mark of the beast. Mozilla CEO fired over gay marriage stance

[Vandalshandle]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pojL_35QlSI]Dixie Chicks - Not Ready To Make Nice - YouTube[/ame]

 

[theDoctorisIn]

[MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]
So, if a business felt that a pro-homosexual marriage employee had a negative affect on it's image would you be comfortable with said company firing said employee?
Or is this a one way street?

By the way, the CEO didn't make that donation under the companies name, he did it under his own name.

When you donate to a political campaign, you have to list your employer.

So all political donations are at least in part "under the companies name".

That's what it means when you see claims that "Company X donated to Candidate Y" - it means that employees of company X donated to Candidate Y. Companies themselves can't make political donations, only individuals.

I've made political donations and never listed the company I work for. It's not the companies business, it's not the governments business and it's not any other persons business what political organizations I donate to.

If you made that contribution directly to a candidate's 527, they would have been forced to return it without your employers name. The single most annoying campaign job I've ever done was trying to track down donors and get missing information from them.

One of the things the company I work for does, is that it encourages participation in the community, charity, both monetary and time. It's even part of our annual performance appraisal to have positive community involvement in some manner. The team I work on decided that they wanted to do a time donation to The Salvation Army. I personally have some disagreements with some past behavior of The Salvation Army, so I am the only member of the team that is not participating in that event. I won't get "encouraged" to resign my job because of my opinions about that organization and my refusal to be involved with them and the "team activity".

And you're not the public face of a multi-billion dollar publicly traded company, so it's pretty unlikely that they would care.

 

[Pheonixops]

An opinion other than the militant homo stance is apparently enough to ruin your career. There will be no other opinion tolerated by the militant homo brigade.

If you aren't willing to shut up and let the fags define life in this country you better look out.

So this is a case of a private corporation firing someone or forcing them to resign because of their views. If you don't like it, maybe you and others can exercise your First Amendment rights and protest as well as boycott Firefox. What's the big deal?

So you're okay with conservative corporations firing employees who donate to liberal causes? Thanks for clearing that up.

LOL, do you think that was a "got ya!" do you? I'm pretty consistent; I don't care about the ideology, I just call it as I see it. So the answer to your question is......................a big YES.

 

[JoeB131]

On Thursday, Mozilla announced on its website that Eich would be stepping down after a $1,000 contribution that he made in support of California’s anti-gay marriage Proposition 8 ballot initiative in 2008 generated outrage.

Did someone repeal the First Amendment?

Not a first Amendment issue.

Just like it wouldn't be a first amendment issue if I got fired after calling my boss a "Huge Douchebag".

Mozilla made a business decision that the amount of business they would lose if websites didn't accept their software was worth the loss if htey kept Eich at the helm.

You wingnuts have no problem with "it's only business' when it's working folks getting the shaft.

Oh, noes, "It's Only Business" just claimed a homophobic rich guy.

 

[buckeye45_73]

I opposed gay marriage
I belong to a religion that opposes gay marriage
so what....ya going to ban me

Mozilla CEO out over opposition to gay marriage | The Daily Caller

No, we're just going to ban your stupid religion from being able to dictate our nation's laws.

We did this a couple of years ago. You didn't hear?
Bill of Rights Transcript Text

really, so your religion or lack thereof gets to determine it?]

So ritual killings, if ok by the society are ok by you?

 

[OKTexas]

When you donate to a political campaign, you have to list your employer.

So all political donations are at least in part "under the companies name".

That's what it means when you see claims that "Company X donated to Candidate Y" - it means that employees of company X donated to Candidate Y. Companies themselves can't make political donations, only individuals.

Actually at the time Prop 8 was being debated organizations on either side were not required to disclose donors. The fags sued and a judge forced disclosure, but he protected donors to neo-Nazi, or communist groups from the same disclosure. Seems that would be a 14th Amendment violation by the court but the fags got the list.

Link?

The disclosure rules come from what sort of organization the donations went to, not the issue they were working on.

Seems what I heard on talk show was wrong, the state actually released the list to the NY Times, donations greater than 100 bucks on a prop must be disclosed to the state.

From the link:

The Prop 8 donor list now functions essentially as a blacklist, and Eich isn’t its first or only victim. Remember, people who gave to Prop 8 have been harassed and had their property vandalized;

How did people find out that Mozilla?s CEO donated to support Prop 8? « Hot Air

Personally I think Eich should now sue the state of CA for a billion bucks or so, no one can claim he wasn't harmed by the states actions.

Eich was a cofounder of Mozilla and was the primary developer of Java script, I think the fags should refuse to use anything using Java, as they say, in for a penny, in for a pound.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Actually at the time Prop 8 was being debated organizations on either side were not required to disclose donors. The fags sued and a judge forced disclosure, but he protected donors to neo-Nazi, or communist groups from the same disclosure. Seems that would be a 14th Amendment violation by the court but the fags got the list.

Link?

The disclosure rules come from what sort of organization the donations went to, not the issue they were working on.

Seems what I heard on talk show was wrong, the state actually released the list to the NY Times, donations greater than 100 bucks on a prop must be disclosed to the state.

From the link:

The Prop 8 donor list now functions essentially as a blacklist, and Eich isn’t its first or only victim. Remember, people who gave to Prop 8 have been harassed and had their property vandalized;

How did people find out that Mozilla?s CEO donated to support Prop 8? « Hot Air

Personally I think Eich should now sue the state of CA for a billion bucks or so, no one can claim he wasn't harmed by the states actions.

Eich was a cofounder of Mozilla and was the primary developer of Java script, I think the fags should refuse to use anything using Java, as they say, in for a penny, in for a pound.

On what basis do you think he should sue?

He knew the law when he donated the money, or if he didn't, that's on him.

 

[Darkwind]

It is quite comical when the defenders of bigots scream about the rights of someone(like the head of a company.CEO) to spew hatred upon on group of individuals.
But if a worker or union member tries to defend themselves in a legal manner, the same group that defends the bigot, screams at the top of their lungs that it is the companies right to fire them.

I opposed gay marriage
I belong to a religion that opposes gay marriage
so what....ya going to ban me

Mozilla CEO out over opposition to gay marriage | The Daily Caller

Where did he 'spew' hatred?

 

[OKTexas]

Link?

The disclosure rules come from what sort of organization the donations went to, not the issue they were working on.

Seems what I heard on talk show was wrong, the state actually released the list to the NY Times, donations greater than 100 bucks on a prop must be disclosed to the state.

From the link:

The Prop 8 donor list now functions essentially as a blacklist, and Eich isn’t its first or only victim. Remember, people who gave to Prop 8 have been harassed and had their property vandalized;

How did people find out that Mozilla?s CEO donated to support Prop 8? « Hot Air

Personally I think Eich should now sue the state of CA for a billion bucks or so, no one can claim he wasn't harmed by the states actions.

Eich was a cofounder of Mozilla and was the primary developer of Java script, I think the fags should refuse to use anything using Java, as they say, in for a penny, in for a pound.

On what basis do you think he should sue?

He knew the law when he donated the money, or if he didn't, that's on him.

On what grounds, how about state disclosure laws put citizens at risk physically and financially. SCOTUS just ruled on a TX case that the state didn't have to disclose the maker of a drug being used in an execution to the defense because a previous supplier had received death threats. No one that participates in the political process should have to fear retribution, not a janitor or a CEO.

You do realize that Eich had the same views on same sex marriage as the mulatto messiah at the time he wrote his check. No one was calling for maobamas head, hypocritical, you bet.

 

[Pheonixops]

It id good that one of the superstars in the tech world can't have an opinion that is contrary to yours?

By the way, when are you going to demand the resignation of that asshole gay hating politician who said, "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage?"

People have their First Amendment right to demand his resignation and to protest against him. He also has his First Amendment right to speak his mind. What's the problem?

The problem is what it says about our society when mobs form to prevent others from exercising their rights and having differing political opinions.

In my opinion, it says that we have a free society. There's no law prohibiting people who support a particular person or issue, from organizing their own "mobs" to support the person the other "mobs" are protesting against. That's Our basic First Amendment rights.

 

[Pheonixops]

It id good that one of the superstars in the tech world can't have an opinion that is contrary to yours?

By the way, when are you going to demand the resignation of that asshole gay hating politician who said, "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage?"

People have their First Amendment right to demand his resignation and to protest against him. He also has his First Amendment right to speak his mind. What's the problem?

And he has the Constitutional right to be out of a job!

What do you mean?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

@JakeStarkey
So, if a business felt that a pro-homosexual marriage employee had a negative affect on it's image would you be comfortable with said company firing said employee?
Or is this a one way street?

By the way, the CEO didn't make that donation under the companies name, he did it under his own name.

When you donate to a political campaign, you have to list your employer.

So all political donations are at least in part "under the companies name".

That's what it means when you see claims that "Company X donated to Candidate Y" - it means that employees of company X donated to Candidate Y. Companies themselves can't make political donations, only individuals.

I've made political donations and never listed the company I work for. It's not the companies business, it's not the governments business and it's not any other persons business what political organizations I donate to.

One of the things the company I work for does, is that it encourages participation in the community, charity, both monetary and time. It's even part of our annual performance appraisal to have positive community involvement in some manner. The team I work on decided that they wanted to do a time donation to The Salvation Army. I personally have some disagreements with some past behavior of The Salvation Army, so I am the only member of the team that is not participating in that event. I won't get "encouraged" to resign my job because of my opinions about that organization and my refusal to be involved with them and the "team activity".

It is now.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually at the time Prop 8 was being debated organizations on either side were not required to disclose donors. The fags sued and a judge forced disclosure, but he protected donors to neo-Nazi, or communist groups from the same disclosure. Seems that would be a 14th Amendment violation by the court but the fags got the list.

Link?

The disclosure rules come from what sort of organization the donations went to, not the issue they were working on.

Seems what I heard on talk show was wrong, the state actually released the list to the NY Times, donations greater than 100 bucks on a prop must be disclosed to the state.

From the link:

The Prop 8 donor list now functions essentially as a blacklist, and Eich isn’t its first or only victim. Remember, people who gave to Prop 8 have been harassed and had their property vandalized;

How did people find out that Mozilla?s CEO donated to support Prop 8? « Hot Air

Personally I think Eich should now sue the state of CA for a billion bucks or so, no one can claim he wasn't harmed by the states actions.

Eich was a cofounder of Mozilla and was the primary developer of Java script, I think the fags should refuse to use anything using Java, as they say, in for a penny, in for a pound.

Especially since the Supreme Court has said that releasing donor names when there is even a minimal risk of retaliation is unconstitutional.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A business controls what is done in its name and how its employees affect its image.

[MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]
So, if a business felt that a pro-homosexual marriage employee had a negative affect on it's image would you be comfortable with said company firing said employee?
Or is this a one way street?

By the way, the CEO didn't make that donation under the companies name, he did it under his own name.

Sure. If the contract says such donations of any sort need to be cleared first with corporate, that corporate's right.

MSNBC suspended Keith and Joe for doing the same thing, and Keith eventually got fired.

 

[Jughead]

On Thursday, Mozilla announced on its website that Eich would be stepping down after a $1,000 contribution that he made in support of California’s anti-gay marriage Proposition 8 ballot initiative in 2008 generated outrage.

Did someone repeal the First Amendment?

Not a first Amendment issue.

Just like it wouldn't be a first amendment issue if I got fired after calling my boss a "Huge Douchebag".

Mozilla made a business decision that the amount of business they would lose if websites didn't accept their software was worth the loss if htey kept Eich at the helm.

You wingnuts have no problem with "it's only business' when it's working folks getting the shaft.

Oh, noes, "It's Only Business" just claimed a homophobic rich guy.

No one was calling anyone a douchebag, the man merely donated money legally to a ballot initiative in 2008.

On Thursday, Mozilla announced on its website that Eich would be stepping down after a $1,000 contribution that he made in support of California’s anti-gay marriage Proposition 8 ballot initiative in 2008 generated outrage.

From the article, OkCupid pressured Mozilla (for instance by blocking their website), which contributed to the resignation of Mr. Eich. Yet it's ok for Sam Yagan, the CEO of Match Group which controls OkCupid to vote in favor of a marriage protection amendment. With this blatant hypocrisy, Match Group, and OkCupid have lost all credibility. If I had shares in Match Group (IAC), I would have sold as soon as I heard about this hypocrisy. By the way, IAC stock didn't fare too well today. Let's see how it does in the next week or so.

Despite its opposition to Eich’s political donations, one of OkCupid’s co-founders has given money to political candidates who expressed opposition to gay marriage.

Sam Yagan, who is currently CEO of the Match Group, which controls OkCupid, donated $500 to Barack Obama in 2007 and 2008 back when he still opposed gay marriage.

While president of the tech company Metamachine, Yagan also gave $500 to Republican Utah Rep. Chris Cannon. In 2006 Cannon voted in favor of the Marriage Protection Amendment, which would have defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman in the Constitution.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

People have their First Amendment right to demand his resignation and to protest against him. He also has his First Amendment right to speak his mind. What's the problem?

The problem is what it says about our society when mobs form to prevent others from exercising their rights and having differing political opinions.

In my opinion, it says that we have a free society. There's no law prohibiting people who support a particular person or issue, from organizing their own "mobs" to support the person the other "mobs" are protesting against. That's Our basic First Amendment rights.

Your opinion is that witch hunts are legal?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Link?

The disclosure rules come from what sort of organization the donations went to, not the issue they were working on.

Seems what I heard on talk show was wrong, the state actually released the list to the NY Times, donations greater than 100 bucks on a prop must be disclosed to the state.

From the link:

The Prop 8 donor list now functions essentially as a blacklist, and Eich isn’t its first or only victim. Remember, people who gave to Prop 8 have been harassed and had their property vandalized;

How did people find out that Mozilla?s CEO donated to support Prop 8? « Hot Air

Personally I think Eich should now sue the state of CA for a billion bucks or so, no one can claim he wasn't harmed by the states actions.

Eich was a cofounder of Mozilla and was the primary developer of Java script, I think the fags should refuse to use anything using Java, as they say, in for a penny, in for a pound.

Especially since the Supreme Court has said that releasing donor names when there is even a minimal risk of retaliation is unconstitutional.

Link?

 

[Jughead]

This news came out yesterday. If we look at IAC stock over a 5 day period, it started dropping yesterday. Tsk Tsk ... too bad.

 

[Plasmaball]

Well, they've fired people for being gay for a long time, matter of fact, here's one example out of many........................

gay teacher at a Pennsylvania Catholic school said he was fired after he applied for a marriage license to wed his long-time partner.

Michael Griffin worked at the Holy Ghost Preparatory School for 12 years teaching French and Italian. He said that although administrators, including the principal, knew he was gay, he never had any major conflict with the Catholic administrators until Friday.

Griffin said he was fired on Friday after he had emailed administrators to tell them he was going to file for a marriage license and would be slightly late to work.

Gay Catholic School Teacher Fired for Getting Married - ABC News

And yeah..............in 29 states, you CAN be fired for being gay.........................

States Where You Can Be Fired For Being Gay - Business Insider

yup and this is a non-story....tough shit for this Former CEO.

 

[Pheonixops]

The problem is what it says about our society when mobs form to prevent others from exercising their rights and having differing political opinions.

In my opinion, it says that we have a free society. There's no law prohibiting people who support a particular person or issue, from organizing their own "mobs" to support the person the other "mobs" are protesting against. That's Our basic First Amendment rights.

Your opinion is that witch hunts are legal?

LOL, how do you define a "witch hunt"? I saw some shared post on Facebook coming from conservative sites that my friends like. It was referring to an "heroic" Marine snatching the Flag that was held upside down from a protester. The conservatives were "liking" and "sharing" it in droves. Why would they advocate the Marine STEALING ( a crime) the flag from a protester exercising the First Amendment rights?

The funny thing about it, is that I remember when President Obama won the first election, that not a few conservatives and republicans had an UPSIDE DOWN flag on their avatars!