Susan's Place Transgender Resources

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/mozilla-ceo-resigns-calif-gay-marriage-ban-campaign/story?id=23181711

Pressure from gay rights supporters caused the CEO to step down just days after he was promoted.

I think this is a powerful sign that LGBT equality is becoming even more mainstream.  I give it a couple more years before gay marriage is legal.

He was forced out of office for voting the wrong way.
What has become of this country? What has become of the 'tolerant' left? What happened to 'no h8'?
So disappointed right now.

Quote from: ZoeM on April 04, 2014, 07:05:31 AM
He was forced out of office for voting the wrong way.
What has become of this country? What has become of the 'tolerant' left? What happened to 'no h8'?
So disappointed right now.

Please tell me you're not serious. If he donated money to a white supremacist group, would you still be all for him?

I, being part of the evil left, do not tolerate bigotry. I'm sorry, I would be classified as a self-hater at that point. This is the 21st century.  People need to realize that we won't tolerate iron age mandates anymore.  Why?  Because they demonize, degrade, and dehumanize adults for doing perfectly natural things with consenting adults which harms no one.

If you don't see this as a victory for trans people and the LGBT community as a whole, we must be reading different articles.

This is bigotry. He opposed gay marriage - so what? That's his religious belief. It's no less valid than anyone else's.
But apparently in today's world if you hold the wrong belief you're evil incarnate, no better than a racist. And tolerating you is off the table - you'll be lucky to keep a job as a normal employee, let alone anything of leadership.

Freedom of religion just got a lot less free, Hideyoshi - and people who ought to know better are celebrating its demise.

You're actually proposing that the Bible should not be tolerated in modern society. And you wonder why they oppose us.

I'm so staying out of this.  :icon_paper:

Quote from: ZoeM on April 04, 2014, 08:16:02 AM
This is bigotry. He opposed gay marriage - so what? That's his religious belief. It's no less valid than anyone else's.
But apparently in today's world if you hold the wrong belief you're evil incarnate, no better than a racist. And tolerating you is off the table - you'll be lucky to keep a job as a normal employee, let alone anything of leadership.

Freedom of religion just got a lot less free, Hideyoshi - and people who ought to know better are celebrating its demise.

You're actually proposing that the Bible should not be tolerated in modern society. And you wonder why they oppose us.

I don't wonder why 'they' oppose you.  It is because religion has had a stranglehold on this country since its inception, and people are sick of it intruding in their lives when they don't subscribe to it.  It's not necessarily that the bible shouldn't be tolerated, it's that the bible or ANY religious belief should have absolutely NO BEARING in legislation (see 1st amendment to the Constitution)

You have no less freedom of religion. But if you choose to assert a bigoted belief, and actively participate in the effort to take away the rights of others, damn right you should suffer the consequences.

You can hold such beliefs privately, but once you bring them out in the open, you can and SHOULD be criticized.  That's how freedom of speech works.  You can say whatever you want (within bounds of reason), but you also put yourself out there to be critiqued.  What's the old saying?  Better to be silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt?

Much like a science teacher in a public school can believe in a 6,000 year old earth and not accept evolution, but once they start trying to teach that nonsense to kids, they should be held accountable for spreading falsehoods. 

It is not your right to decide what is true or false, Hideyoshi. Outside your own box of opinions your views mean no more than anyone else's, and I find it alarming indeed that you're so willing to impose them on those you and others so often accuse of trying to impose their views on you.

We cannot go from protesting the moral code imposed upon us by others, to imposing our moral code on them. We cannot go from advocating tolerance to advocating intolerance simply because we're winning. That's not an act of tolerance. It's an act of a destructive conqueror trying to wipe out their rivals.


Look at the situation. See what language is being used, and by whom. Who's saying 'we cannot tolerate them'? Who's advocating 'separate and inequal' now? Who's telling whom to get back in the closet? And why?

Quote from: ZoeM on April 04, 2014, 08:35:56 AM
It is not your right to decide what is true or false, Hideyoshi. Outside your own box of opinions your views mean no more than anyone else's, and I find it alarming indeed that you're so willing to impose them on those you and others so often accuse of trying to impose their views on you.

We cannot go from protesting the moral code imposed upon us by others, to imposing our moral code on them. We cannot go from advocating tolerance to advocating intolerance simply because we're winning. That's not an act of tolerance. It's an act of a destructive conqueror trying to wipe out their rivals.


Look at the situation. See what language is being used, and by whom. Who's saying 'we cannot tolerate them'? Who's advocating 'separate and inequal' now? Who's telling whom to get back in the closet? And why?

What is true is what is demonstrable. This country was founded in an attempt to make a secular nation.  Religion has, throughout history, sought to circumvent laws and exploit loopholes to poison the political system with its beliefs which are not grounded in reason and are defended against all reason.

What I'm saying isn't about imposing anything.  It's about holding TRUE to the first amendment to the Constitution.  Three parts of it which pertain to this situation are:

1. Establishment clause
2. Free exercise clause
3. Free speech

Tell me where I'm trying to impose anything on anyone that isn't in accordance to those three things.

Religion is SUPER GOOD at playing the victim and acting as if it's being oppressed.  It's sort of a 'stop oppressing my right to oppress others' deal. You can practice your religion, pray to whatever you want, believe whatever you want, but keep it out of public schools and the law, and everything is dandy (see establishment/free exercise clause)

You can say whatever you want (except understood things like fire in a crowded theater), but you must be ready to face to consequences.  If I had a religion with mandated that 'On each new moon, thou shalt say "eat s*** and die" to thy employer,' and I get fired, should I cry that I'm being oppressed?

Quote from: ZoeM on April 04, 2014, 08:35:56 AM
It is not your right to decide what is true or false, Hideyoshi. Outside your own box of opinions your views mean no more than anyone else's, and I find it alarming indeed that you're so willing to impose them on those you and others so often accuse of trying to impose their views on you.

Like Brendan Eich was willing to donate money to impose his opinions on others?  Hideyoshi isn't trying to deny him a basic human right - to have a relationship legally recognised should be the right of ANY couple.  Yes people should always be entitled to an opinion, but if the outcome of that opinion being implemented is pain or suffering for anyone it should be dismissed, no matter the source.

Why should outdated opinions be tolerated in modern day society?  Because an old book of unknown provenance said so?

People should not deny others the same rights that they have purely on religious beliefs, end of story.

I think some people are missing the point, here.  This isn't about religion, or free speech, or morality, or oppressing people.  This is about plain old CAPITALISM.  You know, that agency which has been both glorified and vilified over the decades in discussions about America.

Businesses are in the business of making money.  If something is not making you money, then it is not good for business.  When one of the most prominent figures in your company takes up an unpopular political stance, he will get public backlash.  That's just the way things are.  People will boycott.  People will protest.  It's not good for BUSINESS.

In an ideal world, you could say whatever you want without the fear of it affecting your job in any way.  In an ideal world, the workplace and private life would never clash.  We don't live in an ideal world.  If you donate money to an unpopular political cause, you should expect it to have consequences to your life.  Freedom of speech doesn't mean that you have freedom FROM speech.  He said that he wanted to support Proposition 8 by donating money to the cause.  Other people said, "I don't know if I want to support a company that makes this guy money."

Freedom of speech doesn't mean that you can do stupid stuff without consequences.  If I wanted to donate money to a group that believes that black people are inferior and should still be slaves, then people would be right in not wanting to support a business that makes me money.  Freedom of speech means that you are free to be stupid, ignorant, arrogant, self-righteous, et cetera.  But, it doesn't mean that you are free from the CONSEQUENCES of being stupid, ignorant, arrogant, or self-righteous.  We live in a world where you can lose you job from doing or supporting unpopular things.  That probably won't change any time soon.

All your arguments are based on the premise that Eich was wrong and that gay marriage is a right. You've judged Eich on your standards and found him guilty, not on any sort of widely valid criterion.

Let me restate. Whether or not gay marriage is a right is a matter of opinion. You can't use it as an inalienable truth, on any level outside your own personal beliefs.

What you're doing is taking the position that you've already won, that you have the only good and right viewpoint, and arguing from there.

I'm also seeing a severe amount of disrespect and disregard for your opponents. Not only do you disagree, you disagree with their right to exist on the same level as your own beliefs, based solely on your own beliefs. You've moved beyond tolerance and discourse and straight into fanatical 'burn the heretic' mode. And you don't seem to even see what's happened. You're ostracizing people for having religious beliefs - and celebrating when you destroy their lives and/or livelihoods. It can't be justified, and I'm amazed to see so many people trying. Especially when those same people probably took the opposite position during the World Vision fiasco.

We truly are no better than the intolerant '50s stereotype culture we love to oppose. Worse, even - for we went straight from being oppressed to oppressing ourselves, without even stopping to wonder why.

Quote from: ZoeM on April 04, 2014, 09:18:20 AM
All your arguments are based on the premise that Eich was wrong and that gay marriage is a right. You've judged Eich on your standards and found him guilty, not on any sort of widely valid criterion. 

Name one nonreligious reason as to why gay marriage should be illegal. 

QuoteLet me restate. Whether or not gay marriage is a right is a matter of opinion. You can't use it as an inalienable truth, on any level outside your own personal beliefs.

What is true is demonstrable.  It is a demonstrable fact that gay marriage harms no one.  It only acts to benefit people and society as a whole. If you want to use the notion that because you think it's icky and that is the reason why it harms you, I will find that reason childish and unimpressive.

QuoteWhat you're doing is taking the position that you've already won, that you have the only good and right viewpoint, and arguing from there.

Justice prevails.  You are on the wrong side of history.  People will look back on those who oppose gay marriage (which affects every non/pre-op transgendered person who desires the same sex) the same way they look back on those who opposed the rights of women, interracial marriage, etc.  And the same people who opposed those things back then are the kind of people who oppose gay rights now.  Backwards, religion-touting people who want to force their iron age mandates on others, whether they like it or not.

Quote from: ZoeM on April 04, 2014, 09:18:20 AM
All your arguments are based on the premise that Eich was wrong and that gay marriage is a right.

Gay marriage is already a right over here in the UK, why shouldn't it be in the US?

As long as it doesn't interfere with other peoples lives then people can have whatever opinions they want.  As soon as it infringes on others then that opinion needs to be held up for scrutiny, otherwise scenarios like <Text redacted due to not wanting to invoke Godwins Law>

Eich's rights weren't impinged by anyone, and his First Amendment protections weren't violated. The market decided they did not support his ideology, and the market reacted. The free market economy exercised it's freedom of speech to say that Eich's views did not reflect theirs.

It's all very simple, even a Christian should get it  >:-)

Quote from: ZoeM on April 04, 2014, 08:16:02 AM
This is bigotry. He opposed gay marriage - so what? That's his religious belief. It's no less valid than anyone else's.
But apparently in today's world if you hold the wrong belief you're evil incarnate, no better than a racist. And tolerating you is off the table - you'll be lucky to keep a job as a normal employee, let alone anything of leadership.

Freedom of religion just got a lot less free, Hideyoshi - and people who ought to know better are celebrating its demise.

You're actually proposing that the Bible should not be tolerated in modern society. And you wonder why they oppose us.

No he's a hypocrite and a lair. He has stated he supports equality, but money talks, and it's not like he's proven anything other than his money contribution. Weird how these cases always -are- about money being donated to hate. I don't much care what people say, I care what they do, and he has a bad record with no reconciliation.

Quote from: Missy~rmdlm on April 04, 2014, 10:40:57 AM
No he's a hypocrite and a lair. He has stated he supports equality, but money talks, and it's not like he's proven anything other than his money contribution. Weird how these cases always -are- about money being donated to hate. I don't much care what people say, I care what they do, and he has a bad record with no reconciliation.

It really is all about the money

Which brings me to another point... Hobby Lobby.

Opposes contraception because it's against their religious views to avoid paying for services for its employees // Invests in a pharmaceutical company that manufactures 'abortion pills'

He demonstrated he is a tool and they demonstrated they didn't want a tool in command.  Simple no?

Quote from: ZoeM on April 04, 2014, 09:18:20 AM
All your arguments are based on the premise that Eich was wrong and that gay marriage is a right. You've judged Eich on your standards and found him guilty, not on any sort of widely valid criterion.

Let me restate. Whether or not gay marriage is a right is a matter of opinion. You can't use it as an inalienable truth, on any level outside your own personal beliefs.

What you're doing is taking the position that you've already won, that you have the only good and right viewpoint, and arguing from there.

I'm also seeing a severe amount of disrespect and disregard for your opponents. Not only do you disagree, you disagree with their right to exist on the same level as your own beliefs, based solely on your own beliefs. You've moved beyond tolerance and discourse and straight into fanatical 'burn the heretic' mode. And you don't seem to even see what's happened. You're ostracizing people for having religious beliefs - and celebrating when you destroy their lives and/or livelihoods. It can't be justified, and I'm amazed to see so many people trying. Especially when those same people probably took the opposite position during the World Vision fiasco.

We truly are no better than the intolerant '50s stereotype culture we love to oppose. Worse, even - for we went straight from being oppressed to oppressing ourselves, without even stopping to wonder why.

I'm curious, you seem to be coming at this from a philosophical standpoint that there is, perhaps, an objective viewpoint that people could take, outside of their own subjective viewpoint. Have you ever actually known that to be the case though?

Whether you're influenced by religiosity, or secularism, your viewpoint is not objective, and it's dangerous to assume it is, as that would lead you to believe your opinion trumps other peoples because they can't be objective, whilst you can. Objectivity doesn't really exist outside of uninterpreted scientific datasets. There are those here that believe that he is wrong based on their pre-existing beliefs, whether secular or religious, and there are those that would suggest he is right, but how could anybody judge his viewpoint from an objective, 'global morality' or what 'truly' is right or wrong, when by their very definition, right and wrong are subjective?

He was facing mounting pressure from inside the Mozilla organisation with several prominent employees publicly calling for him to step down. Aside from the bad press he has generated for Mozilla in recent days, his views were at odds with the organisation's image of openness and inclusiveness.

I think it's a shame that he was removed honestly. Regardless of his bigoted views, he has been a major figure in the development of the World Wide Web. His work has paved the way for the development of a more client-interactive, user-friendly WWW and the modern developments with HTML5. He was more than qualified for the position, and should be allowed to hold personal views without them reflecting on his corporation. Sadly the CEO of a company is very much their public face, and so I can understand why he chose (or was heavily encouraged) to resign.

Quote from: CaitlinH on April 05, 2014, 08:13:40 PM
He was facing mounting pressure from inside the Mozilla organisation with several prominent employees publicly calling for him to step down. Aside from the bad press he has generated for Mozilla in recent days, his views were at odds with the organisation's image of openness and inclusiveness.

This is the way I see it.

Simply put - Mozilla is not a charity or a political organization - it is a business, and business leadership is all about growing the business and increasing value for the shareholders - period. That's it, nothing else. When you exist at the C-level of a company you are playing with the big boys; it is a very alpha-male dominated space. There is no room for anyone's personal feelings; if you get fired it's just business. If you have questionable things in your history that might affect the business those things most likely will come back and bite you at some point.

This particular CEO had this donation in his history, and it flew in the face of one of the stated cornerstone values of the company - inclusiveness. This created a trust issue and uncertainty with some board members and with some outside organizations, and that's where the pressure on him came from to step down. When a CEO causes controversy for his business in this way he's on borrowed time.

It's a business decision. They need a CEO that everyone trusts, especially the board of directors. He's gone now and some other company will likely scoop him right up and he'll be fine. Unlike the rest of us those guys always manage to bounce right back from getting fired.

Quote from: kira21 ♡♡♡ on April 05, 2014, 07:00:06 PM
He demonstrated he is a tool and they demonstrated they didn't want a tool in command.  Simple no?

Amen, Sister :)

It's the price you pay for outmoded line of thinking.


/shrug

Free speech in action.

-AM

I should know better, but I'm gonna wade in here. And Zoe could use some back up for an unpopular stand.

Quote from: kira21 ♡♡♡ on April 05, 2014, 07:00:06 PM
He demonstrated he is a tool and they demonstrated they didn't want a tool in command.  Simple no?

No, the corporate board caved into intimidation.

Quote from: Kaylee link=topic=162535.msg139552
7#msg1395527 date=1396620135
Hideyoshi isn't trying to deny him a basic human right -

Freedom of expression, freedom of religion, pursuit of happiness...

Quote
to have a relationship legally recognised should be the right of ANY couple.  Yes people should always be entitled to an opinion, but if the outcome of that opinion being implemented is pain or suffering for anyone it should be dismissed, no matter the source.

And....  the thought police have spoken.

Quote
Why should outdated opinions be tolerated in modern day society?  Because an old book of unknown provenance said so?

For the same reasons yours are.

Quote
People should not deny others the same rights that they have purely on religious beliefs, end of story.

Instead they should be denied if they have politically incorrect opinions and attempt express them?

Quote from: Hideyoshi on April 04, 2014, 08:50:46 AM
Religion has, throughout history, sought to circumvent laws and exploit loopholes to poison the political system with its beliefs which are not grounded in reason and are defended against all reason.

Wrong.  PEOPLE have manipulated political systems, as often with reason and logic as with religious belief.

Take care while you're sharpening that axe you don't put your eye out...

Quote
1. Establishment clause
2. Free exercise clause
3. Free speech

Tell me where I'm trying to impose anything on anyone that isn't in accordance to those three things.

You are advocating denying them to someone you disagree with. You really cant see the ironic hypocrisy here?

Quote
You can say whatever you want (except understood things like fire in a crowded theater), but you must be ready to face to consequences.  If I had a religion with mandated that 'On each new moon, thou shalt say "eat s*** and die" to thy employer,' and I get fired, should I cry that I'm being oppressed?

Yes. Should you get fired because you support LGBT rights or because you say you like a certain color?  Do you see the slippery slope of tyranny you are standing on?

As one of the biggest lgbt supporters and one of the biggest opponents of prop-8, I don't believe he should have stepped down over this..  You can dislike him as a person and you can even boycott Mozilla products if you are against his employment, but I find the idea of firing him to be a tad over the line (and that's essentially what happened).  If it was effecting their business or his views were creating problems in the work place or with their products, I could understand, but this is just really censorship of someone that backed a law that was being voted on.  Speaking up on a personal level and boycotting a product is your personal prerogative, but this kind of just feels like this really should have been a non-issue.  Had he written anti-gay propaganda in the firefox browser or used his position for a political soapbox, then it could be justified, but as it stands nothing of the sort was happening and people just wanted to marginalize someone for their beliefs rather than their own personal conduct.  I can't be in favor of that no matter how much I support the lgbt community and think it was dumb for him to support prop 8.

Quote from: JamesG on April 29, 2014, 07:56:57 PM
Wrong.  PEOPLE have manipulated political systems, as often with reason and logic as with religious belief.

Take care while you're sharpening that axe you don't put your eye out...

The whole 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' routine, huh.  Religion makes it a hell of a lot easier.

QuoteYou are advocating denying them to someone you disagree with. You really cant see the ironic hypocrisy here?

I am denying NO ONE their constitutional rights. It's so funny, conservative Christians have this intense persecution complex. I'm so sorry that you think that me enjoying seeing someone lose their job because they are a backwards, bigoted a-hole somehow infringes on their constitutional rights.

QuoteYes. Should you get fired because you support LGBT rights or because you say you like a certain color?  Do you see the slippery slope of tyranny you are standing on?

It's not a slippery slope.  And it's not tyranny because it's not the goveRNMENT DOING IT. What happened to the CEO was the definition of the free market, which baffles me as to why conservatives hate what happened so much.  The CEO said something indefensibly stupid. Mozilla saw that him voicing these things may hurt their bottom line because the populace is becoming more and more accepting of LGBT people. Public pressure forced the hand of the business and the CEO. The DEFINITION of the free market.

Quote from: JamesG on April 29, 2014, 07:41:44 PM
Freedom of expression, freedom of religion, pursuit of happiness...

I am NOT trying to take the rights away from ANYONE. Is Mozilla owned by the government? Did the government call up Mozilla and tell them to fire the guy? No? Then nobody's rights were infringed. You strike me as the same kind of person who would scream about 'freedom of speech' on places like YouTube and Facebook. Private companies firing or pressuring the resignation of employees for detrimental business decisions or censoring speech that it doesn't agree with is not infringing on anybody's rights.

The Government is not the only entity that infringes upon the freedoms and rights of other ya know.

Do you think it is right if a company or group fires or otherwise sanctions someone for stating something you agree with, like if they were fired for supporting LGBT rights?  That is the exact mirror image of what happened to Eich. Neither is "right".

What you are missing is that it wasn't *what* was said or if it was "right", "wrong", or any other subjective measure. But the fact that someone suffered because they exercised their freedom of expression.  If you can't see or admit that then...  this discussion is pointless because at best you have an immature appreciation of "freedom".

 :police:

Please be aware of ToS in this discussion.

I encourage healthy debate, but once people start throwing insults at each other I will step in.

Just argue your point of view please.

Thank You

Cindy

Quote from: JamesG on May 09, 2014, 07:55:36 AM
But the fact that someone suffered because they exercised their freedom of expression.

Freedom of expression has limits in the work place. Any such expression that is likely to harm the business will NOT be tolerated, especially at the C level of a company. This guy's "expression" was beginning to bring unwanted attention to Mozilla. Bad move for him especially as the CEO. It was simply a business decision; nothing more and nothing less.

Quote from: JamesG on May 09, 2014, 07:55:36 AM
The Government is not the only entity that infringes upon the freedoms and rights of other ya know.

Do you think it is right if a company or group fires or otherwise sanctions someone for stating something you agree with, like if they were fired for supporting LGBT rights?  That is the exact mirror image of what happened to Eich. Neither is "right".

What you are missing is that it wasn't *what* was said or if it was "right", "wrong", or any other subjective measure. But the fact that someone suffered because they exercised their freedom of expression.  If you can't see or admit that then...  this discussion is pointless because at best you have an immature appreciation of "freedom".

How many times do I have to repeat this?

You have the absolute freedom to say whatever you want within reason (no fire in crowded theater, kill people, etc), but you are NOT immune to criticism nor the consequences of your expression.

As far as whether I think it would be right or wrong for a company to sanction someone who says something I agree with, by definition I would think it was wrong of the company. Therefore, I wouldn't do business with that company or endorse their products. I will never use the firefox browser ever again. It's the free market. Why conservatives hate it so is beyond me.

Ummm... Eich got canned. Mozilla is now perfectly Politically Correct again. Firefox is a really good browser (I'm using it right now  ;D ).

Perhaps you meant you won't use "OKcupid.com" its parent company or support the LGBT groups that launched the campaign to suppress his freedom to exercise his Constitutional rights?  I can see how this can be confusing.

See my reply to Eva:

Quote from: Eva Marie on May 09, 2014, 08:33:08 AM
It was simply a business decision; nothing more and nothing less.

No it wasn't. He didn't make any comments as CEO or even as a representative of the company, did it as a private citizen.  In no way would this impact the operation of Mozilla or its business interest.   It was activism, intimidation by a small group to coerce an action.  It was just as bigoted and unfair as doing the same to a minority or unpopular group. It just happened to be on the other foot.   

Again I ask;  Would you be cool with this if Eich were a transgender person or even just gave charitable donations to transgendered support or political groups and he was being boycotted and forced to resign because of it?

The only way can say yes is if you are letting your bias overrule your logical appreciation for the Rule of Law.  Be careful because that cuts both ways...

Quote from: JamesG on May 09, 2014, 08:59:55 AM
Ummm... Eich got canned. Mozilla is now perfectly Politically Correct again. Firefox is a really good browser (I'm using it right now  ;D ).

See my reply to Eva:
No it wasn't. He didn't make any comments as CEO or even as a representative of the company, did it as a private citizen.  In no way would this impact the operation of Mozilla or its business interest.   It was activism, intimidation by a small group to coerce an action.  It was just as bigoted and unfair as doing the same to a minority or unpopular group. It just happened to be on the other foot.   

Again I ask;  Would you be cool with this if Eich were a transgender person or even just gave charitable donations to transgendered support or political groups and he was being boycotted and forced to resign because of it?

The only way can say yes is if you are letting your bias overrule your logical appreciation for the Rule of Law.  Be careful because that cuts both ways...

Get one thing straight, which is that the CEO stepped down, he didn't get 'canned.' He stepped down due to the immense pressure from the public that his bigotry got him. Free market.

And if Eich were transgendered and didn't have the retarded views he has, I would support him. As the times are now, the only people who would care to boycott a company because the head is transgender are conservatives, and their ilk are dying off with age. The US is embracing a more and more tolerant and accepting mindset, as far as LGBT rights are concerned.  If he was forced to resign (which I wouldn't see happening in this evolving age), it would be a shame, because he would have been forced to resign over something as fundamental as gender expression, as opposed to being a bigoted ignoramus.

QuotePerhaps you meant you won't use "OKcupid.com" its parent company or support the LGBT groups that launched the campaign to suppress his freedom to exercise his Constitutional rights?  I can see how this can be confusing.

I should just stop responding to this 'constitutional rights being infringed upon because somebody got flak for saying bigoted nonsense' rhetoric.

What OKcupid did was assert their position of equality for all while stating that Mozilla has a bigoted CEO. Nobody's rights were being suppressed. The CEO is more than free to do and say whatever he wants within the law. But he is not immune from the backlash his actions can bring. The free market prevailed. Why do you loathe it so much?

Quote from: JamesG on May 09, 2014, 07:55:36 AM
The Government is not the only entity that infringes upon the freedoms and rights of other ya know.

Oh, I missed this little gem.

Yeah, religions (oh I'm sorry, the people pretending to speak for their gods under the shield of their religions) do it too, which proves my previous point I made earlier in the thread:

Quote from: Hideyoshi on April 04, 2014, 08:50:46 AM
Religion has, throughout history, sought to circumvent laws and exploit loopholes to poison the political system with its beliefs which are not grounded in reason and are defended against all reason.

Seriously?  How could you write that without at least a half dozen smilies...

Anyway I give up. You are either purposefully evading or so completely partisan the "Bigger Picture" that is at issue here, so talking to you about it is a waste of time.

Quote from: Cindy on May 09, 2014, 08:03:21 AM
Please be aware of ToS in this discussion.
I encourage healthy debate, but once people start throwing insults at each other I will step in.

Is throwing the "C word" considered an insult on Susan's?   ;D

Just the facts.

1) Tyranny, by definition, is something ONLY a government can perpetrate.

2) No one's rights were impinged. You have the right to say, think, and do whatever you want as long as it is legal - but you do NOT have the right to be sheltered from any harm that may come to you by saying, thinking or doing whatever it is you choose to do. THAT is the meaning of the First Amendment.

3) The Free Market spoke, and he stepped down, likely in a situation where the board asked for his resignation as opposed to firing him, but that is a RESULT of him exercising his First Amendment rights when neither the company he represented, or the market, supported his viewpoint.

Freedom of Speech does not equal Freedom of Repercussion.

Quote from: JamesG on May 09, 2014, 02:23:32 PM
Seriously?  How could you write that without at least a half dozen smilies...

Anyway I give up. You are either purposefully evading or so completely partisan the "Bigger Picture" that is at issue here, so talking to you about it is a waste of time.

Bigger picture? I have no interest in slippery slope fallacies.

That is because you are naive.

Quote from: KelsieJ on May 09, 2014, 03:53:03 PM
Just the facts.
...
Freedom of Speech does not equal Freedom of Repercussion.

You do not have freedom of speech (or anything else) if you fear repercussion.  You'd think that transfolk would understand that FACT...

Quote from: JamesG on May 09, 2014, 08:32:31 PM
That is because you are naive.

No, because I don't foresee us being sent to internment camps by 'Tyrant' In Chief Obama because the public rallied against a bigoted CEO that one time.

QuoteYou do not have freedom of speech (or anything else) if you fear repercussion.  You'd think that transfolk would understand that FACT...

This is the most inane thing you have said so far. 

Let's say I'm a CEO of a large business. People find out I donated $10,000 to the KKK. Are people justified in boycotting my business because of my racist views? Or are they suppressing my rights by not buying from me anymore? Is the business infringing on my rights in trying to convince me to resign because my racist views can and will hurt the bottom line? Are other companies taking away my constitutional rights by letting people know how much of a backwards racist I am?

People SHOULD be afraid of repercussions, and should NOT get away with saying racist or bigoted things.

Time to cool off folks...