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

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;44451725]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] It really depends on the job. I guess you can't be denied a federal job on that basis.

[QUOTE=Lijitsu;44451757]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.[/QUOTE] He was acknowledging that though.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;44451790]He was acknowledging that though.[/QUOTE] Oh, I swear that wasn't there when I went to quote him.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;44451749]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] If he has the right to not be fired, doesn't that mean that he has the right to his job?

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;44451907]If he has the right to not be fired, doesn't that mean that he has the right to his job?[/QUOTE] It would, but once again, he doesn't have the right not to be fired. He could be fired and it could be perfectly legal, couldn't he? He has the right not to be fired arbitrarily (depending). That's much more limited and it's not the same as having the right to his job. As long as his job can be taken away from him legally, it doesn't make the least bit of sense to say he has the right to it. You have to qualify it further.

This guy lost his job because of his opinion and funding what he believes in. This is disgusting no matter how you look at it, it's no better than firing a person because they are gay

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;44452102]This guy lost his job because of his opinion and funding what he believes in. This is disgusting no matter how you look at it, it's no better than firing a person because they are gay[/QUOTE] The guy resigned how is it disgusting for the public to voice disagreement with the guy's view?

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;44452132]The guy resigned[/QUOTE] Under pressure

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;44452149]Under pressure[/QUOTE] So? If he truly believed it was unfair he could have stayed

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;44452132]The guy resigned how is it disgusting for the public to voice disagreement with the guy's view?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;44452161]So? If he truly believed it was unfair he could have stayed[/QUOTE] Imagine that we're 30 years in the past and that he is not a homophobe, but an LGBT supporter himself. He is being pressured into leaving his job and the public hates him for supporting sexual minorities. Would that be okay?

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;44452102]This guy lost his job because of his opinion and funding what he believes in. This is disgusting no matter how you look at it, it's no better than firing a person because they are gay[/QUOTE] he could have like, explained that he did not wish to use his position for that and "For what he believes in" you know, what he believes in impedes the right to marry of entire groups of people, the gays. This isn't to say he doesn't deserve rights, but people have the right to protest against him. His funding is what causes the discrimination of a huge amount of people why should we give a shit that he resigned? [QUOTE=Laserbeams;44452206]Again, imagine that we're 30 years in the past and that he is not a homophobe, but an LGBT supporter himself. He is being pressured into leaving his job and the public hates him for supporting sexual minorities. Would that be okay?[/QUOTE] I'm sorry but, I actually kind of feel insulted that you'd actually compare bigots to LGBT supporters. That was [I]EXTREMELY [/I]ignorant of you. the difference is LGBT wishs to stop discrimination and anti gays wish for gays to have no rights (99% of the time, the right to marry, at least). LGBT tolerates people for who they are and anti-gays do not. But what makes anti-gays different? They have a choice to fund protests against gay rights, gays don't have a choice to be gay. Why should we tolerate people who chose to discriminate against people for being gay? that aside, they simply disagreed with him. Why can't they disagree with him?

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;44452206]Imagine that we're 30 years in the past and that he is not a homophobe, but an LGBT supporter himself. He is being pressured into leaving his job and the public hates him for supporting sexual minorities. Would that be okay?[/QUOTE] Yes. I think they're wrong but they're just voicing their disagreement.

The way I see it, if he isn't the type of person that can handle being under pressure like that, he wasn't really fit to be a CEO anyway.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;44452228]Yes. I think they're wrong but they're just voicing their disagreement.[/QUOTE] I think forcing people to leave their job is kind of wrong but I guess you're right after all

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;44452295]I think forcing people to leave their job is kind of wrong but I guess you're right after all[/QUOTE] oh you mean like forcing gays to not be allowed to marry? I'm sorry but, you're just being really ignorant about this. the fact that you actually think LGBT supporters and antigays are no different from one another doesn't help you at all.

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;44452295]I think forcing people to leave their job is kind of wrong but I guess you're right after all[/QUOTE] I don't see it as forcing. Firing would be forcing, but he could (maybe) challenge that.

[QUOTE=SuperHoboMan;44452253]The way I see it, if he isn't the type of person that can handle being under pressure like that, he wasn't really fit to be a CEO anyway.[/QUOTE] Yeah, he copped outta' there like a pussy.

[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] Who was it that "forced" him to resign? Regardless, this isn't an issue of free speech or personal beliefs. Free speech has consequences. When you are an employee or especially a CEO or high ranking officer in a company what you do and/or say is representative of that company. The U.S. military is a great example. Say some Soldier or Marine rapes a woman overseas. Is the headline, "Pvt. Snuffy rapes local national"? Nope. The headline is, "Marine rapes local national." The same thing applies here. Yeah, no one was actually raped but it illustrates the concept that when you are in a high profile position like that your words and actions are directly representative of the company you work for. And if they have negative repercussions it falls on you. Now, you can step down for the good of the company's image as he did (likely with heavy pressure from the majority shareholders/board) or you could just be Chick-Fil-A and say screw it, we hate gay people and equal rights and pander to those who will happily embrace bigotry with you. I think as a CEO he should have been more conscious about how his actions reflect on the company as a whole. I don't think it necessarily was necessary for him to resign but I do personally think it was distasteful. Instead of donating money to assist a bigoted fight against equal rights for people regardless of sexual orientation, he could have donated money to a charity that shared his views and principles but actually engaged in charitable works that actually benefit people somehow.

[QUOTE=Swilly;44450199]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] The only people he would have had to convince to keep his job was the employees at Mozilla that were unhappy with him. The internet's opinion is mostly irrelevant compared to the opinions of the people that were actually keeping him in the job in the first place. I didn't even mention the internet's opinion in my post.

I don't get why donating to this six years ago matters now. It was a very popular opinion six years ago and some of you here may have even supported it back then. Remember, six years ago GTA IV had come out and Obama had just been elected. If it was 2014 it'd be understandable, but this was awhile ago.

None of that makes it ok. And seriously it was legit only six years ago. We're in the 21st century, that shit is fucking dumb to cling to, who gives a fuck if it was a popular opinion or if some people think they've got a reason. Its fucking dumb.

[QUOTE=matt000024;44454931]I don't get why donating to this six years ago matters now. It was a very popular opinion six years ago and some of you here may have even supported it back then. Remember, six years ago GTA IV had come out and Obama had just been elected. If it was 2014 it'd be understandable, but this was awhile ago.[/QUOTE] To extrapolate; it was the 1950's, who the fuck would really be against jim crow laws? it's totally acceptable because other people think it's fine too

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44455183]To extrapolate; it was the 1950's, who the fuck would really be against jim crow laws? it's totally acceptable because other people think it's fine too[/QUOTE] This is like people getting super upset that Paula Deen said nigger years ago. Is it right? No. Was it in the past yes? Was it really very unexpected? No. Seeing as he hasn't donated to any of this shit as long as he's been CEO I don't see the problem. This is just being stirred up by people like whoever is running OK Cupid because they want to look progressive and acceptable. It is a lot like the rush by anti-gun protesters after Sandy Hook to get gun restrictions even if they are irrelevant. They want to tell the public "hey we did something" so they get more popularity.

Why are you trying to make excuses for bigotry?

I'm not, but I'm saying people shouldn't lose a job over an incident in their personal lives six years ago which at the time wasn't very taboo.

[QUOTE=matt000024;44455285]I'm not, but I'm saying people shouldn't lose a job over an incident in their personal lives six years ago which at the time wasn't very taboo.[/QUOTE] So someone does something bigoted, loses their job over it, and it's okay because it wasn't wrong at the time? do you know how weak of an argument that is? Do you really understand just how weak that is?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44455301]So someone does something bigoted, loses their job over it, and it's okay because it wasn't wrong at the time? do you know how weak of an argument that is? Do you really understand just how weak that is?[/QUOTE] Okay, so we should never forgive people over past incidents? So you've never had any opinion that you disagree with currently today?

[QUOTE=matt000024;44455312]Okay, so we should never forgive people over past incidents? So you've never had any opinion that you disagree with currently today?[/QUOTE] that's not what we're talking about we're talking about an action someone actually took. if I held slaves, and then 5 years later just simply didn't, does this make it okay? If I protested gay marriage for years and gave lots of money to it but just stopped one day, does that make it okay? No. Sure, I can grow, and learn, and change, but I committed those actions and shouldn't get to walk away from them like they didn't exist just because 5 or 10 years ago my actions of slavery were okay. It doesn't make those actions guilt free. Can you explain how it does or are you going to continue to state your argument without explanation?

[QUOTE=matt000024;44454931]I don't get why donating to this six years ago matters now. It was a very popular opinion six years ago and some of you here may have even supported it back then. Remember, six years ago GTA IV had come out and Obama had just been elected. If it was 2014 it'd be understandable, but this was awhile ago.[/QUOTE] "Remember, six years ago GTA IV had come out and Obama had just been elected. " holy shit dude, that's not a long time [B]at all[/B]. You must be like, 16, and 6 years must be this [B]huge[/B] number of years to you, except, it isn't. [QUOTE=matt000024;44455285]I'm not, but I'm saying people shouldn't lose a job over an incident in their personal lives six years ago which at the time wasn't very taboo.[/QUOTE] Six years ago it was still taboo, you act like it was 30 years ago. it doesn't make it magically OK and you aren't forgiven "Just because it happened 6 years ago", or "just because it was "Ok" back then", that means nothing. Unless, lets say a thief was rehabbed and isn't a thief no more, and has payed his dues, that's different, however. [QUOTE=matt000024;44455312]Okay, so we should never forgive people over past incidents? So you've never had any opinion that you disagree with currently today?[/QUOTE] You know, he could have explained that "That was the past, I'm not going to use this company to do that" and IMHo it'd be perfectly find except he didn't oh and he funded money for peoples rights to be taken away lets not forget that

[QUOTE=matt000024;44455312]Okay, so we should never forgive people over past incidents? So you've never had any opinion that you disagree with currently today?[/QUOTE] I used to be against gays. I didn't pay a thousand dollars to strip them of rights they should have when I was against them.