Mozilla CEO forced out because of Prop 8 Donation

[IceSpear]

I don't know why the left is apparently okay with McCarthyism

You use that word, but I don't think you know what it means. Please explain to me how people using their free speech to protest against a company whose CEO supported bigotry is in any way comparable to "McCarthyism". Would you be similarly indignant if the CEO donated to groups that tried to keep interracial marriage banned? I highly doubt it. And because of that, you reveal you place gay rights on a lower level on the totem pole than you do civil rights for other groups. "Well, if you're bigots to this group, that's horrible and you're a horrible person, NO EXCEPTIONS. But if you're bigots to THIS group, well, I respectfully disagree with your opinion, but you have the right to it and it is a very reasonable view!" This isn't surprising coming from Sullivan, a self hating gay who supported Dubya of all people.


Anyway, excellent news! The market's at work! On a personal note, I'm glad this happened, since I use Firefox and now won't have to switch to Chrome.

[IceSpear]

I don't know why the left is apparently okay with McCarthyism

Anyway, excellent news! The market's at work! On a personal note, I'm glad this happened, since I use Firefox and now won't have to switch to Chrome.

Are you serious? You were actually going to switch to Chrome because of this? I have no opinion of the fact that this CEO was fired, but that's just ridiculous, for so many reasons.

Huh? Isn't that the exact reasoning libertarians use for why we don't need anti-employment discrimination laws? That being, the consumers will respond to the bigotry of the company by boycotting it and driving it out of business the "natural way"? I'd think a true libertarian would be proud of that.

[IceSpear]

Yeah, it would be nice to see the people who care so deeply about these issues have the same reaction toward the billionaires who donate in favor of tax cuts, medicare privatization or stuff like that.

Class is not an immutable social characteristic. You can go from poor to middle class or poor to rich (even though it is getting much harder to do so). You can't go from gay to straight or vice versa (despite right-wing nutjobs and "ex-gays" who re-entered the closet who may claim otherwise). To be an anti-gay CEO is the same as being a racist CEO, you are seeing many of your employees as lesser people for a part of who they are that they can't change. And not only is that his PERSONAL viewpoint, he VOTED and DONATED in order to codify his bigotry into law. If they're an anti-poor CEO, that's still horrible, but at least poor isn't something that defines who you are and can be changed.

[IceSpear]

I understand that those who tried to pressure him out of the job justify it by saying that this is more than just a run of the mill political issue, it's about basic equality.  But OTOH, there are plenty of other political issues that are literally about life and death.  Why not investigate every CEO's political statements and political donations on abortion, capital punishment, drone warfare, the US intervention in Libya, etc., and then organize boycotts of the companies whose CEO has the incorrect position on one or more of those issues?

To me, the differences comes down to creating a tolerant work environment.  If the boss has some position that a group of employees do not deserve equal rights, it's just problematic.  If someone says women shouldn't be able to vote or black people shouldn't be able to serve on a jury, can they really effectively manage an organization including women and black folk?  As any kind of organization, you need some type of norms of respect for each individual.  There at some level is going to be a clash between a tolerant environment of gay people and tolerance of homophobic and intolerance.  Unlike political issues, these types of civil rights issues are always going to matter in the workplace.

The question to me is whether opposing SSM is so heinous and disruptive to a good workplace environment that this was merited.  I would say no.

"Oh come on you gays, of course I'm a supporter of gay rights and all, but it's not THAT big of a deal you can't get married and can get fired for being gay! Just sit down, shut up, and wait for the level of support to become ~80-90% so we milquetoast straight people can finally hand you your civil rights."

[IceSpear]

To me, the differences comes down to creating a tolerant work environment.  If the boss has some position that a group of employees do not deserve equal rights, it's just problematic. 

You can't jump to that conclusion for the same reason right-wingers cannot assume that proponents of government expansion are supporters of communism. The SSM debate is just modern day McCarthyism run amok.

The lack of Equal Protection in relationship contract law affects everyone who is not married. Gay are a tiny subset of the affected population, but Democrats exploit gays because they offer more political capital than other unmarried demographics.

Can we please ban the word "McCarthyism" until people learn what it means?