mozilla products should be mandatory for everyone. So yes, that is a standard I disagree with.

        •  A net negative? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cadillac64, SpaK, Dallasdoc

          Are you serious? What's going to happen? Is California going to put Prop 8 back in place so to make Eich feel better that we big, bad, mean, bully gays and some supporters started to use a different web browser?

          Your perspective is in serious need of recalibration if you think Eich's resignation is going to even be remembered in six months by people talking about it now.

      •  Actually, there were LGBTQ Mozillans... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Noisy Democrat

        ...who spoke in support of Eich, both two years ago (when the Mozilla community went through its first round on this questino) and last week.

        The word "parent" is supposed to be a VERB, people...

        by wesmorgan1 on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 05:35:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  horrible optics?!?! are you kidding? (12+ / 0-)

      no, exactly the opposite.

      employees and private business (see ok cupid) took a stand. they said NO! we do not want to support a bigot.... we will not support bigotry!

      and in the end, fairness and inclusion and LOVE won the day.

      how the hell is that "bad optics"

      every adult is responsible for every child

      by ridemybike on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 04:54:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Because to most people (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Noisy Democrat

        we look like intolerant bullies who can't accept that people evolve and that we have nearly won the battle.

        Stop acting like a victim all the time. We have been victimized and often. But we are overcoming this.

        Making other people appear to be victims helps us how exactly?

      •  Half right. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        As you say,

        employees and private business ... took a stand. they said NO! we do not want to support a bigot.... we will not support bigotry!
        Yay! That's a good thing: we should NOT support bigotry.

        But please realize, that at the same time, inseparably, the community taking action against Eich also said "NO! we will not support a person's right to participate in the political process or express their opinion unless it agrees with our own!"

        And there's the rub.  NO ONE in this forum or elsewhere in Kos, so far as I have seen, has defended bigotry - though many have been accused of doing so because they expressed concern over the trampling of Eich's political rights as a citizen: his right to his beliefs, his right to participate in the political process (vote, donate money, etc).

        Destroying another person's rights "for a good cause" is STILL destroying their rights - and that is something I find very disturbing, speaking for myself. It is formally analogous to the very kind of destruction once perpetrated in this country against alleged "communists" - and against homosexuals: deliberate destruction of people's lives (jobs, honor, standing) merely because of who they were or what they believed.

        I expect others agree, though some may be afraid to say so openly for fear of being trashed as 'bigoted'.

        •  I have the right to not use a product (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ridemybike, Ian S, Dallasdoc, a2nite

          produced by a company led by a bigot.

          I'm not "destroying another person's rights" by my choice to switch to products from companies led by honorable, fair people.

          If someone doesn't want to be "trashed" as bigoted, then they should change or hide their bigotry.

          Eich has the right to be homophobic. He has the right to spend his money to hurt fellow citizens through campaign donations. But we have the right to act on our beliefs too, and that includes boycotting a product from a company that has a known bigot for a CEO.

          PS - supporting or believing that marriage is between a man and a woman is just a bunch of talking points promoted by NOM and others so that bigots can pretend to not be bigots.

    •  I remember when Act Up (15+ / 0-)

      was burdened with the same bad optics. All sorts of LGBT advocacy groups have been warned about rippling the waters. And here we are today.

    •  What if he had supported the KKK? (11+ / 0-)

      I think it's good to look at it in those terms.

      I actually think the optics are really good. Progressives and liberals are tired of getting kicked around and in this case we stood up and made a difference.

      Hopefully the other bigots out there will now at least start to think twice before spouting their shit.

      The diarist made an excellent observation:

      This is a part of how bullies work. They blame the victim and claim they are the misunderstood victim in all of this.
      Let's not let the bigots get away with playing the victim.

      Let's encourage the bigots to suck it up and accept responsibility for their actions.

      •  So, anyone who disagrees is a "bigot". (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Noisy Democrat, solublefish

        Thank you for defining the lines of battle.

        All Catholics who go by their religion's teachings - "bigots" according to you.

        All other Christians - most of whom have no ill will towards gays - bigots according to you.

        Any American who feels marriage is between a man and a woman but who fully supports civil unions, is a "bigot".

        Scorched earth.. that's your policy.. watch out.. that strategy gets very dangerous.

        Mozilla has received negative comments to their actions of over 10-1. The "optics" on this are horrendous.

        •  Yes, Catholics who rigidly follow their church's (14+ / 0-)

          teachings and work to deny rights to gays are bigots. Why is that so hard to grasp? They don't get a "Get Out of Bigotville" card because religion is their excuse. Plenty of Catholics have realized that the 21st Century isn't the 12th Century. An American who thinks same sex marriage isn't for them I've got no problem with. You don't want a gay marriage? Don't have one. You can't tell other people how to live or who to love.

          Food processed to be nothing more than simple starches with two dozen flavorings and stabilizers added to make it appear to be food isn't "food". It's "feed" -- what you give to livestock to fatten them up for slaughter.

          by ontheleftcoast on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 06:06:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Raised a Catholic (8+ / 0-)

            And I have a lot of Catholic relatives.

            Most of my relatives do not follow the Church's teachings on birth control, or on homosexuality. Nor do a lot of other Catholics that I know.

            And you are right. The ones who do are bigots. Their religion does not give them a shield against this reality.

            History is a guide, not a destination.

            by NCJan on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 06:33:47 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It so amazing to me that you can substitute (12+ / 0-)

              "gay" with "black" and these arguments to defend Eich are all immediately obvious as racist bullshit. And yes, religion was used to justify slavery, so don't tell me that isn't a fair comparison.

              If the situation was, "Brendan Eich donated $1,000 to a cause to deny blacks the right to marry" he would've been out on his ass in 2 seconds. But change it to "Brendan Eich donated $1,000 to a cause to deny gays the right to marry" and suddenly is a debate topic and we supposed to concerned about Eich's right to "free speech" and "gay bullies". Bull Effing Shit.

              Food processed to be nothing more than simple starches with two dozen flavorings and stabilizers added to make it appear to be food isn't "food". It's "feed" -- what you give to livestock to fatten them up for slaughter.

              by ontheleftcoast on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 07:36:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  What about people who believe that (0+ / 0-)

            marriage is an institution designed to benefit society (not a matter of individuals' rights) and who -- for various reasons -- think that society will not be well served by same-sex marriages? Are all of them bigots?

            I'm in favor of same-sex marriage, but I'm disturbed by the way the debate is getting framed here.

            One more question -- and I'm sincere in being curious: What about Catholics who are all for legalization of same-sex marriage, but who also support the Church's right not to perform Church-sanctioned, specifically Catholic same-sex weddings? Are those people bigots?

            •  Yup, you can dress up your reasons for restricting (9+ / 0-)

              the rights of others all you want but it's still bigotry to deny people their rights. Especially on something so basic. And, for the record, marriage isn't about children -- if it were then 70 year olds getting married would be against the law for the same reason.

              As for the church not performing weddings I respond, "Who cares?" Why get married in a church, especially one that doesn't want to wish you joy and happiness? If the church doesn't want to participate then it's the church's loss.

              Food processed to be nothing more than simple starches with two dozen flavorings and stabilizers added to make it appear to be food isn't "food". It's "feed" -- what you give to livestock to fatten them up for slaughter.

              by ontheleftcoast on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 07:47:44 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Yes. There is no societal argument to be found (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Dallasdoc, Darmok, a2nite

              there.  In fact, if you look at the states that allow marriage equality, they very specifically differentiate between civil matrimony and holy matrimony.  If a religion wishes to be bigoted and refuse to perform same sex weddings, they are free to do so, and the government won't force them to change.  However the flip side -- and this is important -- is that these religions no longer get to force their definition of marriage upon the rest of society.  Separation of church and state.

              •  So someone who wants legalized same-sex (0+ / 0-)

                marriage and wants churches to be free not to do them -- is a bigot? That's what I'm wondering about. That's the position that I take. I don't think the State should be able to tell the churches whether to have female priests, or whether to perform same-sex marriages, or basically interfere with anything, except when the law is being broken (as in the case of pedophile priests). I appreciate that that is, in fact, the law, but I was wondering whether those who want to make this kind of separation between institutions are also, in the eyes of people here, "bigots".

        •  Straw man alert! (7+ / 0-)
          So, anyone who disagrees is a "bigot".
          Huh? Where did that come from? I never even implied that. So, on that point you're not only completely wrong but you're not dealing in the real world.
          Mozilla has received negative comments to their actions of over 10-1.
          Nobody even cares about it outside the the fringe right. That's reality.

          As far as "scorched earth" --- I'll take my chances.

        •  I think you are drinking too much right wing (0+ / 0-)

          kool aid.  The reality is that when these facts about the CEO were unearthed, a significant number of employees, developers, and users abandoned the mozilla platform to the point that it nearly imploded.  Whatever optics you are claiming to be concerned about simply do not reflect reality.

    •  The right loves to feel persecuted (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ian S, anime1973

      This incident is a hard case, a borderline case, and therefore gives them exactly what they love. I find it very understandable - and it does matter that Eich resigned rather than being booted. But it makes me uneasy.

      There's a ton of serious homophobia out there. There are plenty of people who are glad to find anti-gay verses in Scripture because it validates the repulsion they feel toward gays. But I've also known plenty of others who like and respect their gay acquaintances, but don't see any way around the biblical prohibitions. Such people can be 100% behind ENDA, for example, but unable to cross over the line and approve of same-sex marriage.  That doesn't mean they're going to regard someone in such a marriage with any less respect than a devout Catholic would regard someone remarried after a divorce.

      I don't know where Eich fell on that spectrum. His firm promise that his beliefs would not affect his behavior on the job suggests he falls more toward the benign end of it. His active role, years ago, against Prop 8 suggests otherwise. But there was at least a whiff of pack mentality in the outcry that led to his departure.

    •  The optics that I'm seeing... (8+ / 0-) that there are a whole lot of people who call themselves liberals that possess a ton of latent homophobia.

      The depictions of rightwing-like activity I'm seeing comes in the form of people who consider themselves liberals calling gay people "bullies" just because people chose to stop using Mozilla. I thought we were better than conservatives too, but over the past few days on this site, I'm feeling that there are a ton of liberals who still would prefer it if gay people just shut up and disappear and not have a problem with people who advocate for the government to discriminate against us.

      •  Exactly! There are far too many "progressives" (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Miggles, Dallasdoc

        on this site who really show what they're made of when something like this arises.

        Just another faggity fag socialist fuckstick homosinner!

        by Ian S on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 07:02:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  So by your lights (0+ / 0-)

        people who disagree with your opinion on this issue are "homophobes" engaging in suspiciously "right wing activity".  

        Indeed, according to you, a person who disagrees with your opinion might actually want gay people to "just shut up and disappear".

        I would call that defamation, except that you have not directed your groundless accusations against a single person but a vague group of people.

        Why not just respectfully disagree, rather than insist that a person who disagrees is undeserving of respect?

        •  My right to not be discriminated against... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

 not an opinion, it's a right. You might want the government to discriminate against me, but that makes you a bigot.

          I cannot "respectfully disagree" with someone who wants the government to discriminate against me. You might be able to "respectfully disagree" because you're not the one who the government was discriminating against. It's easy to tell someone else they have to be ok with being the target of bigotry.

          •  What you call a right (0+ / 0-)

            in this case was not in fact a right as a matter of settled law or political consensus - and it still is not, except tenuously, as you well know.  It was a claim - justly made, in my view - by one part of the population (supporters of gay marriage), which was challenged by another part of the population (who rejected the claim), in the context of a democratic society where all have the settled and constitutionally protected right to participate in the political process.  In California, the majority of voters rejected that claim in vote on Prop 8.  You may dislike the result (I did), and you may disagree with the reasoning behind it (I do).  You may even be correct in claiming that some or many or even all those who voted against gay marriage were bigots - a claim unsubstantiated by you or anyone else.  But that's how a democratic society works.  

            'Rights' in a democratic society are not a given; they are not written on a stone somewhere for all to read, handed down from some lofty height by god or shiva or whatever.  The are a social and political construction, and are achieved - where not clearly stated already - through political consensus.

            By pressuring Mozilla to remove Eich, you are punishing him for his past actions in exercising his protected constitutional rights as a citizen and participant in the political life of the community.  He has (had) taken no action as CEO to warrant that response.  And now you justify your action by declaring he deserved it, because he was/is a "bigot", which is an assertion with approximately the same substantive content as calling a person a 'dirty foreigner' - or a 'fag' or 'commie' in the 1950s - the emotional contents of the epithet far outstrip the substantive ones. Sorry for the lenghty response, i am just trying to be clear.

      •  Agree. I'd chalk it up to Straight Privilege. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        vacantlook, a2nite
    •  Yeah, once again, gay folks can be thrown... (5+ / 0-)

      under the bus for the good of "our side." Fuck that! This crap would NEVER occur on DailyKos for any other minority.

      Just another faggity fag socialist fuckstick homosinner!

      by Ian S on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 06:57:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  That photo is very poignant. (15+ / 0-)

    It reminds us that all of this is about love.

    The Republicans are completely sex-obsessed. They are always all up into everybody's underpants. So infantile and primitive.

  •  I support traditional marriage, too (28+ / 0-)

       I don't wish to deny straight people the opportunity to marry.

       The right wing, on the other hand, seeks to deny gay people the right to marry.

       That is the difference. That's why they're the bigots.

    "Le ciel est bleu, l'enfer est rouge."

    by Buzzer on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 04:40:27 PM PDT

  •  It wasn't Eich's "beliefs" (34+ / 0-)

    It was his direct financial support for something that harms our families.

    Prop 8 supporters tried to forcibly take other people's marriages away.  Unless someone tried to forcibly take Eich's marriage away, there's nothing equivalent here.  He did something harmful, and he got criticized for it.  One of these things is not like the other.

    I shall die, but that is all that I shall do for Death; I am not on his payroll. - Edna St. Vincent Millay

    by Tara the Antisocial Social Worker on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 04:40:43 PM PDT

  •  I'm intolerant if . . . (16+ / 0-)

    . . . I don't tolerate your intolerance? The only way I can claim to be tolerant is to tolerate you not tolerating others?

    Interesting logic. I guess I'll just have to be intolerant, then.

    - Politics is the entertainment branch of industry.
    - Frank Zappa

    by rudyblues on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 04:41:13 PM PDT

  •  i'm gay, i'm liberal, and i'm intolerant (19+ / 0-)

    of bigots and bigotry.

    every adult is responsible for every child

    by ridemybike on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 04:42:43 PM PDT

  •  I am Intolerant (14+ / 0-)

    Of stupidity and ignorance I am intolerant of people who want to gut the safety net while giving tax cuts to the rich. I am intolerant of so called Christan's who have absolutely no idea at all about what Christ stood for. I am intolerant of bigotry, racism. and hypocrisy. They are right I am intolerant of every thing the right-wing stands for. The differences between my intolerant and theres is I stand for human decency and they stand for hate!

    Dogs and Philosophers do the greatest good and get the fewest rewards (Diogenes)

    by Out There on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 04:46:30 PM PDT

  •  And, speaking of intolerance (7+ / 0-)

    …it is the intolerant haters of humanity that are organizing a boycott against Firefox.

    All because Firefox employees believe in love.

  •  That's My Statehouse-Providence (6+ / 0-)

    And we worked for 14 years for marriage equality, which would never have been signed into law if we had not elected Governor Chafee, who is not running again, partly because too many people hate him for being liberal. I'm proud of what we were able to do.

  •  The Right to Pursue Happiness. . . (8+ / 0-)

    . . .Ends at the tip of someone else's nose.

    I have a right to bigoted opinions if that makes me happy.  That right ends precisely when my bigotry causes harm to others.

    It has yet to be shown to me how a gay couple's wedding harms mine.

  •  They're expecting 'kumbayah liberals' to roll over (10+ / 0-)

    ... beg for forgiveness and apologize for hurting their feelings.

    Fuck that shit. Hurting their feelings is the whole idea. The right wing, especially the hate-radio set, understands this perfectly. They need to be beaten at their own game.

    The only times the progressive/liberal movement has really accomplished substantive and significant changes -- the New Deal in the 1930s, civil rights from the 1950s through the 1970s and beyond, environmentalism and feminism in the 1970s and thereafter, VIETNAM, they got it by being INSISTENT, AGRESSIVE and UNAPOLOGETIC, not by being cowering wimps.

    The Establishment will not give you anything if they believe you are tenative, apologetic and weak.

    Nixon did not get out of Vietnam because some doe-eyed hippie girl waved a boquet of dandelions at him, he got out because he saw hundreds of thousands of angry people marching on the Mall and said, "holy shit, what happens if that mob decides to storm the gates of the White House?" THAT'S what got him out of Vietnam.

    It's time to quit taking shit off right wing idiots, and what's more, let them know we're done taking it, too. "Kumbayah has left the building."

  •  Eich was forced to resign (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NCJan, Dallasdoc, anon004, Cadillac64, Miggles

    because Mozilla didn't want a bigot as the public face of their company. The final straw leading to his resignation as I understand it, was his donation to Pat Buchanan's presidential run. Did Mozilla use economic calculations in their decision? I'm sure they did. Mr. Eich's views were out of the mainstream. Nobody has impugned his right to hold those views, but had Mozilla kept him on board it would have been seen as endorsing those views once they became public.

    Slut power. Use it. Own it!

    by txdemfem on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 04:58:05 PM PDT

  •  to clarify for the wingnuts (14+ / 0-)

    Eich was NOT asked to step down because of his support of traditional marriage.

    I also support so-called "traditional marriage."

    But I also support marriage equality.  For all.

    Eich was asked to step down because of his OPPOSITION to marriage equality.  It was his bigoted opposition to full civil rights for gays that created the potential for a boycott.

    It was because of what and who he was AGAINST.

    Not what he was supporting, or FOR.

    I hate GOPropaganda!

    Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
    Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights to talk about grief.

    by TrueBlueMajority on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 05:00:27 PM PDT

  •  As Old As Rightwing Messaging. (12+ / 0-)

    The weak are the oppressors, the poor are too rich, the defenders are attackers, opposite speak rules.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 05:02:48 PM PDT

  •  there seem to be quite a few folks around here (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jgilhousen, JeffW, anon004, CenPhx, Cadillac64

    missing the obvious...having pat buchanan jr. as your ceo is stupid all the way around, so he was disinvited, eh?

    however, this fellow will never miss a meal, i predict

  •  Wear that rationalization hamster out... (4+ / 1-)

    telling yourselves this wasn't a witch hunt. But it was, and it was ugly.

    The only question now is how far is this going to go? If it is ethical to do this to a CEO, what about Vice Presidents? Maybe there are some middle managers who need to have their political contributions checked out as well. Perhaps there can be televised hearings where people are asked...

    Are you now or have you ever been opposed to gay marriage?
    This is fucking creepy. It reminds me of, after 9/11, how anyone how questioned the Bush Administration's counter terrorism policies was branded disloyal and unpatriotic.

    You can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.

    by Eric Stratton on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 05:06:47 PM PDT

    •  Could you point me to your outrage? (5+ / 0-)

      Written, on this site, when MSNBC fired a person for tweeting something that offended Reince Preibus?

      I'd say that person was pretty far below CEO, Vice President, or middle manager.

      Speaking of which, I was in the workforce over 40 years and I was never under the impression that I could publicly go against the beliefs of the company or institution that I worked for.  

      This is not new. This is very old.  It's called a democratic country with a dictatorial workplace.

      If you're ready to change it I'm all on board--but I'm not going to say that change should be one-sided.

      History is a guide, not a destination.

      by NCJan on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 05:21:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ah... now I'm the witch. (0+ / 0-)

        I'd be all too happy to share with you my desire to put an end to the nasty habit of people getting fired for random social media events. But then I'd be going along with the sort of Spanish Inquisition bullshit that this is about.

        So... I'm not going to confess anything to you or convert to whatever religion you demand. I will merely reiterate my disgust with all of this and wait for the axe to fall.

        You can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.

        by Eric Stratton on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 05:26:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sigh (5+ / 0-)

          I'm just asking if you were equally outraged when someone loses their job over a liberal tweet because a network has been harassed by an actual political party.

          Seems like a fair question to me.

          And it wasn't a witch hunt that I asked you to prove your that you were outraged way back then.

          Where I come from, in the rational world, assertions are expected to be backed by evidence. It's quite the opposite of a witch hunt, in fact.

          Interesting that a simple question served to rile you up so much.

          In other words, methinks thou dost protest too much.

          History is a guide, not a destination.

          by NCJan on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 05:35:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't do outrage. (0+ / 0-)

            I try to avoid letting anger get the best of me. When people get angry, they do things like over react and go on foolish, counter-productive quests for revenge.

            Have fun with the torches and pitchforks, really. Knock yourself out. Don't let me ruin the fun. Just remember the problem with this sort of thing is that sooner or later you run out of things to slash and burn.

            You can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.

            by Eric Stratton on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 05:50:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm a Quaker (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              I don't do torches and pitchforks.

              History is a guide, not a destination.

              by NCJan on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 05:51:39 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  No? (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              NCJan, anon004, CenPhx
              I don't do outrage.
              This is fucking creepy. It reminds me of, after 9/11
              You sure do have a knack for hyperbole. You need to work on outrage more.
              •  Saying (0+ / 0-)

                that this is creepy (it is) is hardly outrage.

                As for hyperbole, well maybe. So OK, what is being done here is only a little bit wrong. Not quite as wrong as whatever may have gone down during the Bush years.

                Although, I'm trying to think when someone got fired for giving money to John Kerry... and I'm coming up blank. But it's only a little wrong, so that's fine.

                You can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.

                by Eric Stratton on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 06:05:53 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  It's only a little wrong (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  NCJan, anon004

                  Okay then. Do a little research on the last time someone was fired for being gay. You will come up with lots of examples.

                  •  Two wrongs do not make a right. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    Revenge is not a noble objective. You pretty much prove my point.

                    This isn't ethical, and it needs to stop.

                    You can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.

                    by Eric Stratton on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 06:14:01 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  huh? (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      •  OK, man. Bear with me here. (0+ / 0-)

                        I'm a very stupid and bad person, as you have noted. I'm just going to give up on trying to explain to you why this is bad and let someone else do it.

                        He explains it so much better than I could. And I'm actually not being sarcastic about the last sentence.

                        Seriously, go read it and then come back and tell me how ridiculous I am.

                        You can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.

                        by Eric Stratton on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 12:31:12 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Sullivan, huh? (0+ / 0-)

                          Try some Ari Ezra Waldman

                          The only reason the 1% are rich is because the 99% agree they are.

                          by GreatLakeSailor on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 05:46:09 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  OK. (0+ / 0-)

                            You can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.

                            by Eric Stratton on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 05:55:52 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Alright, that didn't take long. (0+ / 0-)

                            Not a terrible analysis, but it fails in one very big way. Equating support for  Prop 8 to Nazi atrocities is hyperbole of the worst sort.

                            When you consider how quickly public opinion has swung from opposition to support of gay marriage, it's hard to see how the opponents of gay marriage on a level with segregationists (I'm just going to skip the Nazi reference, it's too ridiculous). It took a Civil War and then a massive, bloody struggle through the 60's to finally officially break the back of Jim Crow and segregation. Gay marriage wasn't even a thing until the 2004 elections. 10 years later it's practically a done deal, and I don't recall any riots or Governors standing in school doors. The Army wasn't ordered into courthouses to uphold judicial orders allowing gay marriages. So that analogy holds no water.

                            These people just aren't the monsters you paint them to be. If they were, it would be different. And neither Sully nor myself would be telling you to cool it and back off. The reason you should do so is that it is totally unnecessary and excessive to keep this up. I can't any of the pro-witch hunt (deny all you want, that's what this was) crowd to acknowledge why they're really doing this. Revenge. It's about revenge. That's a terrible reason to do anything.

                            You can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.

                            by Eric Stratton on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 06:04:44 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No, it ain't (0+ / 0-)
                            Equating support for  Prop 8 to Nazi atrocities is hyperbole of the worst sort.
                            The Prop8 folks are Stochastic Terrorists.  Plus look at Uganda - same Prop8 people.

                            The Godwin part was an exemplification of the argument, not the argument itself.

                            The only reason the 1% are rich is because the 99% agree they are.

                            by GreatLakeSailor on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 06:52:12 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  This is getting sad. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            Silicon Valley is not Uganda. It's not even Alabama. You are blowing this way out of proportion. There was not a ballot initiative to hunt down and kill gay people in California. If there was, Eich would never have given a dime to it.

                            Get some perspective. Eich isn't Hitler and you're not the French Resistance. Seriously.

                            You can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.

                            by Eric Stratton on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 08:37:54 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  On this we can agree. (0+ / 0-)

                            "This is getting sad."

                            Curious how you know this:
                            "If there was, Eich would never have given a dime to it."

                            The comparison was not Eich is Hitler - strawman.  It was Eich is giving material support to a Right Wing group/movement (the Nazi line you're bunched-up about) that would codify in not just law, but constitutional law, "less-than" citizenship on a subset of his fellow citizens with an immutable characteristic - a "lesser other."  People he doesn't know and need never befriend, doing something that effects him in no way, no demonstrable harm neither personal nor societal, should be less than he is.  It's well known Fascist SOP and is the underpinnings for Stochastic Terrorism.

                            On that, it seems, we disagree.

                            The only reason the 1% are rich is because the 99% agree they are.

                            by GreatLakeSailor on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 12:08:11 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  People do lots of silly things (0+ / 0-)

                            that cause other people problems... like stopping at a yellow light when I'm late for work. It's stupid and pointless, like gay marriage bans. But it's not the same thing as slavery. It just isn't.

                            Still, it was nice arguing with you. We do disagree, it seems. Hopefully I'll get to keep my job.


                            You can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.

                            by Eric Stratton on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 12:22:29 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                •  I've already given the example (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Cadillac64, Steveningen

                  Someone at MSNBC was fired because s/he made a snarky remark about right wing reaction to a Cheerios commercial about interracial marriage.


                  S/he was fired because of threats by Reince Preibus.

                  People get fired all the time for offending Republicans.  Reince Preibus makes sure of that.

                  It's his little game.

                  And frankly, I didn't see liberals crying and screaming bloody murder because this poor person got fired for tweeting an ironic remark.

                  I guess it's only outrageous when right-wingers get fired.

                  History is a guide, not a destination.

                  by NCJan on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 06:43:13 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  For someone who "do[esn't] do outrage"... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              NCJan, librarisingnsf, Sven Boogie

    've sure posted a lot of it. You've posted your outrage that people had the audacity to choose to use a different company's software. Ohnoez!!

    •  Oh for the love of... (13+ / 0-)
      The only question now is how far is this going to go?
      Yes, the gays are hiding under your mattresses, planning on bringing down all middle management and closing bakery upon bakery across the land.

      This isn't fucking creepy. This is the free market at work. Like Kos so eloquently said, Brandon Eich was a victim of market forces, conservatives should applaud.

      Yes, the Brandon Eich flap was exactly like 911 and the neocon requirement of clapping for war or else.


      •  You completely miss the point. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        The bottom line is that you would wouldn't like it if this happened to you, so why is it OK to do it to "them".

        And what is even the point? This wasn't about winning an election or passing a law. This was about revenge. And the question still stands, when will it be enough? How many more heads need to roll?

        You know there are many other Silicon Valley execs who gave money to Prop 8, so they all need to be sacked too, right?

        You can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.

        by Eric Stratton on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 05:38:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  How stupid of me (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ian S, anon004, CenPhx

          to miss the point. Thank you for setting me straight.

        •  I am not a bigot and neither is Steven (9+ / 0-)

          So this would not happen to us.

          But if I were able to get to the level of running a company as CEO and the board and customers did not like my pro-equality attitude and boycotted the company, I would welcome the severance package when I was fired. And I would have many other opportunities.

          And if other leaders of companies are found to be in favor of discrimination, the market will determine their fate.

          They will not get fired for their political views, which is not legal in CA anymore than firing someone for being gay.

          •  Running away from the point. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Sprinting, really. This CEO guy, he resigned. He seems to take the very attitude you recommend. So that's all really a mute point.

            What matters is why he was targeted in the first place, and whether or not that is appropriate. Tim Hardaway was banished from the NBA for saying "I hate gay people". That is bigotry, and he deserves what he got. Giving money to a ballot initiative is not the same thing as saying you hate gay people.

            It's really not that hard to understand. You're trying very hard not to address this point, but it's the only one that really matters.

            You can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.

            by Eric Stratton on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 06:11:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Giving money to a ballot initiative is not the (5+ / 0-)

              same  thing as saying you hate gay people."

              And I suppose, giving campaign contributions to candidates who favor segregation and that blacks and whites should not use the same bathrooms or water fountains or sit at the same lunch counters isn't the same thing as saying you hate black people, either.  No, it's merely giving your support and money to a candidate or cause that makes them have fewer rights than their fellow citizens.  It isn't coming right out and saying you hate them.  That's just the logical conclusion to draw from your actions.

              •  Oh man... (0+ / 0-)

                and people accuse me of hyperbole. If irony wasn't already dead, this thread finished it off.

                You can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.

                by Eric Stratton on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 12:46:38 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Because you refuse to acknowledge (0+ / 0-)

                  or can't understand an analogous situation doesn't make it any less analogous.

                  What this man supported took away rights from people and injured their families, including their children.

                  Since this seems to go over your head, what about something a little closer to what he was supporting?  How about if Eich supported a Constitutional amendment that prevented blacks from legally marrying whites?  It happened in this country until 1968 when SCOTUS ruled against it, and you would need a Constitutional amendment to bring it back.  Would you be willing to dismiss that as just his "making a legal campaign contribution," or would you find that problematic?

            •  In fact, those who favored segregation and (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              librarisingnsf, Dallasdoc, a2nite

              every other form of legalized degradation of blacks in the pre-civil rights era South would loudly proclaim that they knew and really liked lots of black people.  They just didn't think they were worthy of the same rights as white people.

              •  True. (0+ / 0-)

                I guess that's why MLK demanded that anyone who ever opposed the Civil Rights Act should be hounded from their jobs. Oh wait, he never said anything remotely like that. Ever.

                You prove my right with your own analogy. Dr. King would have urged mercy shown to his enemies.

                You can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.

                by Eric Stratton on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 12:45:55 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  "I guess that's why MLK demanded that anyone (0+ / 0-)

                  who ever opposed the Civil Rights Act should be hounded from their jobs."

                  I think it's safe to assume he wouldn't have shed a lot of tears if Bull Connor had been hounded from his job.

                  In any case, Eich wasn't hounded from his job.  An outside group pointed out what Eich had done, and the customers and employees of that organization made their views known to the board of directors.  The board decided it was bad for their progressive business image to have this guy as their public face.  Would anyone doubt that if Hobby Lobby named a woman as their CEO, and it was 1) discovered by a so-called right-to-life group that she had an abortion and (2) she was unrepentant and said that at that point in her life, it was the right choice for her to make that she wouldn't be out on her ass the next day?  And no one would even think twice about it.  Everyone would speak in hushed tones about "respecting the company's values."  Progressives need to stop apologizing for standing up for our values, which include not rewarding bigots by making them the CEOs of progressive companies.

        •  I wouldn't be surprised. (5+ / 0-)

          If I had advocated for the government to discriminate against me, I would be surprised if a company that declares itself to be on the side of equality didn't want me as its CEO.

          It wasn't about revenge, it was about people being allowed to make choices. They chose to not use the software. You think they should be required to use it.

          Eich wasn't sacked, he resigned. I know you want to cry over how the big, mean, bully gays pulled him out of his office and beat him, but it didn't happen.

    •  There are a lot of pieces of software... (4+ / 0-)

      ...that I'm not using, by your logic, I'm witch-hunting the CEOs of those respective software companies too.

  •  Speaking of Anita Bryant, I vividly remember (12+ / 0-)

    a gay friend in New York back in the mid-70s who had a huge stack of post cards that he was distributing.

    They were addressed to the Florida Citrus Growers' Association, and on the back they said:

    Dear Anita,

    This is to notify you that we are switching to prune juice and will be sending you the result.

    We libruls have always been ahead of the right wing assholes on market-based solutions to intolerance and bigotry!

    "Bernie Madoff's mistake was stealing from the rich. If he'd stolen from the poor he'd have a cabinet position." -OPOL

    by blue in NC on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 05:07:25 PM PDT

  •  At issue is, how tolerant can we afford to be of (11+ / 0-)


    Prop 8 is an example of intolerance taken to its natural end, the codification of discrimination. To be tolerant of the intolerance inherent in it, and its supporters, is to be an enabler of that intolerance.

    Tolerance is the willingness to explore ideas different from one's own and to accept that they have a fair place in an exchange of ideas. Tolerance does not mean that one rolls over and accepts bigotry as the status quo.

    It is kind of like expecting an honest man to accept lies just because he is honest.

    •  Why are you fighting battles (0+ / 0-)

      we have nearly won?

      Why are you providing ammunition to the bigots to not give in already?

      I am as against bigotry as any of you. But I also am against not using one's brain strategically, particularly when victory is within our grasp.

      Basically we are writing a horrible majority opinion on the Hobby Lobby case by showing we can't tolerate someone's personal opinions when different than ours over a proposition that was voted on 6 years ago and defeated judicially last year.

      It's a waste of time and energy and self-defeating.

      •  You seem to be under the mistaken impression (9+ / 0-)

        that there was some kind of liberal movement to get rid of this man. Unfortunately that wasn't the case. The employees did not want a man who fought against diversity in charge of a company that prided itself on its diversity.

        Bigots don't need any ammunition to do what they do, they show up fully loaded.

        I don't quite follow your leap to Hobby Lobby, as that is a case where a corporation is claiming that its religious beliefs should trump federal law. What does that have to do with tolerance?

        •  The leap (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          is that the idea that conservative Christians and their freedoms are under attack is already widespread. This rump SC is likely to agree with them. An event like this can add impetus to that among one of two possible swing justices.

          Do we know how all employees feel? And assuming that there were safeguards placed to make sure no bias would be permitted, might not there have been another solution?

          If a Southern company on the same level as Mozilla had a CEO chosen who it turned out had contributed to a control measure and thus lost his job, how would you feel? Yes, you and I make a distinction b/w our rights and feelings and those of people with other beliefs. But they feel quite strongly about theirs as well.

          This country is in trouble if we can't find a way to try to bridge these differences. And the activists in this case showed that many would want to stand on victimhood than trying to be open to move forward.

          •  First of all, he didn't lose his job. He quit. (9+ / 0-)

            He quit because his employees didn't want to work for a bigot. I don't see how anyone's rights were violated. He supported a cause that was important to him. His employees did the same.

            The fact that the American Taliban feels persecuted does not seem to me to be any reason to ignore the difference between church and state, which is what the hobby lobby case comes down to. Paying them off would never satisfy the religious right. Nothing less than a Christian taliban in complete control of the government would satisfy them, which is why I feel they must be pushed back at every opportunity.

            •  I am not talking about the American Taliban (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Lucy Montrose

              I am talking about the broad middle of reachable Americans who likely overwhelmingly think this was overreach and an example of what they complain about.

              Sorry you don't see it. I fear your and others blindness here is a valuable tool for the American Taliban. I choose to be smarter and not be their secret weapon, as I fear you and other otherwise reasonable and fair minded people could become.

              •  I'm a straight married, white, (5+ / 0-)

                middle income woman who lives in suburbia with my husband and two children and I recognize this wasn't "gay overreach" (although that does sound kind of hot, I must say), this was a company deciding they didn't want a CEO who was against one of their basic values.  Twenty-first century companies like Mozilla rely on the creativity of a young, dynamic, diverse workforce.  They also want a young customer base who will, hopefully, remain loyal to their brand, at least until the next, best thing comes along.  Marriage equality polls in the 80 percent positive range for people under thirty, if I'm not mistaken (it even polls in the majority for white, evangelical Christians in that age cohort).  You can't be the brand of the young and tolerant with a dinosaur CEO who spent money to outlaw what your target workforce and your target customer base favors so strongly.

            •  He had the opportunity to prove he was no longer (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Cadillac64, SpaK, Dallasdoc

              ... a bigot.

              And he blew it.

              Contrast that with the response of Obama one day in May 2012-- one day after North Carolina voted to enshrine marital discrimination in their state constitution. Now THAT was evolution.

              Real Democrats don't abandon the middle class. --John Kerry

              by Lucy Montrose on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 06:03:59 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Did he say nothing because he was afraid? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              It would be tragic indeed, if the only reason Eich didn't denounce his former views was because he was afraid of losing friends and network contacts. We do judge very harshly in our social lives, people who disagree with us on core values. We cave in to a lot of unjust shit simply because we are afraid of losing social support... which we are CONSTANTLY told is the most important, health enhancing, fate-determining, extra special splendiferous thing in the world.

              May he one day find the courage to evolve without fear.

              Real Democrats don't abandon the middle class. --John Kerry

              by Lucy Montrose on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 06:05:12 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Why should I be open to the idea... (3+ / 0-)

            ...that the government should discriminate against me?

      •  The operative phrase is: (9+ / 0-)
        we have nearly won
        It ain't over yet - by a long shot.

        Point number two:
        What ever happened to that personal responsibility the right is so fond of? This idiot did it - now he can face the consequences.

        Finally - you don't win by shrinking away and letting bigots step into positions of power. And we haven't gotten this far by whispering in the hallway - it's by making our voices heard.

      •  Actually, you seem to be applauding bigotry. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ian S, librarisingnsf, CenPhx, Cadillac64

        So, no, I don't think you are as against it as some of the rest of us.

  •  The "intolerance" trope in this case is simplistic (7+ / 0-)

    to the point of being laughable if it weren't so sad in terms of the real harm bigotry inflicts on individuals and society as a whole.

    In his piece for Ordinary Times, Brendan Eich Wasn't "Punished"

    It’s very simplistic to simply call this intolerance or a call for vengeance or even a punishment. Further, it’s showing a significant lack of empathy toward people who had valid concerns about what Eich’s beliefs might mean toward his attitude (both conscious and unconscious) toward LGBTQ people. Would you feel comfortable working under someone who expressed a dislike of your particular religion, or ethnicity and publicly gave money to that cause? Further, wouldn’t it create a niggle of doubt of whether or not you were being fairly treated? People who bring up the “It’s my personal views” canard about bigoted actions rarely have things so well compartmentalized to code-switch appropriately. Why? Because those people rarely have the social experience to have internalized completely separating personal views with actions. This is doubly true for someone who remains unrepentant about their views and does not apologize for them. (Let’s make this clear, Eich did NOT apologize in any shape or form)
    The piece includes a succinct and factual summary of the affair, draws what I find to be very well reasoned conclusions, and I would commend it for a full read.
  •  Liberals Persecuting Christians? Recycled Nazi BS (4+ / 0-)

    Liberals Persecuting Christians?.

    Here let's make some minor edits to "The International Jew" from the 1920's and see how recycled antisemitic Nazi propaganda deluges us every day with only minor edits.

    The International Jew

     The fact is that while there is no "religious persecution" of the Jews (liberals), there is very much real religious persecution by the Jews (liberals). That is one of the outstanding characteristics of organized Jewish life(liberalism) in the United States, its active, unceasing, powerful and virulent attacks upon any and all forms of Christianity which may chance to come to public notice. Now and again we hear of outbreaks of sectarian bigotry between Catholics and Protestants, but these are not to be compared with the steady, relentless, alert, anti-Christian activity of the Jews (liberal) organizations. There are doctrinal disputes within the Christian Churches, but none that challenge the basis of Christianity itself; organized Judaism (liberalism), however, is not content with doctrinal disputation, but enlists its vast commercial and political power against everything that it regards as, (public displays of faith) in its own words, "Christological manifestations."

      No President of the United States has yet dared to take his inaugural oath on the open pages of the New Testament - the Jews (liberals) would denounce him. Various governors of American states, having used the word "Christian" in their Thanksgiving proclamations, have been obliged to teach Americanism in our cities because it held that Christianity and good citizenship were synonymous!

      No public man in America has ever given public evidence of his Christian faith without rebuke from the Jews (liberals). Not only do the Jews (liberals) disagree with Christian teaching - which is their right and no one questions it - but they excise it on demand of the Jews (liberals), Everything that would remind the child in school that he is living in the midst of a Christian civilization, in a nation declared by its Supreme Court to be founded on the Christian principles, has been ordered out of the public schools on Jewish (liberals) demand. In a nation and at a time when a minority of Jews (liberals) can print every year a record of the apologies they have extorted from public officials for "having inadvertently used the term 'Christian'," it is desirable that this charge of "religious persecution" should be placed where it belongs.

    Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

    by bernardpliers on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 05:13:16 PM PDT

    •  "I'm persecuted" actually shows a... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      ... surprising lack of faith in the power of conversation to bridge differences. It's a scream of "Getting along with me is absolutely contingent on you agreeing with me!" It screams of narcissism, of dismissing people because they aren't, and don't want to be, extensions of yourself.

      Real Democrats don't abandon the middle class. --John Kerry

      by Lucy Montrose on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 06:19:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  what a beautiful photo she is holding (8+ / 0-)

    they were together so long they started to look like each other--that's what happens when couples stay together for decades

    Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
    Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights to talk about grief.

    by TrueBlueMajority on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 05:16:53 PM PDT

  •  Tolerance and Witch Hunts (5+ / 0-)

    Eich is the public face of a private company. As such, his public actions jeopardize the company's ability to function when they fly in the face of rapidly changing attitudes on the issue of same sex marriage--an issue that in reality has no logical opposition. It harms no one--no matter what the Klown Kultists howl about. There was no witch hunt--believe what you like, go public with it and if there are repercussions, they are on you.

    I hate the idea of "tolerance". What gives anyone the right to claim they tolerate what other people do and who they are. Screw that--no one is above anyone else as humans, we live and we die, all of us. Therefore, you don't have the right cop the superiority trip of "I am tolerant"--who asked ya?

    If you don't hurt me and mine or stand in my way, I will do the same for you. Tolerance doesn't enter into it.


    by Johnny Wendell on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 05:18:49 PM PDT

    •  Not just a private company . . . (8+ / 0-)

      but a private non-profit with a mission and culture for which its CEO stands as the public face.  Eich's support of causes which run counter to the consensus philosophy of Mozilla as an organization could be tolerated in his role as Chief Technical Officer (for which he was abundantly qualified having single-handedly coded JavaScript).  Not so much as the CEO leading the whole enterprise.

    •  Is that why Rob Ford is still not only... (0+ / 0-)

      ... the mayor of Toronto, but surprisingly well-liked and still very much in the political game for his re-election campaign? Because he is honest about his own shortcomings, and because he breaks the "boring Canadian" mold-- and those emotional, personal qualities outweigh the tax, policy and other disasters he has produced?

      They say we may or may not vote for someone we don't like, but we're far less likely to vote for someone we don't trust. Because in 2004, Kerry went against the picture we had in our heads of a trustworthy person-- a certain, confident person who never changed their mind-- he lost the race, and America actually trusted Bush more. Just like the electorate actually trusted the Republicans more in 2010. Trusted with what, exactly? Is being "a member of your tribe" really the most important thing that signifies trustworthiness?

      Real Democrats don't abandon the middle class. --John Kerry

      by Lucy Montrose on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 06:16:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Completely wrong and utterly shallow. (0+ / 0-)

      Mr Eich expressed his private political views the way any citizen can and should be able to, without fear of vilification and hounding from employment. He did not direct Mozilla to oppose gay marriage, he did not discriminate against gays within the company, he did not make loud public statements about his views.

      He simply disagrees with you. As do Muslims, Catholics, Black Ministers and even Barack Obama circa 2011. Are they now all deemed unfit to hold any tech CEO positions unless they renounce their religion's tenets? Half of California voted against gay marriage, and as punishiment for this, must they all now be banned from professorships, CEO and party positions? You can see where this with hunt, lynch mob mentality leads: intolerance, purity tests, and liberalism eating itself alive.

      There was nothing justifiable, reasonable or decent in what was done to Mr. Eich, whether we agree with him or not. A bunch of cyber bullies, self-righteous and intolerant of any opposition, hiding behind the anonymity of the web, destroyed a creative and valuable man's career and life. Not a web page or a avatar, but a real human being's life was harmed by you. For the crime of not sharing your opinion.  

      If you can't see how wrong that is, I truly,truly feel sorry for you. Andrew Sullivan has written very well on this. Read him and stop this. And review Joseph Welch as well. What you are doing is deeply wrong.

      •  Boo hoo, we destroyed his life (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        a2nite, madhaus

        So sorry, I'll run off now and stop trying to get equal rights for my family and my children. Who are we to expect our own government to treat us fairly.  How self-righteous of us to expect Constitutionally mandated equality.

        It's better that my children can't benefit from their other parent's social security, can't benefit from federal tax breaks, can't benefit from inheritance laws that don't apply to us because we're not a "real" family.

        How wrong of us. We've hurt a "real human being" by criticizing him for spending money to destroy our chance for equal rights.


  •  Keep in mind that Eich was creating (12+ / 0-)

    a branding problem for Mozilla that resulted in many folks, both gay and straight, deciding that they did not want to use a product/service in which the company's CEO would use his compensation, which is linked to consumer use (i.e. $$$), to support those causes which went against their beliefs.  Ergo, they stopped using Firefox, brand image suffered, stock prices went down, and it was causing the company to lose money.  This is the free market forces at work, my conservative brothers and sisters.  I thought you love that shit?

    This was an economic decision by Mozilla, pure and simple.  If anything, the greatest pressure came from within Mozilla, not from the outside.

    Final thought: there is a difference between having a "belief" and acting upon it.  For example:  I believe that overly large automobiles like Hummers are a plight on our environment, and people who drive them are irresponsible and contribute to climate change.  You can agree or disagree, but my belief doesn't really do any harm.  But, if I go out to someone's house that has a Hummer, and I vandalize that care rendering it inoperable, then my action has done damage.  It was Eich's actions that set out to intentionally cause injury to a specific group of people.  That's what got him in hot water.

    Just remember:  Actions speak louder than words.

    The older I get and the more I learn, the more ready I will be to fucking trash your bullshit position.

    by TigerMom on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 05:28:28 PM PDT

    •  Read what you just said. (0+ / 0-)

      A boycott of a company is a a major step. It hurts hundreds, even thousands of employees who are innocent of whatever you are angry about. It should be done with judiciousness and a sense of proportion. Especially regarding WHY you are boycotting a company.

      Koch Brothers boycott? I am with you there. They are incredibly harmful, destructive conservative jihadists who have destroyed important parts of our body politic and who are using the profits we give them to destroy huge swaths of America.

      But Mr Eich? What did he do? Did he lead the charge against gay marriage? Did he have Mozilla issue anti-gay marriage statements? Did he repeatedly and clearly discriminate or insult gay emplyees or the gay community?

      No. He simply privately held a different opinion than many activists do on gay marriage, and he did what any citizen should be free to do without threat of harm or vilification: privately contribute to a group supporting his own views on the matter.

      That is it. He doesn't agree with gay marriage. Like Obama at the time. Like 50% of Californians in 2008. Like most Muslims, Catholics and Black Ministers, today.

      So let me get this straight: no black minster or one of his parishioners, no devout Muslim, no devout Catholic, etc. is entitled to their own views on gay marriage and still be able to hold CEO positions, professorships. party leadership roles. They are all monstrous bigots who are now second class citizens unable to hold such top positions, because they disagree with us.

      That is not the market speaking, that is the cyberlynching of freedom of speech and belief biting the dust. It is intolerant and wrong. We cannot be thought police and liberal McCarthyites.

      What happened to Mr. Eich, for his entirely private beliefs, was indefensible and disgusting. And as a liberal, I find such intolerance of those who disagree with us chilling and shameful.  

      •  Whew. (5+ / 0-)

        I'm glad someone is there to choose for me what products I can and cannot boycott. Please let me know what other products I am obligated to purchase or support.

      •  Your concern is noted. (4+ / 0-)

        BTW, you need to drop this "lynching" rhetoric.

        " a path, not a model." -Henri Lefebvre

        by Free Jazz at High Noon on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 07:41:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Nope (5+ / 0-)

        "So let me get this straight: no black minster or one of his parishioners, no devout Muslim, no devout Catholic, etc. is entitled to their own views on gay marriage and still be able to hold CEO positions, professorships. party leadership roles. They are all monstrous bigots who are now second class citizens unable to hold such top positions, because they disagree with us."

        To paraphrase Jon Stewart, that would certainly be bad, if it were what anyone here had said at any time.

        They are certainly free to be CEO, etc.

        We are also free not to support the company they are CEO of.

        Next strawman please.

        •  Some strawman. Some boycott. (0+ / 0-)

          Let's take a look at your heroic "boycott," which no one has said you weren't free to pursue, just as Hollywood and America were 100% free to pursue the vivification and destruction of leftists in the 1950s like Pete Seeger, whose livelihoods were taken away by fully free boycotts like yours.

          The argument is that what your boycott is about, what is represents. It is a hateful, destructive attack on a company and man for his private political beliefs, not his actions as CEO or within the company or with his developers. It demands, and it is chilling to hear you blythely snarl, that no Muslim, Catholic or devout black Christian be allowed to head a tech company, or the company will be boycotted.

          Your blacklist of people you find unacceptable and whose employment must be destroyed or blocked -- or else -- is a long and wide one. Far bigger than even the blacklist of the 1950s. And that is exactly the point.

          Boycott calls and cyber lynch mobs, not because a company and its CEO took a policy stand against gay marriage, but because they dared hire a qualified man who doesn't share your views on a social matter is exactly the point, it is a cyberlynching and McCarthyite blacklist, exactly. It is designed to intimidate and frighten professional tech people into evolving -- or else. It is harmful, anti-freedom of speech, and shameful.

          Your argument that its just a boycott is, well, a straw man argument. No one said it wasn't.

      •  "cyberlynching of freedom of speech" (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dallasdoc, TigerMom, madhaus

        So I'm a bigot if I take a stand against those who actively work to hurt me and my family, who spend money to support anti-gay, anti-equality politics. That makes me a bigot.

        Wow, great permutation!

        What do you call those who worked to end slavery or Jim Crow? Were they also bigots for fighting the bigots?

        I don't care if half of California voted to hurt gay families, that doesn't make it right. If I meet an individual tomorrow who admits they voted for Prop 8, they'll hear my opinion about it, and I'll let them know how I feel about their actions. If they're a public figure, I'll let others know what they did and whether or not they've retracted or made amends for their cruelty.

        That's how change occurs. People take stands on issues and demand change.

        Obviously what Mr. Eich (and half of California) did had no negative consequences for you!

        •  You need to review the history of McCarthyism. (0+ / 0-)

          If Mr. Eich had said Mozilla was going to go after gay rights, if he had written op-eds blasting gay marriage ads and showed abuse to gay employees and partners, you'd be fine with your boycott.

          That never happened. Instead, you crossed the line and made private beliefs and contrbutions a reason to take away a man's life and work at a company and movement he did so much to create. Just because he disagrees with you.

          That is not defensible or decent behavior. It is anti-freedom. It makes a mockery of all the complaints and criticisms of the McCarthy era by the left. Anti-communists sincerely, and not without some justification, saw communism as hateful, bigoted and anti-freedom and human rights. Did that justify destroying the opportunities to work and live of those who felt otherwise?

          What you demand is your way or the highway. Refusing to work with or deal with those you might privately disagree with. Demanding they be off the radio. To do to conservatives what they did to the Dixie Chicks freedoms and rights.

          This is wrong, no ifs ands or buts. And we need to stop it and reclaim or humanity and lose the self-righteousness. Patience and persuasion and working even with those you disagree with.

      •  Don't feed him. eom (0+ / 0-)

        The older I get and the more I learn, the more ready I will be to fucking trash your bullshit position.

        by TigerMom on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 08:51:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I'm intolerant (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lucy Montrose, Cadillac64, SpaK

    of intolerance.

    Add my name to the list.

    I AM GUILTY...

    "Whatcha gonna do about me?"

    Suddenly, it dawns on me, Earnest T. Bass is the intellectual and philosophical inspiration of the TeaParty.

    by Nebraska68847Dem on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 05:38:30 PM PDT

  •  Judging everyone but themselves (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cadillac64, gardnerhill

    They set standards for everyone but themselves.  They learn a few phrases told them and twisted and turned into something totally different.  
    I can understand how his Mother evolved over the years.  If you travel,read,pay attention you find that everyone is not the same.  They are not wrong but have different ideas.  This broadens your feelings and ideas.  I am so glad that I have not stayed stagnant to others views and ideas. It has made me curious and attuned to others plights and concerns.  I've traveled some but wish I could have experienced it more.  Everyone of us has a story and I just enjoy hearing about how people have different customs and thoughts.  No matter who we are, we all deserve our choices and ideas.  One of my own children thinks I'm too liberal but I told them,nope,Mom is plowing ahead with a smile and open arms to everyone.  Life is too short to keep judging others lifestyles.  Welcome them and you will profit from the experience.

  •  It's not about race, or gender, or orientation, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    or religion. It comes from a steadfast refusal to think.
    And bigotry also knows no bounds.

    Our government is not yet small enough to drown in a bathtub. That doesn't mean it can't be waterboarded.

    by furrfu on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 05:42:09 PM PDT

  •  The only people I don't tolerate... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lucy Montrose

    ...are those who do not tolerate.

    That said I'm not sure how donating his own money to a campaign he favors in any way reflects on his ability to be CEO of Mozilla.

    •  You evidently are not aware of the company (7+ / 0-)

      mission, and policies that strive to support equality.

      How can a person lead an organization when their views directly oppose that of the company's?

      He is qualified to be an executive at the company, no one protested when he was CTO. But as CEO you are the face of the company, and his views were damaging to the company.

      •  At the same time, is it fair to expect... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        ... rank and file workers to represent the company missing 24/7/365, even off the clock? Isn't that what firing someone for their tweet or Facebook posting is all about-- that they were detracting from the company image and mission?

        If we're going to demand role model-dom and representation, we need better standards than we're using now. Like, say, building a "do not harm" and "don't be an asshole" imperative in there.
        Very different from "do not sully our pristine corporate message". Very different.

        Real Democrats don't abandon the middle class. --John Kerry

        by Lucy Montrose on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 06:24:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Because if he thinks the government... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      ...should discriminate against LGBT people, how can you trust that he wouldn't try to do so as CEO, especially given that there's a long history of workplace discrimination against LGBT people.

  •  After reading comments (8+ / 0-)

    all over the web, a common refrain emerges. Many people see LGBT rights as a religious issue rather than a civil liberty issue. They are so shocked to contemplate that their views may not be in the mainstream, and thus socially unacceptable. Welcome to the new reality. Twitter as a lightening-swift tool of social protest, a millenial generation that is tech-savvy, socially liberal, and not particularly brand loyal. All of these will be a strong counter-force in the future to companies that choose to damage the environment, practice or support unpopular social values, etc. Companies right now are dismayed by this campaign because of how fast and effective it was. They should be.

    Slut power. Use it. Own it!

    by txdemfem on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 05:51:27 PM PDT

  •  Gee (9+ / 0-)

    It's a shame us intolerant libruls marched him out of his office at gunpoint and forcibly made him leave his job.

    At least, that's what I assume happened based on how the concern trolls running rampant here are painting it.

  •  Is that a fact? (5+ / 0-)

    Sorry I don't tolerate your intolerance.

    Well no, I'm not really sorry about that.  If people want to hold opinions I don't agree with, that's cool.  But if you're going to make those opinions a public matter (by screaming about them or donating to causes) you'd better be ready for the consequences of that.  You don't get to state an objectionable opinion in public without others having their own public input about it.

  •  Intolerance of my intolerance is intolerable n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    When the Republicans are in power they get what they want and when the Democrats are in power they still get what they want. At what point do people finally see it is just theater? ~ Me

    by fToRrEeEsSt on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 06:39:08 PM PDT

  •  Isn't a big part of the rejection (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cadillac64, TheDudester

    Of Eich the fact that in his position as CEO he could discriminate against openly gay employees and even sites frequented by the LGBT community?

    He was in a leadership position and as such others could object to the possibility that he would impose his views on them. His donation and lack of remorse shows that he felt justified in his position, and might further promote it.

    He was forced out and I think for good and sufficient reason.

    the future begins

    by zozie on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 06:42:11 PM PDT

  •  In This Case, Liberals ARE Being Intolerant. (1+ / 2-)
    Recommended by:
    Hidden by:
    Free Jazz at High Noon, Sven Boogie

    We on the left went terribly wrong in vilifying and destroying Mr. Eich for his entirely private personal views. This is nothing but a shameful new kind of thought police in action, brooking no dissent or variation from black and white judgments and leaving no room for good people to honestly disagree. We instead will destroy your life because you are a "hateful bigot" and paint you as such while cyberlynching you and your company. We decide your ability to work or lead companies based on our values, not yours, even private ones. Shameful.  

    It is simply liberal McCarthyism. Any unacceptable (in our holy view) straying from the new demanded orthodoxy on gay marriage and you have no right to a CEO's position, leading professorship, NGO membership, Democratic party role, etc, etc. What could be more intolerant, abusive, inhumane, anti-freedom and self-righteous?

    So much for the big tent. This means we Democrats clearly have no use for Catholics in the party, or Muslims, or Christians or anti-abortion Dems or whoever else dares go against some orthodoxy while still agreeing with the overall aims of the party. This is when the revolution turns on itself and starts the purity tests and heretic burning. It is a prescription for fracturing and marginalizing liberalism and the Democratic Party.  

    We CANNOT as a party or movement, destroy people's lives for their private political views, unless truly, truly odious. That is what Tail Gunner Joe was all about during the Hollywood Blacklist. Do we now have the Silicon Valley Liberal Black list? For shame. Over 50% of California voted against gay marriage, does anyone think they were all hateful bigots?

    Religions are not going to sign on to gay marriage anytime soon, and so by making this a litmus test for employment, leading a tech company or hold party leadership, we toss tens of millions of decent Americans who don't happen to share our particular view on a momentous social change that not everyone is willing to sign on to and never will. That is deeply wrong and truly chilling.

    I cannot emphasize enough how wrong the abuse of Mr. Eich has been. We need to STOP this cyberlynching of any and all who hold opposing views. This is a Joseph Welch moment, liberals, have you no shame? We can't be what the right has become. We need to stop, think, reflect and act with patience and judgment, not cyber attacks and vilfication. We need Catholics, Black Ministers, Muslims to feel welcome on our party, in leadership and other roles, even if they disagree on gay marriage, abortion, etc.

    We can honestly disagree even on important issues while working together and persuading, not hating. What was done to Mr. Eich destroyed a real person's life. He is not an abstraction. He has been deeply harmed, a man who was a great open, tech leader, all for 100% private political and social views. That is just WRONG. We need to stop. reflect, and end this mindless take-no-prisoners mentality, NOW. It is deeply illiberal and truly wrong on every level.

    And I say that as a card-carrying liberal. You young activists need to stop this type of lynch mob. It has gone way, way too far and it needs to end right here and right now. This was a lynching. Look it up. It is NOT what being a liberal or Democrat can be about, ever. Freedom of thought, freedom of political views, freedom of employment. This was WRONG.

    •  Card carrying liberal? (3+ / 0-)

      Did you join up today just to say that?

      History is a guide, not a destination.

      by NCJan on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 06:51:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yep (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Free Jazz at High Noon, NCJan

        To say that, and to post almost verbatim the same thing multiple times.

        •  Eich and half of California are welcome to have (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          a2nite, NCJan, madhaus

          their opinions. But their actions have real world consequences. Maybe Gumpchun doesn't care if same-sex families are hurt. I'll be gracious and suggest he/she doesn't realize the extent that they were hurt by Prop 8.

          This was not a lynching. It's pulling the hood of someone who was involved in the lynching of others.

        •  Interesting. (0+ / 0-)

          I had an earlier persona but drifted away and forgot what my handle was exactly. I have been around Kos probably longer than you have though not for year or more.

          But let's examine your reaction to my short essay on this: no engagement, no thought, no interest in wanting to learn, no open mindedness, no listening. Instead you start the usual little vilification engines trying to personally tear somebody down, looking for something to hang your negativity on.

          This is precisely what I am talking about. Young activists, rasied on mean-spiritedness, vilification and anf the anonymity of the web reacting to someone they disagree with by trying to gin up some personal attack or suspicion, instead of actually talking about the important issue at hand.

          This is childish, silly, vindictive and mean-spirited, not liberal, open, tolerant and constructive. It is largely male I believe, and largely young white males. Bro culture we don't need on the left.

    •  Wise up, fast. (4+ / 0-)


      This was a lynching.

      " a path, not a model." -Henri Lefebvre

      by Free Jazz at High Noon on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 07:05:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  from the New Yorker (5+ / 0-)
      That’s especially true because of the unusual nature of Mozilla. Mozilla is not like most companies. It’s a wholly-owned subsidiary of the nonprofit Mozilla Foundation, and is just one part of the broader Mozilla community, which includes thousands of open-source software developers and other volunteers around the world. These people still do much of the work behind Mozilla’s products—contributing code, technical support, design improvements, and so on. This means that Mozilla depends on the goodwill of its supporters more than most corporations do; it relies on their willingness to donate their services in pursuit of the broader Mozilla project, which is all about keeping the Web transparent and accessible. If it alienates them, Mozilla’s entire mission will be at risk.
      This has nothing to do with "liberals."

      It has everything to do with keeping Mozilla volunteers happy and willing to continue volunteering (and employees from quitting - there are plenty of other opportunities for Mozilla programmers).

      A good comparison is Livestrong (Lance Armstrong's charity), which isn't doing quite so well after his cheating was exposed.

    •  Bravely spoken. (0+ / 0-)

      Thank you.

      And let us please note for the record that nowhere in this post did Gumpchun defend bigotry. But he did defend "freedom of thought, freedom of political views, freedom of employment".

      "If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate." --Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

    •  The public actions of a CEO are different. (0+ / 0-)

      CEOs are the leaders of their organizations: if such a leader acts to undermine to the stated goals of the board and corporate policy, his fitness to lead is compromised.  If his public actions are contrary to the interests of his company's clients, is it surprising when they choose to take their business elsewhere? If a departing customer base is likely to harm the corporation's bottom line as a result of the CEOs actions, the board is perfectly within their rights to replace him.

      It isn't McCarthyism to require that your leader align with your major corporate interests.

      Water which is too pure has no fish -- Ts'ai Ken T'an

      by mik on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 06:41:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I think all this conservative wailing, gnashing of (5+ / 0-)

    teeth and rending of garments is ponderously hypocritical.  I'm sure these people who are condemning the actions of the board of directors were the first to support Dan Cathy and the owners of Hobby Lobby by proclaiming, "Hey, it's their company, they can do what they want.  Free enterprise, rah-rah!"

    And I also find it hypocritical when conservatives lecture liberals about the importance of people having consequences for their actions and that liberals should stop whining about people's rights being violated and creating phony victims.  So, what is the first thing conservatives did here?  Get up in arms about a person having consequences for their actions, whining how this guy's rights were violated and creating a phony victim.

  •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

    I ask dino who forced him to step down and I get my post deleted? The hell...

  •  I don't get it (6+ / 0-)

    No police action, no arm of the government, no threat of violence made Eich step down. This was market forces, pure and simple. Why are all the Libertarians here in a fluster about it when according to their world view this is how things are supposed to work?

  •  "Traditional marriage" (3+ / 0-)

    That framing is BS.  "liberals" don't care if someone supports traditional marriage. Trying to outlaw gay marriage is not equal to supporting traditional marriage.  

  •  This thread (0+ / 0-)

    Is sorely missing a giant bucket of HRs.

  •  Dear Mark (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mark E Andersen

        The good and the bad
        The good: At 63, Gay, I just would like to Thank You for relaying that beautiful story of your youth and beautiful mom. It's hard to relay how uplifting, having lived the history of the time, a sweet simple story of the time, it is to a mid elder Gay person now. It fills with gratitude and happiness.
        The bad: What it was like to watch a many decades or just staring out couple, one of whose partner died, especially in the cleansing of the AIDS crisis early DECADES, families who would, during the surviving partners mourning, come into the non legally protected estate and take everything including shared money.
        The VERY GOOD: A lot of Gays are liberal, though we, like all minorities have our jealous nut cases who will never find their mate, that ship has sailed, the now protected by marriage, assets of innovation and MONEY can continue into the liberal causes of WE the people.
        THAT is why they tried and continue to try and stop US.
        Thank You also Laura for reposting. Love the photo :)

    March AGAINST monsatanOHagentorange 3/25/13 a time warp

    by 3rock on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 08:16:00 PM PDT

  •  I'm not sure intolerance is the right word... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    but there is definitely a lot of hate within our party that I am uncomfortable with.  It seems like we can't simply disagree with people anymore, we have to label(bigot, racist, misogynist, etc.) and destroy them.

  •  Care and feeding of volunteers (0+ / 0-)

    The first rule of an organization that relies on volunteers is:  Do not enrage the volunteers!"  The second rule of such an organization is "Do not anger your largest donors!"

    Mozilla survives on the goodwill of thousands of coders and the organizations they work for, many of whom are LGBT and many more who are allies.  Most of their income comes from Google, which puts on a seriously LGBT-friendly face.  It does not help that Firefox has to compete against IE and Chrome -- the latter of which is a Google creation.  It would also give Google a "reason" to do unto Mozilla what it has been doing unto sites running Google Ads, i.e., pay them less money.  

    This does not make Firefox's move right, just understandable from the standpoint of a volunteer organization.  

    "Politics should be the part-time profession of every citizen who would protect the rights and privileges of free people and who would preserve what is good and fruitful in our national heritage." -- Lucille Ball

    by Yamaneko2 on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 10:09:52 PM PDT

  •  Those things which are immutable (0+ / 0-)

    are not "preference".

    That may already have been pointed out in one or more of the 350 comments, but in a post which, at least obliquely,  talks about how words matter, the persistent use of the word "preference" by obvious allies also matters.

    So, even if it has been pointed out earlier, I point it out again.

    A homo in a bi-national relationship - at 49, I had to give up my career, leave behind my dying father, my family & friends and move to Europe. And I'm one of the *lucky* ones: Immigration Equality

    by aggieric on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 11:24:08 PM PDT

  •  if you people can't see the dangers of rooting (0+ / 0-)

    out and punishing people for their legal political and financial choices then you're blind. Not only is it vindictive and incredibly short sighted but it justifies one of the worst parts of our political system today.

    Dark Money

    If people's legal and open contributions are really going to lead to the creation of black-lists then it is wholly justified that people donate 'dark money' super pacs. This one, weak, victory over some guy who has an opinion and a measly $1000 is going to justify the systems of political corruption that lets the Koch Brothers flood politics with money....

    But hurray. We took down a low level bigot that was the smartest person in the room at Mozilla and whom is responsible for creating the very technology that makes this website possible..... Yea for us....

    I assume this website will be rebuilt so that in a few months I will no longer see things like this anymore in the source

    script type='text/javascript'>

    we wouldn't want to use any tech invented by a bigot.

    •  "You people" Nice (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      People went so far as to express their displeasure and you have them "rooting out" and "taking down."

      I don't think he's as smart as you think he is and I predict the company will do just fine without him.

      •  yes. i said 'you people' (0+ / 0-)

        Got a problem with that? It's instances like this that make me ashamed to admit I'm a Democrat because there is nothing progressive going on here. How do I argue that we're the moral ones when we forcibly flush a guy out of a livelihood?

  •  Wonderful post. I think you have clarified (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mark E Andersen

    something that has been bothering me too. Because we are liberal we almost always evaluate someone's wrong-headed ideas because we accept that they are free to express their opinions too. It makes us hesitate to call for their ouster from high offices because we wonder if that's fair. That's our moral dilemna.

    But, we are also free to condemn those ideas and we have stood in silence too often in our effort to be fair. The other side doesn't just express different povs, they actively try to force us to accept their views and work endlessly to promote them. So this CEO donated $$$s which is his equivalent to speech and expected that that would be acceptable to everyone else.

    It wasn't. His co-workers spoke out first, his board members spoke out next and we, the people joined all of them in speaking out with voices and with $$$$s (or the potential loss of $$$s).

    The result, he resigned for the good of his company. I say good for us and no it doesn't make us the intolerant ones. It makes us the ones who will persuade the rest of the people out here that, like your Mother, what is acceptable can change when enough people change their minds about what is the right thing to do.

    Like you, I grew up when school integration began and at first people were worried and upset. As a kid I experienced neighborhoods that excluded Jews, and Jewish neighborhoods that experienced anxiety when black people moved in. When nothing terrible happened, most people accepted the change and that became the new normal.

    Interracial dating and marriage - the same. The Women's Liberation movement- the same. Anti-war demonstrations and protesting political parties, the black power movement- all the same. Those and many other changes - all the same. The only difference is the amount of time needed to effect the change in attitudes.

    What used to take generations, now takes a matter of only a few years: and good for us. We have always been called names and been stigmatized as the "far left" before we became known as the mainstream middle in public policy.

  •  Important clarification (0+ / 0-)

    Eich didn't lose his job because he gave $1000 to Prop 8.

    He lost his job because, when a firestorm erupted, he didn't handle a crisis that fell into his lap.  A firm apology/change of heart would have been all it would take to fix this.  Instead he kinda stuck by his guns and muddled through.  CEO's don't get to do that, sorry.  

    Minority rights should never be subject to majority vote.

    by lostboyjim on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 07:16:41 AM PDT

  •  Sorry, but liberals can be intolerant. n/t (0+ / 0-)

    This "Trickle Down" thing has turned out to be somebody pissing on my leg and tellin' me it's rainin'.

    by swtexas on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 01:32:45 PM PDT

Meteor Blades, JWC, teacherken, Dave the Wave, CleverNickName, eeff, devtob, Ian S, sngmama, antirove, Texknight, Dallasdoc, Eyesbright, Evolution, niteskolar, vickijean, Steven Payne, hayden, Frank Vyan Walton, vcmvo2, marina, radarlady, rose quartz, Erik the Red, kefauver, dewtx, ladybug53, FindingMyVoice, Pluto, bunsk, Ekaterin, zozie, noweasels, Nance, dopper0189, seefleur, ruleoflaw, Naniboujou, raincrow, twigg, gpoutney, The Hindsight Times, NCJan, ER Doc, CA Nana, Temmoku, One Pissed Off Liberal, Cronesense, Habitat Vic, Debs2, EdSF, karmsy, Matt Z, Dave in Northridge, WC, Bronx59, on the cusp, gizmo59, JeffW, kimoconnor, Youffraita, smrichmond, monkeybrainpolitics, RandomNonviolence, triplepoint, elpacifico66, Lucy Montrose, postalblue, Ellid, Neon Vincent, nextstep, Tara the Antisocial Social Worker, ebrann, glitterlust, kevinpdx, Words In Action, FogCityJohn, Susan Grigsby, shyewoods, pixxer, Oh Mary Oh, Onomastic, annieli, misshelly, xarkGirl, La Gitane, Nebraska68847Dem, IllanoyGal, thomask, wintergreen8694, myrmecia gulosa, Daulphin, ratcityreprobate, Catlady62, weinerschnauzer, Chitown Kev, Mathazar, jacey, anodnhajo, Chrislove, IndieGuy, Eric Nelson, JGibson, This old man, SlightKC, jan4insight, belinda ridgewood, Free Jazz at High Noon, Arahahex, terrybuck, Glen The Plumber, mumtaznepal, Australian2, Most Awesome Nana, 3rock, MemaW, Alhambra, Jollie Ollie Orange, riesling, howabout, GreenMother, backwoodsbob, tampaedski, Gardener in PA, richardvjohnson, karma5230, hamjudo, Dodgerdog1, Elizaveta, Capt Crunch, nadd2, skn, GreatLakeSailor, LiberalLoner, hbk, RepresentUsPlease, Cadillac64, kfunk937, terremoto, SGA, BMScott, numble, IndyDemGirl, leftprogressive

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site