Luckily, if you live in a place where terrible people barely exist (NYC, SF, Massachusetts, etc.), it isn't really an issue. There are only a few times that I've run into an issue from just openly stating "homophobes are awful" as if it was the weather - the typical response is as if I had said "it's raining" - "well, duh".
My general approach is to be glad I pissed those people off, because I now know to never associate with them again.
I for one am totally fine with it being an opinion to discuss on hacker news.
However, I have significant doubts about the power of constant berration to actually change someones mind - or even make them give up the overt facets of their opinion. Don't you think?
I guess you support people who spend their money oppressing others? I'm against it. It's nothing I'm particularly proud about. It's just common human decency.
I am absolutely 100% intolerant of anyone opposed to gay marriage
Is what I responded to. If you choose to argue against a strawman, that's your business but I won't have anything to do with the perversion of others' arguments for the sake of making a point.
This whole thread has been about Eich's actions specifically. You're shifting the argument to pretend it's just about his opinions. Now where do you stand on his actions, or do you want to keep dodging the issue and play around with false equivalences?
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
It seems the UN is against gay marriage so that's where the next witch hunt should go
Its not fair to compare this with abortion. If you cut out the hyperbole and willful ignorance, both sides of the abortion debate still have compelling arguments.
No, but the hostile workplace environment that's (apparently) already there will probably not be helped by this move. http://tim.dreamwidth.org/1840066.html
This guy is seriously issuing a "trigger warning" about "legislative violence" for someone not agreeing with his views? Is he a Social Justice Warrior caricature or does he really believe this stuff?
I don't see why such content would belong on a company-sponsored blog, but claiming some guy who wants his country to not redefine "marriage" when they already offer civil unions to all is a member of a violent hate group is a bit much.
Perhaps. But corporate America is filled with tons of leadership that in their private lives go to evangelical Christian churches, many of which oppose gay marriage. In private, those same CEOs probably express similar opinions. The only difference is that BE donated a paltry sum in support of a public law. That's the only issue. Discourse around this will change only one thing: the next time they'll give the money to a cousin to make the donation.
Mozilla's leadership is far more complex than the person holding the CEO chalice. Assuming he wanted to impose his personal views on marriage down to the company there would be a revolt and it will result in his termination.
The board that elected him ultimately holds more power. On a different note if you knew Brandan you'd know that he would never steer the company in such a direction. My only regret is that he will likely resign after his turn at the throne is over. Hopefully he will choose to stick around as a board member.
How could this possibly ever happen? You'd seriously have to be a complete moron. Here's the complete text:
Section I. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act."
Section 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution, to read:
Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
Pretty fucking simple.