BREAKING: Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich resigns amids anti-gay controversy - Polidicks

[QUOTE=AntonioR;44441995]A person was forced to resign because of his beliefs. You need to be pro-gay to run a company today ?[/QUOTE] Yeah, good. You make it sound like someone's beliefs should be viewed with respect even if they are paired with the desire to infringe upon human rights. [editline]4th April 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=MaikkiBoi;44442198]it's not like he supported total genocide of the lgbt community or something if you're so progressive and tolerant, why don't you look past the man's opinions? i don't care if he thinks gay marriage is wrong and i wouldn't care if he thought it was right[/QUOTE] Tolerance is not the tolerance of intolerance.

[QUOTE=Matthew0505;44449753]People aren't obligated to give bigots a job position. If you want to take away other peoples' rights you shouldn't expect them to uphold yours.[/QUOTE] If that is true, then criminals should have no rights.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;44449999]If that is true, then criminals should have no rights.[/QUOTE] This guy has no right to his job as CEO of Mozilla. People do have a right to be gay though.

[QUOTE=Tomo Takino;44448992]Plus a multitude of people have said why it was the better option. Mozilla wants to be shown as a progressive company towards LGBT issues, and having a CEO that was anti-gay in the past undermines that. Especially when his current stance isn't known and he decided to bail rather than explain himself.[/QUOTE] How are you going to explain your views have changed to people on the internet? Like honestly, do you realize how douchey most of the internet is? Or the fact it will hold its hands to ears and scream "LALALALALALAlALAYOURA*insertinsulthere*"

[QUOTE=Ricool06;44450032]This guy has no right to his job as CEO of Mozilla. People do have a right to be gay though.[/QUOTE] He has the right to his job the momment he was hired.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;44450341]He has the right to his job the momment he was hired.[/QUOTE] you do realise ceos have the hugest fuckin opportunity to just fuck off else where and be a ceo, in fact this makes his decision making look good do you think board members give a fuck what he supports? this is a meaningless argument cause its a win-win situation anyway

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;44450341]He has the right to his job the momment he was hired.[/QUOTE] Uh, no? Since when do you have a right to keep the job you have? Firing would have to be illegal. Which ignores the fact that he resigned anyway

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;44450447]Uh, no? Since when do you have a right to keep the job you have? Firing would have to be illegal. Which ignores the fact that he resigned anyway[/QUOTE] You think people are just fired left and right like in a bad sitcom? You have the right to your job. Your hirer have must face legal action if he fires you on a whim. Besides, I wasn't the one who started the whole "he have/doesn't have the right to his job", I'm just adressing these people points.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;44450515]You think people are just fired left and right like in a bad sitcom? You have the right to your job. Your hirer have must face legal action if he fires you on a whim. Besides, I wasn't the one who started the whole "he have/doesn't have the right to his job", I'm just adressing these people points.[/QUOTE] If your an at-will employee, you can be fired for any reason (including no reason) and the employer is under no obligation to give one, unless you can prove they did it for an unlawful reason. Granted, I doubt a CEO would be under those conditions. :v:

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;44450515]You think people are just fired left and right like in a bad sitcom? You have the right to your job. Your hirer have must face legal action if he fires you on a whim. Besides, I wasn't the one who started the whole "he have/doesn't have the right to his job", I'm just adressing these people points.[/QUOTE] Since when does you don't have a right to your job = people can fire you for whatever reason?

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;44450341]He has the right to his job the momment he was hired.[/QUOTE] Because everyone ever fired has had their human right breached. Come on, you are smarter than that. [editline]4th April 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Ragekipz;44450515]You think people are just fired left and right like in a bad sitcom? You have the right to your job. Your hirer have must face legal action if he fires you [B]on a whim[/B]. Besides, I wasn't the one who started the whole "he have/doesn't have the right to his job", I'm just adressing these people points.[/QUOTE] If funding an anti LGBT organisation that seeks to remove the rights of others because of their sexuality is a whim then you need to rethink your ideas about freedom.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;44450718]Since when does you don't have a right to your job = people can fire you for whatever reason?[/QUOTE] Since Unions and Tenure were a thing? I also actually think you do have grounds to sue for your job back if you feel like you were wrongly fired, or at least to get some ungiven pay.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;44450718]Since when does you don't have a right to your job = people can fire you for whatever reason?[/QUOTE] If your right to have your job isn't legally secured, then how come you need a valid legal reason to fire?

[QUOTE=Swilly;44450743]Since Unions and Tenure were a thing? I also actually think you do have grounds to sue for your job back if you feel like you were wrongly fired, or at least to get some ungiven pay.[/QUOTE] Does that make it a right? I don't think any law saying you're allowed to do something is a right. Someone else can still take it away from you legally. You might argue that you have a right to hold your job without fear of arbitrary firing (and that's not even true in all states), but you certainly don't have a right to your job. Nevertheless, he wasn't fired. [editline]4th April 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Ragekipz;44450826]If your right to have your job isn't legally secured, then how come you need a valid legal reason to fire?[/QUOTE] Your job is legally secured (in [I]some[/I] states), that doesn't mean you have a right to it. I don't have a right to drive, I have a privilege. They can't take it away for no reason, but they can take it away.

[QUOTE=Ricool06;44450721]Because everyone ever fired has had their human right breached. Come on, you are smarter than that.[/QUOTE] Does that change anything? He does have the right to his job, it's a civil right, not a human right. [QUOTE=Ricool06;44450721] If funding an anti LGBT organisation that seeks to remove the rights of others because of their sexuality is a whim then you need to rethink your ideas about freedom.[/QUOTE] If you think firing people due to their beliefs or views is OK, then I think then you need to rethink your ideas about freedom. [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;44450827]Does that make it a right? I don't think any law saying you're allowed to do something is a right. Someone else can still take it away from you legally. You might argue that you have a right to hold your job without fear of arbitrary firing (and that's not even true in all states), but you certainly don't have a right to your job. Nevertheless, he wasn't fired. Your job is legally secured (in [I]some[/I] states), that doesn't mean you have a right to it. I don't have a right to drive, I have a privilege. They can't take it away for no reason, but they can take it away.[/QUOTE] Legal Right: A claim recognized and delimited by law for the purpose of securing it. Just as much as I have the right to drive, I have the right to be rich, to have privacy, to hold lands and take titles.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;44450858]If you think firing people due to their beliefs or views is OK, then I think then you need to rethink your ideas about freedom.[/quote] He wasn't fired though. [QUOTE=Ragekipz;44450858]Does that change anything? He does have the right to his job, it's a civil right, not a human right. [/quote] [QUOTE=Ragekipz;44450858]Legal Right: A claim recognized and delimited by law for the purpose of securing it. Just as much as I have the right to drive, I have the right to be rich, to have privacy, to hold lands and take titles.[/QUOTE] See: [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;44450827]You might argue that you have a right to hold your job without fear of arbitrary firing (and that's not even true in all states), but you certainly don't have a right to your job.[/QUOTE] Saying he has the right to his job ignores important points, i.e. he [I]doesn't[/I] have the right to his job under any circumstance. You [I]do[/I] have the right to be free from arbitrary firing (although I still would not call that a right since it's not true for everyone), but you [I]do not[/I] have a right to your job in general. If that were true, any firing would be a violation of your rights.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;44450958]He wasn't fired though.[/QUOTE] That's not the point, as I already said. [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;44450958] Saying he has the right to his job ignores important points, i.e. he [I]doesn't[/I] have the right to his job under any circumstance. You [I]do[/I] have the right to be free from arbitrary firing (although I still would not call that a right since it's not true for everyone), but you [I]do not[/I] have a right to your job in general. If that were true, any firing would be a violation of your rights.[/QUOTE] The right to work is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;44451023]That's not the point, as I already said. The right to work is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[/QUOTE] The government did not deny him his right to work so that has zero relevance.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;44451023]The right to work is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[/QUOTE] Which means fuck all in terms of US law. also, the "right to work" does not mean the right to hold onto your job indefinitely

[QUOTE=mobrockers;44451192]The government did not deny him his right to work so that has zero relevance.[/QUOTE] Like I said that's beside the point. I'm only adressing to people saying that he doesn't have the right to his job. The relevance of this come from the someone saying that since But IF he were fired, it would indeed be the government job to ensure his right to work. [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;44451203]Which means fuck all in terms of US law.[/QUOTE] I'm note sure you understand the UN. [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;44451203]also, the "right to work" does not mean the right to hold onto your job indefinitely[/QUOTE] Does that change the fact that he has the right to his work?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;44442254]he donated a thousand dollars to an organisation that opposed gay marriage. [/QUOTE] What exactly is an organisation that "apposes gay marriage" going to do with a thousand dollars? There is literally nothing they'd do with that money that doesn't involve infringing on gay peoples equal rights, that's what the fucking organisation is there for He deserved to be ostracized, the gay marriage debate is not a "grey" issue, there's really no moral ambiguity or room for difference of valid opinion, it's black and white issue. One side wants to deny human beings rights because of a prejudice, the other wants to give them and enable their rights because of a non-prejudice.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;44451229]I'm note sure you understand the UN.[/QUOTE] Lol, I'll bite. What don't I understand about it? The UN forbids torture as well but we do that too. [QUOTE=Ragekipz;44451229]Does that change the fact that he has the right to his work?[/QUOTE] The "right to work" statement in the UN declaration you just cited has nothing to do with the arbitrary firing ironically enough. It means that the government can't keep you from working. Being fired is not the government keeping you from working. There are still jobs available. Incidentally later in the same sentence there are other provisions that seem more closely related (but the language is too uselessly vague to say for sure what they mean)

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;44451320]Lol, I'll bite. What don't I understand about it? The UN forbids torture as well but we do that too.[/QUOTE] Yes and there should be sanctions against the US. There should be also equal rights, but not always what is "right" come to pass. [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;44451320] The "right to work" statement in the UN declaration you just cited has nothing to do with the arbitrary firing ironically enough. It means that the government can't keep you from working. Being fired is not the government keeping you from working. There are still jobs available. Incidentally later in the same sentence there are other provisions that seem more closely related (but the language is too uselessly vague to say for sure what they mean)[/QUOTE] Yes the law that protect you from arbritrary firing is a civil law.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;44451229]Like I said that's beside the point. I'm only adressing to people saying that he doesn't have the right to his job. The relevance of this come from the someone saying that since But IF he were fired, it would indeed be the government job to ensure his right to work. I'm note sure you understand the UN. Does that change the fact that he has the right to his work?[/QUOTE] He doesn't has the right to his job, he has the right to a job, and the government can't stop him specifically from getting a job, that's all that human right means. What you're saying would mean that if I decide I want to be president of the World I have a right to that job and I absolutely HAVE to get that job or they'll be infringing on my right to work. [editline]4th April 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Ragekipz;44451493]Yes and there should be sanctions against the US. There should be also equal rights, but not always what is "right" come to pass. Yes the law that protect you from arbritrary firing is a civil law.[/QUOTE] He. Was. Not. Fired.

[QUOTE=mobrockers;44451516]He doesn't has the right to his job, he has the right to a job, and the government can't stop him specifically from getting a job, that's all that human right means. What you're saying would mean that if I decide I want to be president of the World I have a right to that job and I absolutely HAVE to get that job or they'll be infringing on my right to work.[/QUOTE] That's a misinterpretation. What I'm saying is no one can come to you and say "You can't have a job because you hate gays" or even "You can't have a job because you're gay". The preservation of his current job and the ingression on future jobs of which he can apply is protected by this right. Of course someone may reject you on basis that they can hire whoever they want. But they can't deny you ALL of the jobs. [QUOTE=mobrockers;44451516]He. Was. Not. Fired.[/QUOTE] That's. Not. The. Point.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;44451493]Yes and there should be sanctions against the US. There should be also equal rights, but not always what is "right" come to pass.[/QUOTE] The UN basically get to choose what it thinks is right and then get mad when nations disagree. I think think they really have enough power to dictate what constitutes a right in any practical sense. [QUOTE=Ragekipz;44451493]Yes the law that protect you from arbritrary firing is a civil law.[/QUOTE] Except that it's not US law, and you're straying away from the point that [I]he does not have a right to his job[/I]. It does not make any sense to say that he has a right to keep his job because it is not inalienable, even slightly. The term means something semantically different than the thing which you believe he retains (which has been my point this whole time).

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;44451588]The UN basically get to choose what it thinks is right and then get mad when nations disagree. I think think they really have enough power to dictate what constitutes a right in any practical sense.[/QUOTE] That's why people sign things. [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;44451588] Except that it's not US law, and you're straying away from the point that [I]he does not have a right to his job[/I]. It does not make any sense to say that he has a right to keep his job because it is not inalienable, even slightly. The term means something semantically different than the thing which you believe he retains (which has been my point this whole time).[/QUOTE] Can you provide an example of right that is trully unalienable? Anything that is protected by law is a right. He has the right to not be fired(which he wasn't, we were pretty clear on that) based on his views(depending of course, of the state he is).

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;44451568]That's a misinterpretation. What I'm saying is no one can come to you and say [B]"You can't have a job because you hate gays"[/B] or even "You can't have a job because you're gay". [/QUOTE] i'm pretty sure they actually can say that, a gay bar isn't going to want to be forced to consider/hire someone who has demonstrated that they were anti-gay, even if it was in the past. i know i wouldn't want to risk it

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;44451695]That's why people sign things. [/QUOTE] Okay? What is this supposed to mean? How is it a right from a practical standpoint if it isn't enforced? (and the right never to be fired is not a right to begin with according to the UN anyway) [QUOTE=Ragekipz;44451695]Can you provide an example of right that is trully unalienable? Anything that is protected by law is a right. He has the right to not be fired(which he wasn't, we were pretty clear on that) based on his views(depending of course, of the state he is).[/QUOTE] Yes he does, and I haven't disputed that. I believe has the right not to be fired based on his views, maybe legally and probably morally. What you said was he has the right to his job. That's not even a little true.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;44451695]Anything that is protected by law is a right. He has the right to not be fired(which he wasn't, we were pretty clear on that) based on his views(depending of course, of the state he is).[/QUOTE] No he doesn't. Not in every state, anyway. Depending on state, you can be fired for anything and there's nothing you can do about it. No fault states are wonderful places to live, and one of the reasons I don't have a job.