The whole point in living in an open and fair society is that you can live in peace with others who don't share your point of view. This works BOTH ways; and this sort of stuff does not help.
No, that's not how it works.
People aren't allowed to be prejudiced against one group of people but then expect to be able to claim prejudice when that group takes action against them.
Besides which, Eich did not confine himself to a point of view - he actively donated money to a cause, and an amount which he knew would make it public record, so he's totally fair game to have that called out for what it is.
Personally, I don't think this will help, but what these guys are doing is bringing this in to view. Hopefully, Eich will say his views have "evolved" and put a swift end to it.
Your comment would carry more weight if you weren't an anonymous coward.
"People aren't allowed to be prejudiced against one group of people but then expect to be able to claim prejudice when that group takes action against them."
But that is precisely what this gay couple is doing, you can be just as prejudiced against someone who has a different opinion to you as you can to those who lead a different life to you. As an impartial observer I see no difference. If it is not acceptable one way around, how can it be the other way around? I recently also read about a call to make it illegal to donate to any causes that support climate change denial, it seems that these days you either agree with what you are told to agree with or face strict censure, loss of livelihood or liberty.
"sure we should never speak out against racists because then we'd be just just as prejudiced as them"
How is believing that marriage is a contract between a man and a woman the equivalent of being racist?
Oh, that's right, you leftists are wont to accuse everybody who disagrees with your viewpoint of being a "racist" or "sexist" or "denier" or "gaia hater" or whatever your cause celebre for today is. My bad, carry on.
I think he should too. From what I've seen, the culture at Mozilla is very supportive of gay rights. The nations views have changed a lot in respect to marriage vs civil unions in the last year. It is now pretty much the consensus that allowing gay marriage is a requirement for both equal rights and freedom of religion. Not all religions (not even all Christian denominations) are against gay marriage. I hope he comes out that his perspective has evolved since then.
Paw Bokenfohr: "People aren't allowed to be prejudiced against one group of people but then expect to be able to claim prejudice when that group takes action against them."
I've found IT people to be one of the least prejudiced groups of people to work with, as compared to some other sectors. In a free society, people are precisely allowed to be prejudiced against one-another. Nowhere in the linked to Eich blog entry does he claim special exemption from prejudice for himself. What he does say is he would prefer to keep such discussions away from Mozilla else anyone can have a one-on-one discussion with him on the matter. Personally I have no opinion one way or another. It's got nothing to do with writing code and no one else's business except Brendan Eich.
"....People aren't allowed to be prejudiced against one group of people but then expect to be able to claim prejudice when that group takes action against them....." You are insisting that Eich must be homophobic simply because he disagrees with same-sex marriage? You do realise there are GAY people that do not agree with same-sex marriage too? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22758434
Don't tell me, next you'll be claiming that dissenting gays are 'not gay enough' if they don't fall in line with your POV?
Have you read the article?
It's about people against using religious traditions of heterosexual marriage at a gay marriage:
"I'm not going to walk down the aisle to Mendelssohn wearing white in a church and throw a bouquet and do the first dance,"
I don't think they are gainst your right to get a Green Card for your partner in case you are a citizen yourself.
"Day cannot be renamed night just as marriage no matter what the state says cannot be between a man and man."
Between one man and one woman, right?
But what about the Biblical definition of marriage, ie between one man and many (sometimes VERY many) women, at the same time. Sometimes even between brother and sister..
Just because people of certain beliefs define marriage in one way, it does not mean that should or has to apply to others.
People aren't allowed to be prejudiced against one group of people but then expect to be able to claim prejudice when that group takes action against them.
No, you are wrong.
As the wise Dr. Martin Luthor King once said, "The means by which we strive must be consistent with the ends we seek".
This means that you can't preach tolerance, while practicing intolerance against those that oppose you.
Dude, what the hell are you talking about? Presumably you don't agree with the boycotts during the civil rights era either?
This bigot is working to deny them their basic civil right to marry another consenting adult simply because he doesn't like their choice. They aren't fire-bombing him - they are simply expressing their disgust that Mozilla would promote a guy with these views. This is **exactly** how it's supposed to work!
I agree in theory, but I think his stance may have actually been for civil unions and against marriage. Many gay supporters held that view in the past. Obviously almost everyone has now moved beyond that view and believe gay marriage is a basic civil right. I hope Brandon has as well. I think this is a clear enough violation of civil rights that he should make a statement. Other tech companies such as Apple and Microsoft have already come out in support of gay marriage. Based on what I know of Mozilla culture, they believe strongly in equal rights.
"They aren't fire-bombing him - they are simply expressing their disgust that Mozilla would promote a guy with these views"
Actually, they are firebombing him. They are clearly trying to force Mozilla to fire him. This shows that they are not just bigots, they are hypocritical bigots.
This isn't a surprise. These people aren't liberals in their thinking; it's just that what they want happens to line up with traditionally liberal values. Now those values are becoming more and more the political centre, you can see they're pretty much hardline conservatives, just with a different set of values. No different to that British lady who tried to get Harry Potter banned.
Calling it first: they'll add "Firefox-using" to the usual string of "gay bashing, Bible thumping" epithets to describe anyone who disagrees with them on anything.
> This bigot is working to deny them their basic civil right to marry another consenting adult simply because he doesn't like their choice.
Hmm... I agree that the result of this man's actions (the Mozilla guy) are as you describe, and in my view they are totally wrong and misguided.
However, that in itself does not make him a bigot.
Nobody has presented any evidence, or for that matter, nobody who knows him has actually accused him, of being a bigot--as he would be if he hated gays, particularly if he hated gays just because they're gays. That would be a different matter.
People do take all sorts of stupid stances and embrace all sorts of wacky social and political beliefs. It's fucking annoying yes, but insults and abuse rarely help in getting them to reconsider their position, or at least getting them to accept and respect yours.
So, "dude", cool down a bit, eh bro? :)
"So there is a guy who thinks money will prevent homosexuality....." Lars, you are jumping to the conclusion you want, i.e. that because Eich was against gay marriage he must be a complete homophobe. That does not follow as there are gay people that object to the idea of gay marriage. Go read his blog.
Nope, it doesn't work like that, and most people here seem to be missing the point. Eich supported a bill that prevents gay people from having a different point of view. He attempted to force his views onto others, which makes him fair game.
If Eich doesn't want gay marriage, he's free to not get one, or to personally disagree with someone getting one. You may have a point if these developers were quitting for that alone. But as soon as you try and stop other people marrying because of your personal opinion, you're no longer just expressing a different point of view - you're trying to make others live by it.
I hate to have to invoke other -isms, but if it was discovered that a Firefox exec was funding the KKK or had supported some law that supported the denial of rights to, say, Latinos or Jews or whoever, and if two African-Americans or Latinos or Jews said publicly that they were boycotting Firefox and urging everyone else to do so because of this, would you be saying 'aw, poor luvvies'? Or perhaps the word 'luvvies' suggests your mentality.
"a Firefox exec was funding the KKK"
Because: Not supporting a peculiar contractual arrangement among consenting adults that is mainly relevant because of taxation == lynching blacks in hoodies with a background of burning crosses and everything
"or had supported some law that supported the denial of rights to, say, Latinos or Jews"
Because: Not supporting a peculiar contractual arrangement among consenting adults that is mainly relevant because of taxation == denying unspecified (positive or negative) rights to Latinos (a persecuted minority) or (the horror) Jews
These comparisons effortlessly reach Amurrican Liburl levels of retardation.
USING FIREFOX IS AKIN TO APPEASING HITLER. IN MUNICH!
You heard it here first.
DAM is spot on. It's getting quite tiring when every rights group stridently insists their particular social issue somehow equates to the life-and-death struggle against racial segregation in the South, or implies that their group are suffering under such an injustice that they are under threat of being herded into gas chambers. The 'injustice' in having to accept between a civil union or a marriage or being unable to marry is not of Holocaust dimensions.
It's pretty rare for me agree with Matt Bryant but yeah.
Perhaps this couple should read some Voltaire.
"Man holds opinion - 'burn him' squeal people who dislike that opinion". Godwin's Law has already been invoked so I'll avoid it but obviously, no future CEO can ever hold any public political opinion, meaning nobody who ever wants to get anywhere can ever hold any opinion because they'll get you historically as well and then you're just as bad as Stalin.
How many times have friends associated with your "social issue" invited you to attend a memorial for someone you know who was beaten to death by people opposed to your "social issue"? I'm guessing your count is zero, but correct me if I'm wrong. My count is greater than zero, so I support every attempt to oppose bigots whose trail of "social issue" opinionating eventually leads to a body count. Yes, this guy was murdered in the South (Houston, Texas). Yes, this "social issue" is literally a life-and-death struggle.
People can opinionate all they want, but if they need my support (time, money, +1, download) for their own efforts then they better prove themselves something other than active contributors to the real problems in my life.
".....guessing your count is zero, but correct me if I'm wrong....." You're wrong. And whilst I would support the majority of your probable viewpoint, and wade in to defend one of your 'social group' in the hope of preventing them being beaten to death by the bigoted, your 'social issue' does not make your cause more important or just than anyone else's, nor does it allow you to discredit those that fail to agree with the more extreme parts of your 'social issue' agenda. The issue of gay marriage does not equate to the issue of homosexuality full stop, as shown by the gay people that have said they do not agree with gay marriage, and trying to infer that gay people are dying because they can't get married is a farcical stretching of the realities.
I very nearly became a statistic on more than one occaision because I am gay.
I still believe that if people are opposed to my being gay then that is their problem and their right. If they want to fund organisations to "cure" gays or whatever, because they believe that they are doing the right thing (or they're total [insert your choice of term] and doing it to be nasty) then that is also their right, priviledge, and problem.
I have been beaten many times because of being gay, and came close to suicide more than once because of the abuse. It's only be the grace of God that I am not one of that "body count". But I still stand up for peoples right to speak their beliefs, even if that upsets others (what, you think your beliefs don't upset others?). Maybe not speaking with fists or property damage, but speak them you may.
This guy Brendan is a hero for standing up for decency and what he believes in - it should be a positive that we can do this in a democratic society without quality people having their livelihood threatened by sexual minorities who are looking to dig dirt on people - how nasty.
It's easy to think people are being "over the top" when it's not you or your group / family / community that is affected by whatever is in question.
I'm sure that Jim Crow law supporters thought that black people were being "strident" or "drama queens" or "uppity" when they asked to be able to drink from the same water fountains, or, horror of horrors, asked for the right to get married to whoever they wanted, no matter whether they were white or black or whatever.
I think that the comparisons are apt; many of the same rights that were denied to black people are now denied to gay people, and not just marriage - your very life is at stake in many countries just for being gay, let alone your liberty. It's an ongoing process which will (if history has taught us anything) end with everyone having access to all the same rights, with no bad effects in the long run.
Invoking the holocaust was super classy of you of course, especially considering how many homosexuals were "herded in to gas chambers" along with Jews. Take a trip to Belsen or Auschwitz-Birkenau some time.
".....I'm sure that Jim Crow law supporters thought that black people were being "strident" or "drama queens" or "uppity" when they asked to be able to drink from the same water fountains, or, horror of horrors, asked for the right to get married to whoever they wanted, no matter whether they were white or black or whatever....." Yeah, you're still desperately trying to equate gay marriage with the struggle to end racial segregation. Still not going to be taken seriously. Gays today in the West can work in any profession (or sue the employer for discrimination), can live anywhere they like (or ditto), can vote, drink from any water fountain (seriously, when could they not?), sit where they like on the bus, etc., etc. It in no way whatsoever compares to the conditions blacks suffered under in the Southern States. Saying gays are somehow treated as badly as plantation slaves were just because you want a marriage instead of a civil service is not just silly, it's downright insulting to the real suffering of the slaves.
".....your very life is at stake in many countries just for being gay....." Not in California. Desperately trying to compare the dire situation of gays in Iran or Saudi Arabia with those in California to try and make out Prop 8 was "horrific" is simply too stupid for words.
".....Take a trip to Belsen or Auschwitz-Birkenau some time." Already have, thanks. I've also met concentration camp survivors in Israel, one who was gay, Jewish, German Communist who survived Dachau. The guy had a great sense of humour, he used to joke with his guards that he should have a pink triangle, a yellow Star of David AND a red star on his prison uniform. He attributed his survival to card tricks he'd learnt as a kid which kept his guards entertained and meant he was picked to work in the canteen. Daily he watched his fellow prisoners beaten, tortured, worked to death or hung. Now, stop and think what horrors that man saw, lived through, and probably did not think he would survive, then try and tell me that having to put down your latte and settle for a civil ceremony instead of a marriage is the same thing.
> It's easy to think people are being "over the top" when it's not you or your group / family / community that is affected by whatever is in question.
I entirely agree with.
People are too quick to judge on the basis of their own experience and not the experience of others.
>I am just as bad as my assailant
What assailant, did I miss something in the article. We are talking about points of view, and in this case a six year old point of view. Did they make any attempt to find out if he still holds the same stance? The correct way to resolve points of view is communication, imagine if you never talked to or refused to do business with anyone who at one time had a different opinion to you. Before going to the supermarket do these two dig into a database to see if all the shareholders never made an anti-gay comment. They need to get a grip on reality and stop being to sensitive.
>wonder if they boycott everyone they disagree with?
Surely they must - someone as principled as they are.
But since they haven't called for a boycott of Intel chips made in Israel - we know that they support Israali oppression of Palestinians. They haven't demanded a removal of code submitted by Russian programmers - so they obviously support Russia's little adventure in the crimea. They haven't said anything about the snowden leaks so they are obviously puppets of the NSA
... etc ..etc free range eggs.. save the whales ... save whales ... band seal clubbing... ban Seal in clubs etc etc
> Surely it's the code written in Cyrillic?
Could be instead:
* Serbo-croat (i.e., Serbian)
* Montenegrin (i.e., Serbo-croat)
* Macedonian (i.e., Bulgarian)
* Moldovan (in Transnistria)
* I don't remember
* I don't remember either
It's also a sector which is trying hard to be inclusive in order to attract talent: after all, especially in areas like software development, gender/sexuality should have absolutely no effect on your skillset. I chose my employer because they're striving not to be yet another bunch of white middle aged straight males.
So it's important to make ensure that when a person enters a top flight position that the ethos of the company isn't going to be compromised by the person at the helm.
Remember also that this is the US, where money easily buys political influence: the dev here doesn't want mozilla suddenly buying the sort of votes that would endanger his marriage or his company.
Whether he's going about it the right way is another matter altogether.
Let's start with the fact that that's how so many prefer their world: white, straight, male, and they tend to keep their world (working environment) the way they like it, and hire only the 'face that fits', call themselves 'normal' and everyone else 'different'.
It's often not even conscious. Older straight white guys just tend, unless urged/forced/encouraged to do otherwise, to create their comfort zones over and over.
I believe it is called 'white-supremacist hetero-patriarchy'. Though that doesn't exactly roll off the tongue...
That's a load of racist, sexist and ageist claptrap. So none of the above applies if they happen to be gay, or non-white or younger? The fact is birds of a feather flock together and it doesn't have to be race, sex or sexual orientation but can be anything and is common in all sorts of environments, and this has been backed up by countless, and I do mean countless psychological studies. A few years ago I applied for a tech job in a company that was 100% young, female and good looking. They even warned me during the interview that they only tend to employ women. I didn't get the job. I believe the term is 'multi-ethnic feminist matriarchy' and I was too different. I don't know when white middle aged straight men became the whipping boys for modern society but I don't think it is funny or acceptable.
Well Connor, that's what inequality feels like. Welcome to my world.
And I also find it frustrating that there are groups that exclude others in preference of their own kind. Be it religious schools, single-race universities, gay bars that don't allow straight people in, whatever.
But on the subject of whipping boys, name me just one time in the last 2000 years of western civilisation where it's been a bad idea to be a straight male. It's a minority that's finally finding out what unfairness feels like.
In your response to 'what's wrong with white middle aged males?' you could have said "Nothing at all, because to assume otherwise would be illogical and bigoted."
But instead you went on to imply that because (in your opinion) white straight males have had it easy for 2000 years, it's good karma for them to be discriminated against now.
The absurdity and immaturity of that kind of stance is almost boundless.
".....name me just one time in the last 2000 years of western civilisation where it's been a bad idea to be a straight male....." Some of my white, middle-class, middle-aged, straight, male friends would suggest you go check out the divorce courts.
"But on the subject of whipping boys, name me just one time in the last 2000 years of western civilisation where it's been a bad idea to be a straight male."
Well, as LGBT people have been banned from most military forces until recently, and women were also banned from combat roles, how about any of the wars fought since the introduction of military service where constription was used to fill the ranks of fighting forces? Yes, things are changing, but it's only really since 2000 that the UK, and 2011 the US have allowed homosexuals to serve and woman might be allowed to fight but again, this is a recent development.
So: Vietnam and either world war when straight males were conscripted to fight, but homosexuals and women were excempt. Being straight and male and not wanting to fight was pretty much a bad idea then wasn't it?
"But on the subject of whipping boys, name me just one time in the last 2000 years of western civilisation where it's been a bad idea to be a straight male. It's a minority that's finally finding out what unfairness feels like."
So it's OK to pick on that group now?! Jesus wept, you need to wake up and then grow up! I am not my father, grandfather or my ancestors I do not share guilt or blame for their actions or attitudes.
Yes I am a hetro, married, white middle-aged male, I choose to be a better person from the lessons of my ancestors. I choose not to use the word "tolerance" of any minority, to me that means putting up with something. I do not "put up with homosexuality" I embrace it as a another facet of a wonderful diverse society I am privileged to live in. I am lucky to have a nephew who is gay, his partner is a superb bloke who everyone in our family loves like a brother and has made one of family very happy. That is the most important thing to us, that one of our own is happy and free to express themselves with their choices and feel love and support of their kin.
Do NOT tar everyone with your one-size fits all brush of discrimination, as it makes you no better than the bigots you protest against!
"name me just one time in the last 2000 years of western civilisation where it's been a bad idea to be a straight male"
How about WW1. And WW2.
I'm sure WW3 will be much more equal though.
Meanwhile I want to nip down the shops and buy some decent blow.
".....If you're in the UK or US that's actually illegal....." Many years ago I dated a girl who worked in the fashion industry in London. As she put it, to get ahead as a designer you had to be a gay male and 'accommodating'. At the same time, talent agents for the model agencies were mainly males in their thirties and up who regularly took advantage of even underage girls and/or boys wanting to be models. Going from her tales, I'd suggest the IT world is a haven of equality and non-abuse by comparison.
You're right. I knew that then but I didn't have any idea about the unwritten policy until I was at the interview. It was questions like "How would you feel working in a female only environment?" and when I pointed out that I had worked in predominantly female environments before they went to great pains to point out that it wasn't predominance, they don't have any other men working for them, at all. That was where I got the sinking feeling. It isn't illegal to employ only women (or men) it is only illegal to set out to only employ one or the other. I guess that is why I was there being interviewed, to make it seem fair. I could have complained, but I really didn't want to be 'that guy' that complained about discrimination, would you?
I call BS. It is not said that Mozilla limits its hiring or software contributions to preferred groups. It is said that one of its employees, exercising a right under the US constitution, contributed money to a political campaign with which Caitlin and his spouse disagreed. The latter decline to provide any assistance to Mozilla, and advocate implicitly that others do the same. And that is their right.
I doubt it will have a measurable effect on the Mozilla Foundation. If it does, well, the trustees were responsible for appointing Eich as CEO and could have considered the possibility; and they deserve part of whatever blame or credit turns out to be due. Notwithstanding the late moaning about NSA oppression, we in the US retain a good deal of freedom to do what we like.
Yes tom, I wasn't saying that mozilla was doing that. I was taking the opportunity to paint a broader picture of the situation so that people can understand the context in which these 2 devs are no longer working for that company.
Judging by the general tone of the comments on this page, it seems that there's a little lacking in the understanding of (a) the facts of the case and (b) the reality of the extent of sexism and discomfort around homosexuality in the IT industry that lingers today.
Like you, I don't think they're going about their protest in the most useful way, and it probably won't make a dent on mozilla's business.
"....they tend to keep their world (working environment) the way they like it, and hire only the 'face that fits', call themselves 'normal' and everyone else 'different'....." Gosh, luckily for me, as well as apparently (by your standard) being a racist, homophobic Nazi, it's balanced out by me being also a sexist pig seeing as I have to fight a compulsion to hire pretty, young women of any colour over qualified, white, middle-aged, middle-class males, whenever the former apply for a job. Maybe I and the other the WMAMCMs should be boycotting me?
Did you ever stop to think that the majority of qualified applicants for a job in the West are going to be white, middle-aged males seeing as they are the largest group of job-seekers, especially in IT, and that it has SFA to do with your carefully-fostered preconceptions of prejudice?
Nothing at all. But what I see in the corporations I work at is that their the demographic that still makes up the huge majority of upper management and execs. Heck, in germany it's almost exclusively so.
Given that these corps are in a world where the majority are women, where IT talent is pretty young, and where --let's say-- 5% are gay etc, you must wonder what's going on.
so, if I happen to be opponent of gay marriage, it is OK for me to be discriminated against and prevented from taking up a role.
Did I get this right?
No, you didn't. He's got the role, so he's clearly not prevented from getting it. He has the right to his opinion, however idiotic, and others have the right to protest in response. That they are protesting is not discrimination, FFS - it's an opinion. Far as I can tell, they haven't been abusive, and they sure as shit haven't tried to enact legislation preventing him from having the same freedoms as everyone else. Mozilla are under no obligation to listen to them. For me, the best outcome would be for Eich to realise his previous mistake and apologise, but hey, I'm a dreamer.
Personally, I'm going to separate the CEO from the software. Just as a lot of my favourite bands are fronted by dicks, I'm absolutely certain there are arseholes working on some of the software I enjoy. Mozilla is not Eich, and it contains enough good people doing good things that I'm going to keep supporting the cause and using the tools that make my job easier.
No, you don't get it.
Being called out for actively trying to discriminate against a minority of people and stop them doing something that has zero impact on your life is not discrimination. It's common sense.
Actively trying to stop a minority doing something that you can do and has zero impact in your life however, *is* discrimination.
IT does affect your life though. Marriage has now been changed
and does not mean the same thing. Laws are being changed
to remove terms like husband and wife and make them ridiculous things like partner one and partner two.
Just because gays want fairness and equality under the law, does not mean they
should be able to trample on the rights of heterosexuals.
And should you forget one important thing, the future of of very race
has been nurtured by heterosexuals supported by the institution of marriage.
Gay marriage cheapens and weakens that institution.
@Anon "Marriage has now been changed"
You know what, out of all the married people I know (in a country that allowed gay marriage longer than any other country- yay!) I have never heard someone tell me that this was their Partner 1 or Partner 2. What I have heard is 'This is my wife' and 'this is my husband'. Back in the UK it's allowed now, and yet my mum is my dad's wife and he is her husband.
Seems to me that it hasn't changed except in your mind.
You say trample over the rights of heterosexual people and yet don't say what rights have been trampled? The right to tell others that they are inferior? The right to say you can't do what we can do? No one is telling heterosexual people that they cannot do something, or that they must do something else. Unlike heterosexual people telling gay people that they can't marry, and that they should just be happy with a civil union.
As for religion, you do know that marriage predates christianity, right? And was more about profit and ownership of land, goods and people than 'that institution' until quite recent history - like less than 400 years ago?
And I think that you will find people manage to produce children just fine without it. Half the girls in my class were pregnant at 14, two years younger than they could marry and so it seems not to be a barrier to actually doing that.
And I know people raised by unmarried parents who have a far better, and more well rounded view of the world than some people I know who were raised by married parents.
It's almost like having two parents showing love to their children, and trying to keep them on the right road is more important than two married people who don't do either of those things.
Weird isn't it! Being married doesn't actually make society! Being decent human beings seems to somewhat make a difference though!
So stop with this 'My marriage has less value now' crap. If the fact that two men, or two women (that you do not even know!) can get married can affect your marriage that seriously then maybe, just maybe, those strangers are not the threat to your marriage. You are.
>That they are protesting is not discrimination, FFS
That is correct, however their protest is actively trying to encourage an organisation to discriminate against its own employees. By saying that Mozilla aren't any under any obligation to listen you are accepting that they are trying to influence them. Would you support a protest that tried to force a company not to employ women even though the company are under no boligation to listen? Or do you get to pick and choose which type of protest calling for active discrimintation is good or bad based on your own beliefs.
That's pretty much right. You have the right to protest, demand and stamp your feet as much as you want, so long as it is sufficiently leftist. But try to support a simple and obvious prosition, such as marraige=1 man + 1 woman and you are howled out of existence by all the collected leftists on the planet.
Errm, isn't this a little hypocritical, in a democratic society everyone is entitled to their own opinion and to campaign on whatever issues they feel strongly about. The thing about a democracy is that the laws put in place previously through democratic means or laws currently being voted for are passed by a majority decision, descent towards the popular opinion is a given in a democracy, not everyone will ever think the same and for a healthy debate that's a good thing. In this case, the change was ruled unconstitutional to previous democratic decisions won on the day and all was good. What it seems the developers here would prefer is that everyone thinks the same as them and their is no debate. Surely respecting everyone's opinion is the order of the day here. They respect his opinion to not agree with it and he respect the outcome of the courts decision that he is wrong, end of.
No, I think what the devs are saying is that they believe that Eichs views matter, as the CEO of a company which they were supporting with development work.
They believe that because of his views they should not support the company any more.
They have stated that publicly and effectively asked others to do the same (just as Eich effectively asked others to endorse his bigotry with his donation).
That is their right, just as it is Eichs right to have those views.
Whether you agree with them or with Eich is really immaterial, it's just, effectively, a spat between them.
Pardon me for reading the original blog post, but they're not asking other people to join the boycott.
They're saying that they'll not work for a company that has that particular person at the helm, because that person has actively paid for a campaign that would break up their business and their marriage.
The odd thing about your initial post, bigtimehustler, was that until I got two-thirds of the way through it (the sentence beginning "What it seems the developers..."), I genuinely couldn't tell which side you were on. That's how much of a non-sequitur the whole thing is: you could say exactly the same thing if you were advocating for the other team.
This self-important Catlin moron needs to get a grip and understand that billions of other people have different opinions and beliefs to his own and that he is not the sole arbiter of truth and right; in this case the opinions of Eich have absolutely nothing to do with his work and are completely irrelevant to Mozilla.
We are now seeing more and more the militant homosexual lobby not just sitting back and being content with having achieved what they first claimed they wanted, now they want to destroy all those who have disagreed with them. We're all free to our own opinions as long as they don't clash with theirs...
the militant homosexual lobby
I wasn't aware it was possible for me to be militantly gay.
DROP AND GIVE ME A BACK RUB!
As for the "witch hunt" remark, you're coming dangerously close to IYLISMWDYGLT territory. Yes, everyone is free to their own opinion, which is what Catlin is expressing in a way that obligates no-one else. He's also not trying to do anything like legislate against his opponents - who I will refer to as the "militant homophobic lobby" just to be a twat - unlike Eich, who supported an effort to deny them equal rights.
" unlike Eich, who supported an effort to deny them equal rights."
Just wondering... Did Catlin put money or other resources towards the pro-marriage movements? Did he put his money where his mouth was so-to-speak (get that smirk off your face!)? Did he use whatever resources he had at his disposal to help further his cause?
If so, how is he different from Eich, who used his money to forward what he (hopefully) believed to be the right thing? If Eich truly believes that we who are "gay" should not be allowed to marry, then he did the right thing by using what resources he has to support and promote that cause.
I could go on... and that's before we reach text-mode (w3m, links, lynx etc)
On the issue of gay marriage, my current boss would say: "They make me smaile. As a young straight woman 40 years ago I was demonstrating for the right NOT to marry. But everyone should have the right to make their own mistakes".
If the guy had donated money to a campaign to ban Jews from getting married, or to ban interracial marriages, would you still think that that he was fit to be CEO of a company you were working with (in any capacity, no matter how small) *if* you were Jewish, or black and wanted to marry a white girl, or knew anyone who was, or maybe even if you didn't?
Because all these devs are saying is "this guy's not only said he thinks we're icky, he's actually donated a substantial amount of money to keep us apart, so we're not going to work with his company any more".
They haven't even actually asked others to do the same.
How's about, if the real world bothers your sensibilities and you "just want to browse the internet" you don't click on articles which include the word "gay" in the title so you don't have to think about it any more?
Hypothetically, am I now supposed to boycott any form of product, individual or company because they ARE run by a gay person (the other side of the coin, trick question or whatever you want to call it). Obviously everyone has their own personal views and sometimes people make it publicly know.
As long as this person keeps his personal views separate from the job Mozilla has place him in then nothing wrong with it. This is just in my opinion trying to get on the news bandwagon..... hey look at me I can boycott, point fingers and protest but why is no one following me.....
I find it funny that people expect others to respect their beliefs and choices but think it's ok to demand that someone be fired for having the opposite view. Gay rights activists contributed funds against Prop 8 but you'd be lynched if you suggested that any of them should be denied employment for doing so. Traditional marriage activists should have just as much protection.
For the record, I support gay marriage. It's none of my business who you choose to spend your life is, regardless of what my religion says about the matter.* I also support the right of those who disagree with me to be heard without consequences, something not very common amongst gay rights activists.
*We all know what the Bible says on the matter, but since we have freedom of religion that has no place in the law or in the bedroom of someone who doesn't believe in it. Besides I could give a lengthy theological rant about why the people who rail against gay marriage should spend less time looking at others and more time taking care of their own sins.
Right. The constitution is what matters, not the bible. Even if you are the sort of person that puts the bible before the constitution, there is very little in the way of anti-gay marriage in the bible. Most quotes are the result of poor translations from Hebrew or the general meaning of words changing over time or are taken out of context. For instance instance in biblical times homosexual rape was common. Many times the term was used to describe homosexual rape and not consensual homosexuality. The few remaining biblical references are very vague and could be interpreted either way. However there are many, many biblical references about equal rights.
"Besides I could give a lengthy theological rant about why the people who rail against gay marriage should spend less time looking at others and more time taking care of their own sins."
Sadly I can only upvote you once.. Is there a place I can nominate you for "Post of the decade"?
If only a few more Christians would live by this, the rest of us would have a much better name/reputation!
Thank you for posting that.
So, if I get this right, they boycott Mozilla because the CEO has a deprecated mentality, fair enough, it is their right to do so. They can choose which platform to develop software for, nobody can force them. Imagine they said "we will not develop software for Ubuntu mobile because we do not like Mark Shuttleworth's attire" -- would have been funny at least.
Don't get me wrong, I do not really care and will continue to use Mozilla products.
To those that do not understand what is at stake, here ... this is about civil rights and equality, it is written all over our bills/laws/constitutions and apparently, in most states and countries, some are more equal than others when it comes to civil rights. Gays have had to fight quite a battle in many countries to get equal rights, in most they are still discriminated against ... call it revenge, whatever ... end of the day, they are free to choose the platforms they support, who are we to judge ...
That until he made CEO they where quite happy to work on the FF platform.
At what stage does your viewpoint become unacceptable?
I suspect this is more about some cheap publicity stunt than any over riding moral crusade on behalf of gay marriage. Its actually quite sad as it does significantly devalue the work of the people who have been consistent in the fight for marriage equality to have a couple of non entities jump on a bandwagon for a moment of publicity.
I don't support gay marriage. Why? Because the Bible calls homosexuality a sin (and btw, so is divorce, adultery, etc.. and I don't support those either). So... what I understand now to be true *here* is that if I stand on God's Word, I am supposed to be crucified for what God says. Correct?
For sure, those who support any sinful lifestyle are welcome and free to boycott whatever, whenever, just like anyone else... but to condemn others for their beliefs? Is this some kind of gay revenge upon a world that has decided to ignore what God says about sin? God can't keep you from sinning. But He did provide a way out. His name is Jesus Christ. He gave His life so we wouldn't have to live under the condemnation of sin anymore. Be that homosexuality, lying, cheating, etc..
If saving folks from that which kills them is *wrong*, I suppose we should crucify Jesus... err... wait a minute.... that didn't work quite as expected the first time out. Jesus lives. So, maybe we should stop hating people that are trying to follow Jesus. Just saying.
Btw, I'm not saying that the Mozilla CEO is following Jesus... I'm just tired of certain people being given superior *rights* because they have a seemingly popular worldly belief and others being put down because they hold a (supposed) minority position. People are the same... debates on what we believe should always be allowed. You want to boycott me (or whatever I do) for what I believe... fine... if you're a homosexual and you are holding a parade of support for homosexuality, I will likely boycott that. Isn't that fair?
Personally, it doesn't matter what I say... it doesn't matter what you say. At the end of the day, it only matters what God says.... but, if you don't believe in God, I suppose nothing matters at all...
"but, if you don't believe in God, I suppose nothing matters at all..."
Where to start?
Only a particularly backward Christian would think that. Let's not waste time on the obvious theological point that "god" means vastly different things to different people; let's not get into the psychological/sociological point that since "god" is undemonstratable, your belief is in a construct that exists purely in your own brain; let's just stick to the fundamental point that we are here, there are things we like and things we dislike, and it's up to us to make the best of it. We can argue endlessly about how to do that without ever mentioning a deity once.
In fact, there are clergy out there who, in private, will admit that their views on the concept of "god" are very hazy; but see their role, doing something about the poor and disadvantaged and persuading their generally well-off congregations to help improve society, as being far more important than trivial questions about shellfish or adultery. They have a calling even though they have grave doubts about what Hebrew and Greek literature really have to do with it. I've met some.
People like you are an embarrassment to theologians, do you know that? It's like Lloyd Blankfein discovering that an Indian peasant who keeps a gold bar under his bed thinks he knows all there is to know about banking.
"People like you are an embarrassment to theologians, do you know that? "
i think theologians can embarrass themselves without his help :-)
"It's like Lloyd Blankfein discovering that an Indian peasant who keeps a gold bar under his bed thinks he knows all there is to know about banking." Beautifully put ! Have an upvote .
"I don't support gay marriage. Why? Because the Bible calls homosexuality a sin"
"I'm just tired of certain people being given superior *rights* because they have a seemingly popular worldly belief and others being put down because they hold a (supposed) minority position."
--- "the Bible calls homosexuality a sin (and btw, so is divorce, adultery, etc.. and I don't support those either)."
And therein lies the difference. Neither Eich, nor I assume you, made a financial contribution to write into American secular law a provision to forbid divorced people or those who have committed adultery from being able to marry.
You're free to believe whatever you want to believe about what books make up your "bible" and what is deemed a "sin" in it. Other people by and large don't care and don't "crucify" you for it.
But once you cross the line of legislative advocacy and try to deprive other people of civil rights, then you are taking actions that actually cause other people harm. Go re-read the Register article about te difficulties the two men had in forming a business and building their lives together -- all of which is and should be none of your business. Yet, Eich and others chose to make it their business by supporting the unconstitutional Prop 8.
Surely you can see the difference between civil discourse wherein each side politely accepts the right of the other side to hold their views, versus political advocacy wherein one side tries to deprive the other side by force of law from living their private lives in accordance with their views.
I'm not sure if this is a brilliant troll, or just Poe's Law at work.
I am reasonably sure that you can't possibly believe this drivel. Comparing "a couple of people boycotting a product" to "being crucified for your beliefs" is just plain blasphemous, whichever way you cut it.
"So... what I understand now to be true *here* is that if I stand on God's Word, I am supposed to be crucified for what God says. Correct?"
Don't forget that our Lord said "The world will hate you because of me" (paraphrased), and that Paul (or was it Peter?) said that we should be happy when we're persecuted for our faith (again paraphrased). Also it is said that we would be handed over to the authorities to be tried, condemned, and executed.
You can go the way of the world, which is a fun and relatively easy trip. You can claim to be Christian and go the way of the world, which is a relatively fun and easy trip.. Or you can go the way of Christ - which means that even many of those who claim to follow Christ will hate you.
Mozilla appointed as CEO someone who openly discriminates - and believes in discrimination - against some of Mozilla's own developers?
The only reason Mr. Eich appears go be getting away with this (thus far) is solely because of Prop 8's murky legal status in CA at the time of his donation. This isn't about supporting opinions or views. This is about openly supporting a discriminatory policy which has been found to be unconstitutional in the US by SCOTUS (see DOMA).
If Mr. Eich donated money to a political cause in support of denying women's right to vote, would that be considered an innocent opinion as well?
At any rate, Mr. Eich has demonstrated that he is unfit to be CEO of the Mozilla Foundation.
Ohhhhh, this wonderful one!
So... People who are infertile should not be able to get married? And they should be forced to have their fertility tested before they can tie the knot? People who want to get married, but not have kids should be denied as well? Or should there be a clause in the marriage license that states if there are no children within 12 months then the marriage is null and void?
After all, if it is just about reproductive rights then only those wanting children should be able to get married. Or do no just mean only those you don't like should not be able to get married if they are not going to be able to have children?
As for natural law, take a look at nature. You will find a lot of homosexuality in the animal kingdom. Or do you mean natural law meaning 'what I don't find ikky' rather than natural law meaning 'what happens in nature'?
Wife and I were discussing this the other day - I was tweeting Ellen Degeneres my displeasure of her Oscar 'selfie' which caused the Samsung Note 3 to increase in price by 33%, effectively killing it for me - I digress...
Point is I can color-coordinate better than any woman alive, can decorate the fuck out of any room(think motif), am not gay, yet would be at a disadvantage in bidding a project with competition that *was* gay. Yeah. The world is strange. Just like a really bad movie...
I need to install a new motherboard in a server like right now - catch ya'll later.
> Firefox already got rid of the user-friendly UI option to turn JS off
Fortunately The Proxy did not get rid of the command-line friendly option to send JS go fuck itself elsewhere.
In any case I don't think getting rid of the UI-oh-look-shiny-clicky-clicky ways to set options is necessarily a bad thing. In fact I for one support the good old config-file approach, just fire up a text editor and presto! all the setting in the same place for you to merrily meddle with. And you can save the old file for one-step full restore should you do something stupid.
As such, FF current system is rather a step in the right direction, even though it's lacking in the inline documentation department.
Speaking as a not very oppressed minority, at least in the UK
I'm never sure if this sort of behavior does anything for the cause, seems a bit like saying 'I don't like a member of your team so I'm taking the ball home so no one can play'. I don't know what it's like to be LGBT in the US, so I can't say if it's justified or not!
I'm a bisexual Transvestite, and proud of it.
I've never had any trouble when out and about in the UK, and the only nasty comment I've ever had came from a gay couple!
The protest is that the company has promoted someone who has financially backed a law that was distatestful and offensive to a section of its community.
Should the company not promoted him for his past actions? Possibly, but they best made sure that they asked him about how he will be working with gay people married or hoping to be married. They should also have asked how he would address these concerns when raised.
Jobs require that you sacrifice part of your freedoms in exchange for the money we get, if you feel your values are more important then don't take the money.
The easiest way to analyze and remove bias is to make the argument more generic. You have two groups that have a severe lack of agreement, both are employed by an organization that supports neither side of the argument between the two parties and chooses to remain neutral. One side decides to attack the other in a professional setting, by attacking the organization that employs them, arguing that by employing someone of different opinion is the same as the organization publicly declaring that it is of the same opinion. Given that the organization has nothing to do with the two parties (regarding the argument at hand) was it correct to involve them? Is the request: "We disagree with you on a personal level, your employment should be terminated based on this disagreement." a reasonable request?
IMHO, No, the attacking party has involved personal with professional livelihood, looking at this from a hostile work environment/harassment perspective they are clearly in the wrong (for involving Mozilla). The involvement of Mozilla was a ploy to pump up headlines and draw attention rather than further the argument itself. The argument should be settled and debated on it's own merits without unnecessary flimflam and distraction. The man's opinion has nothing to do with exercising his work role at Mozilla. The only reason Mozilla should have been involved, was if the man was actively harassing the couple and interfering with their work duties (at work).
I don't know enough about the situation, or Eich himself, so my comment is going to be directed at the general circumstance as discussed, and not necessarily the person himself.
Many comments are along the lines that his personal opinions are his own, and as long as he's not discriminating against Mozilla staff, it isn't an issue - we should respect others opinions.
OK, extreme analogy time, in which of the following circumstances is the above paragraph an appropriate comment?, if someone donates $1000 to a group that campaigns for: (in no particular order)
-- investigations into government corruption
-- an end to racial/gender discrimination.
-- stopping cruelty to animals
-- banning blue smarties
-- restricted access to firearms
-- sending Piers Morgan to Mars
-- paedophiles rights
-- extermination of Jews
-- rape to be legal
-- all brown eyed women to be killed
-- piercings to be banned
-- banning gay marriage
-- an end to the BBC license fee
I'm sure you would all find some of the above unacceptable.
If you think banning gay marriage is an acceptable view for someone to financially support, then either you agree with the sentiment yourselves, or you'd be happy with someone supporting all the above examples.
"....If you think banning gay marriage is an acceptable view for someone to financially support, then either you agree with the sentiment yourselves, or you'd be happy with someone supporting all the above examples." Major fail for insisting that the injustice of banning gay marriage is somehow equivalent to the misery of slavery, the Holocaust, rape or many of the other issues you listed. No-one is going to die or even suffer physical injury because of a ban on gay marriage, at worst they'll feel moral outrage. Please go develop a sense of perspective.
"Major fail for insisting that the injustice of banning gay marriage is somehow equivalent to the misery of slavery, the Holocaust, rape or many of the other issues you listed."
Major fail for erroneously insisting that what I wrote bore anything remotely resembling that.
By your logic, I also equate banning gay marriage similar to banning blue smarties.
I assume you are just trolling again, because nobody can be that stupid.
It was pretty clear (by way of *extreme analogies*) that I was saying that ultimately, you won't be happy with someone who does any of the extreme bad things, yet you presumably don't care about their smartie fixation.
So any indifferent views on whether *this* is acceptable basically reveal how little you care about the subject in hand.
Please go and develop a reading comprehension (and whilst you're at it, look up this thing called 'paragraphs')
If you support freedom of speech for everyone then you should support the right of people to campaign for slavery, legalising rape, using living small puppies as blowtorch holders... Whatever.
That's what freedom of speech is, that you can speak for and support what you want. Prefereably things that you believe are right for whatever reason, but freedom to speak your mind. Freedom means without limits.
Oh, and while I hope to find some handsome hunk to marry in the not-too-distant future, I do find it quite acceptable for someone to finance campaigns against gay marriage. If the person's a good friend I might even loan them the money. I would not be happy with people financing everything on your list BUT I support their right to do so. I know I am weird, but I do admire people who stand up for what they believe. Not just angry words at the TV in their living room but actually getting out there and fighting for that they believe in.
I can understand being upset because a company has elevated someone to the position of CEO whom they perceive to be bigoted.
However, I've read that Firefox does have a dwindling market share; this surprises me, as it seems far and away the only serious major choice.
I use Safari and Chrome, day in, day out. Right, I know that some things work better in Firefox, some work better in Chrome, etc. That's like saying I'm going to use this car if it's raining outside, that one if I know I'm going to be traversing bumpy roads, and the other one if I'm going to an important meeting. For some of us - many, I would think - we have one car. And we use whatever browser is there. On my iPad, iPhone and Mac, it's Safari. I also use Chrome sometimes.
Dumping Firefox is probably no big deal for 80% of the people who use it.
There's a simple way of telling whether Eich's opposition to gay rights is acceptable or not and whether he is a fit person to run an organisation. Just consider whether his behaviour would be acceptable if applied to some other minority group. Black people, for example, or Jews. Only if it's reasonable to deny marriage rights to black people is it reasonable to deny marriage rights to gay people.
If Eich were to have been suddenly outed as donating money to the cause of outlawing black marriage, Mozilla would turf him out tout de suite.
".....Only if it's reasonable to deny marriage rights to black people is it reasonable to deny marriage rights to gay people....." Sorry, that is not an equal comparison. You would like it to be because then you can align your cause with that of anti-racism and benefit from the association by casting aspersions of racism on those that disagree.
There's a very funny radio interview (I think it was Ben Elton) about how you should be careful in both how you try to equate one 'injustice' with another and how people that support one cause use the tactic of linking it to a more popular struggle, such as racism, as it allows them to cast those that disagree as racist or homophobic, etc. The hilarious example he used to demonstrate the silliness of this was disability benefit and wheelchairs. In essence, there's nothing to stop the average person from using a wheelchair, indeed the disabled get theirs bought for them, so surely it's discriminatory to give disability benefits to disabled people? And ramps paid for in their houses! And special seats reserved on trains and buses! Oh the injustice! And then it went off into how easy it was to infer a link to a more popular cause by pointing out that the majority of people receiving disability benefits in the UK are (statistically) white and heterosexual, so hence it 'must be' a white-supremacist, anti-gay conspiracy! Therefore, if you disagree and support disability benefit payments then you must be a homophobic Klanner! Dave, your desperate attempts to link gay marriage with general racism is equally silly but nowhere near as entertaining or intelligent.
" Why is it not a valid comparison?" It is not a valid comparison as you are simply trying to associate your issue with racism at the time of slavery. When blacks were denied the right to choose who to marry it was because they were suffering as slaves on the plantations. Trying to imply the conditions 'suffered' by gays in California today is somehow equally dire is either simply too stupid for words or just plain deceitful.
Click on Control panel/Programs and features/highlight Mozilla Firefox browser/click uninstall/ click finish.
I fear that this will be the fate of my Mozilla Firefox Install, but not because of whatever external political flavor of the day deems to be correct. But, 'cause of the overly fruity nature of the new Australis GUI. The fact that this can't be retrograded to look like the more sane FF3.0 version. and that Mozilla have found an even more daft place to drop the Download Manager into.
This is what I fear....
At the end of the day this guy has shown a regrettable narrowmindness: he thinks that people should abide by his values even if they don't agree with those values. He wants a society where people live by HIS rules. As far as I understand gay people are not promoting any change for marriage if you are straight so they are not asking him in any way to live by values he doesn't embrace, while he was clearly trying to do the opposite.
The CEO of a company is the first representative of "corporate responsibility" for that company so I don't think that attitude is a good element in a CV.
I am not going to unistall Firefox but I think that they should have looked better at what kind of person they were choosing as their representative.
So... What does all this have to do ultimately with Firefox?
Did the NAACP push for a boycott of Coca-Cola because it was served at establishments that denied African-Americans entry due to their race/colour? No.
Did the KKK try to do something similar? No...
Did Holocaust survivors? No...
So what does all this... stuff... have to do with the browser known as Firefox?
Surely the community is more than just the man. Surely the man can be judged on more than just his personal views. If he attempted to force said personal views on any of his staff or the community, *then* I'd agree with a boycott.
But, until then?
*pours self glass of ice-cold Coke...*
4FS: People should really worry about the important things- like survival (health & environment), energy, education and bringing society (instead of individuals) together.
Or in this specific case, an open-source browser that can be used (by anyone) instead of a commercial one. Last time I looked, we are free to say, think and donate what we want within reason. Mozilla Foundation expecting/enforcing anything other than would be hypocritical, so why agitate for it?
Whilst we are on this wretched topic however,
i. In the bible marriage does nor proclaim it to occur only between men and women.
ii. there is no right to get married anywhere (excepting in the Vatican City and a small number of 'other states' that lack the sense to follow federal/common country laws).
Therefore, once they so choose, gays can make equally stupid decisions in their personal lives as us heteros.
BTW: Anyone worried about the impact on children of things that might accompany gay marriage- such as a perverted hedonistic lifestyle, remember that current laws preventing child abuse covers gay people just as much as they affect us. Just take a look at any of the more common groups- there are many majority groups that are doing a far worse job bringing up the next generation.
If you truly care about the next generation, I invite you to do something about the (very numerous) actual problems it faces- poverty, education, freedom, resources and the myriad of abuses they deal with (that we've allowed to continue on to date, whilst carrying on about the minutia around us).
regarding marriage, my partner is still married to her wife.
She transitioned a year ago, has recently had the relevant surgery etc.
They are separated but get on well. The reason they kept the marriage in place was so that if something happened during the surgery, her wife would get her not to be sneezed at pension benefits.
The equality of marriage is (to me at least) common sense. As an example, I cannot yet get married as I am in the process of applying for a GRC - they do not allow this legal change if you are married.
Regarding discrimination, it still happens. I have had a pretty good career in IT - name is on a RFC as a contributor and I have worked for some seriously good employers (all as a women). I have lived through the period whee women were treat like second class citizens and while we still get lower pay etc things are a lot better. However, while its illegal to discriminate on gender, sexuality etc, I still see discrimination quite often.
And if an employer find out about my childhood gender, the reactions can be pretty extreme.
Once employer who found out during an interview blurted out (Well he cannot work here). Note that this is being said to a relatively smart, elegant very feminine middle aged women who he seemed to think was a perfect candidate until this came to light.
I used to hide my childhood in the past as I felt ashamed of it, but today I am quite proud of facing the challenges I have had and coming out better for it. I see it as something positive but so many IT employers are still very very discriminatory.
Given my net prescence, it would be almost impossible to "go back into stealth" once more and have no intention of doing so, but my GRC will give me some limited rights that will benefit me.
Oddly, german and US multinationals are far more accepting than say UK owned businesses.
I also find the brogrammer model limits the businesses I can sensibly apply for.
.. applying for a GRC ?
TheFreeDictionary - What does GRC stand for?
GRC Governance, Risk and Compliance
GRC Glenn Research Center (NASA)
GRC Greece (ISO Country code)
GRC Gendarmerie Royale du Canada (RCMP - Canada)
GRC Geoenvironmental Research Centre
GRC Gestion de la Relation Client (Customer Relationship Management)
GRC Gordon Research Conferences (biological, chemical & physical sciences)
GRC Gibson Research Corporation
GRC Gulf Research Center (Dubai, UAE)
GRC John H. Glenn Research Center (NASA; formerly Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio)
GRC Glass Reinforced Concrete
GRC Granular Computing (International Computing)
GRC Geothermal Resources Council
GRC Graphic Communication (various organizations)
GRC Gerontology Research Center
GRC Government Relations Committee
GRC General Revenue Corporation
GRC German Red Cross
GRC General Research Corporation
GRC Gerontology Research Centre (Canada)
GRC Genetic Resources Center
GRC Gulf Region Central (District, USACE)
GRC Geographic Resources Center
GRC Galvanized Rigid Conduit
GRC Grants Review Committee
GRC Generic Reference Configuration
GRC Government of the Republic of China
GRC General Rifling Characteristics (ballistics)
GRC Green Ribbon Committee (Nashville, TN)
GRC Grid Research Centre (cloud computing; University of Calgary; Canada)
GRC Global Regulatory Cooperation Project (US Chamber of Commerce)
GRC Gatekeeper Routed Call
GRC Gas Reactor Column
GRC Glasgow Rowing Club (Scotland, UK)
GRC Greenland Cod
GRC Ground Radio Communications
GRC Gender Research Center (various organizations)
GRC Guest Registration Card (hotel industry)
GRC Graduate Resource Centre (University of Western Ontario; Canada)
GRC Geriatric Research Center
GRC Group Rooms Coordinator
GRC Grain Research Committee of Western Australia
GRC Generation Review Committee
GRC Gaussian Relay Channel
GRC Government Regulations Coordinator
GRC Ground Radio Transceiver ("C" is for transceiver since "T" is in use for Ground Radio Transmitter GRT)
GRC Golden Run Comparison
GRC Gross Rating Cost
GRC German Racing Club
GRC Green Racing Club (Italy)
GRC Government Reform Committee (various locations)
GRC General Reference Center (various locations)
GRC Group Representation Constituency (Singapore)
GRC Grupo Radio Centro (Spanish: Radio Center Group; Mexico)
Good luck - hope you get your German Red Cross
I just wish people would stop telling me what I should think.
I like gays; anything that gets the well-dressed good-looking guys with the personal hygiene obsession and the ability to chat out of the market can only be a good thing. Yes, that's a joke, except for the first bit. I've met many gay men, most were people I'd happily spend more time with. On the other hand, I find men being effeminate distasteful and greatly dislike the Graham Norton/Alan Carr style that I thought (and hoped) had died with Larry Grayson.
I mean, you're still men, right? Sexual preference doesn't change the tone of your voice or make you flap your hands about, does it?
So what it really comes down to is, is that opinion homophobic? Is it an all-or-nothing thing? Must you accept every aspect of every community in order not to be a bigot? Because, y'know, that is analogous to suggesting that because you support multiculturalism you must also support female circumcision or the stoning of adulterers....
We think the way we think. In Britain, you might sign a petition or mumble something non-committal at a political rally, in America they give money because it's 1 dollar, 1 vote over there. So he gave money because he had an opinion.
And the thing is, that's all we know. We don't know any of his other opinions. Maybe he thinks marriage should be restricted to a religious arrangement and all legal benefits to it should be transferred to civil unions (I'd support that myself). He might be attempting to uphold the US constitution by separating Church from State which would certainly not be anti-gay.
You don't know. I don't know. This couple in California don't know. Only Brendan Eich knows.
The rest of us, all of us, especially the bigots going on about the right to hate fairies and the gays claiming that everyone is Hitler should shut the fuck up.
On the other hand, I find men being effeminate distasteful and greatly dislike the Graham Norton/Alan Carr style
You're not alone.. I also find effeminate men quite offputting... I like my men to be men, not to act like they're something else.
That said, I find the Graham Norton show to be interesting at times..
In my eye the solution is simple:
Strip all special rights from marriage (Tax, Immigration etc) and then let everyone marry whomever or whatever he wants.
While you are at it do the same with religions and let everyone who wants call his pigeon breeders club a church.
That will separate those who believe in "x is special" from those who see "x as a means of tax reduction/getting special rights" and solve a LOT of problems.
As for the two "protesters" they reming me of an old quote (IIRC from Fallen Angles):
Voltaire was willing to give his life for your right to voice your opinion
Modern liberals are willing to give your life for your right to voice their opinion
I'd rather support someone who was less willing to fork around with Firefox.... (or given whats happening with Firefox... Perhaps I should be looking for someone to fork it!
The point being I'd just assume support the Person, or Persons who'd sooner stop trying to turn my Firefox into a Chrome Clone.... I suppose it hasn't crossed their minds that if I actually wanted to be running Chrome... I'd be running that instead of Firefox. Alas the brainless dickwads will continue to fork up Firefox till I'm forced to use Infection Exploiter again....
"Eich himself blogged about the controversy over his donation last year on his website, maintaining that 'Mozilla had nothing to do with the donation'."
Wow, touché, Mr. Eich, you really shut us up!
The thing is, see… Mozilla had nothing to do with the donation, ok. We get that. But ~you~ had something to do with the donation, and ~you~ are now CEO of the organization. It is ~your~ thinking that we do not want to support. Get it now?
Brendan Eich blogged this week and I liked what he had to say. I support gay marriage and think that opposing it in itself isn't a problem, but it could be the thin end of the wedge, depending on what other rights are associated with that opposition..ranging from rights to remain in a country or adopt children. But I'm not American so don't know what they might be. The other thing is whether the ban on marriage between same sex couples continues to emphasise 'differentness' and subconsciously gives people the right to comment on difference in a negative way, like black skin used to and still does in some places. Normalising difference takes it towards acceptability, or at least tolerance and unless tolerance causes harm - we are talking about people who love each other and want to commit here, after all - then it should be encouraged.
All we know is that he supported a group which wanted to keep gay marriage illegal in California.
Maybe he also supports groups try to ban all marriage. Maybe he sponsors every year's Pride to the tune of half a million dollars. Do you know?
I don't know either. So I can't call him a bigoted hater because I have insufficient evidence.
But I can call you a judgmental wankstain because you've helpfully proved it.
Have read some of the comments here, but will post before I read further..
I am gay. I've been somewhat closeted because of cultural issues here in NZ (I grew up in small town NZ, back then it was a very dangerous place to be seen to be anything BUT straight), but I am happy so speak under my "real name" rather than AC.
I'm also Christian, and somewhat conservative/fundamentalist in many of my views.
If an athiest/Muslim/Hindu/whatever wants to promote their views, either directly or by funding causes that they believe in, they should have every right to do so. Likewise, I am very much pro-life, but if someone who is pro-choice (and/or pro-euthanasia) wants to promote their views or pay someone else to do so, that is their right and they should be allowed to do so.
And I am more than happy for someone to promote their belief that I should die because I am Christian, or rot in hell because I am gay. That's their belief, wrong as I may believe it to be, and that is their right to speak it.
That's what a free society means - people are free to speak their minds and act on their convictions. Sure, it may upset me or even hurt me when I get some stuff directed at me, but if a person is speaking what they believe then that is their right. I cannot get upset about how I feel my sensibilities might be infringed when someone says something I dislike and then try to claim I should be free to speak my mind. That would be hypocritical.
I will not stop using a product because someone there has done something in their capacity as an individual person. I might if those views are expressed as part of or on behalf of the company, ie that it's a company position, but not if it's individual staff within the company. If I was to take it to that sort of thing, well I can bet there're anti-gay people involved with the makers of all browsers.
TL;DR : I'm gay, and I support EVERYONE'S right to speak their views and act on their convictions (where that doesn't involve real harm to others, and no - hurting feelings is not "real" harm). It's hypocrisy to want to speak your views but prevent others from speaking theirs. I admire those who have the courage to stand up and speak up for what they believe.
The facts against a "gay" marriage is that marriage is for the procreation of children ergo two poofs cannot do that ergo no marriage.
I have nothing against what people do in wherever as long as it does not impinge on me and mine. But how on earth can these persons be declared as to be in a state of coming together to have babies.
Does someone know something I do not!!!
".....marriage is for the procreation of children ergo two poofs cannot do that ergo no marriage...." Well, I suppose it comes down to your definition of marriage. Legally (in the UK at least) it has nothing to do with procreation, there is no commitment under the Law that you must procreate or even intend to procreate when you enter into a marital contract. There are some automatic legal benefits (such as inheritance) for the children of a married couple but those can just about be guaranteed by modern courts to 'illegitimate' children. The main 'limitation' of marriage is that you are supposedly committing yourself to sex with one partner for life (or at least the duration of the marriage). So, technically, if two gay people commit to each other exclusively, and the State recognizes their commitment in the same legal manner as an ordinary marriage (e.g., kids from prior hetero relationships get inheritance rights in the gay marriage), why can't they get married? After all, two lesbians could have children by IVF with donated sperm, just as a childless hetero couple could, and two gay men could use their sperm and donated eggs with a surrogate to produce kids. Do you want to tell married heteros that if they need IVF and donor eggs or sperm, or if they adopt, then they are not a 'real' married couple? Now, you may want to preserve some special status for hetero marriage, but then that is discriminatory. If the majority (as in the UK) decide it is discriminatory then they will support new laws to grant the same status to gay unions of marriage, as became legal in the UK at midnight last night.
I am not homophobic nor pro-gay, I merely try and judge people on their attitudes, arguments and behaviour. I AM bad-argument-a-phobic, and you presented a bad argument. I am also Thought-Police-a-phobic, and the gays trying to whip up some form of 'righteous rage' against Eich are definitely trying to tell us what is acceptable thought and what is not. The gay devs that want to boycott Firefox because of Eich are within their rights to state their point of view (just as Eich is within his to donate to a pro-Prop 8 group), just as long as they don't insist (as the gay crusaders are) that not immediately agreeing with them makes you a homophobe - that just gets my back up.
Rumour is that they are planning on making a rehash of the MacDowell-Depardieu movie "Green Card" with exactly such a plotline - straight Yank divorcee male (Channing Tatum is supposedly on the verge of signing) fakes a gay relationship for cash in order to get a gay foreigner a green card by gay marriage, eventually the straight Yank turning to The Gay due to his hidden and subconcious homosexuality and the undeniable appeal of gay marriage. Righteous indignation is to be supplied by Anne Dudek playing the Yank's WASP ex-wife. Apparently there's a bit of conflict in the production company between those that want to highlight the plight of poor-but-worthy foreigners and want the foreigner's part played by a serious foreign actor such as Javier Bardem, and those that want a more comedic tone and are intent on making it a vehicle for Alan Carr to penetrate the American market... Cinematic release is penned in for 1st April 2016.
I don't think the gay community will be satisfied until they completely destroy anybody's opinion but their own. It seems they want this country to be turned into a communist country where you can't say anything about anything. They seem not to be satisfied unless everybody has their views. If they don't want to use Firefox just stop using it and shut your mouth about everybody else's opinions. They are always talking about that they are not trying to push the gay agenda off on anybody else, what would you call this. If you're not gay you can't run a corporation. It's really getting out of hand when you have to be a member of something. So I guess their agenda is that every corporation in the United States is not a controlled by the gays,destroy them.
The basic problem is you're trying to spin this as Eich expressing an opinion.
He didn't "Paula Dean" his career. He did something much worse: he visibly contributed financial support of legislation sponsored by a hate group.
If Mozilla didn't have customers or contributors, no one would care.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019