Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Mozilla CEO ousted for views in 2008

252 posts in this topic

Posted

I chose to ignore it, just like you chose to forgo the context of that ruling. That Supreme Court of that day ruled on interracial marriage. The same ruling has now been applied to the gay marriage argument by it's proponents, mainly activist circuit court judges.

 

 

1. Ruling?... No, no, no... Rulings. Plural. Yes Loving V Virginia was held up as an example. I also posted a link with 13 others.

 

2. Sorry. You don't get to move the goalposts on this. You said marriage wasn't a right. You are wrong.

 

3. Before you try to keep spinning... Lawrence v. Texas. Might wanna check that out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I chose to ignore it, just like you chose to forgo the context of that ruling. That Supreme Court of that day ruled on interracial marriage. The same ruling has now been applied to the gay marriage argument by it's proponents, mainly activist circuit court judges.

So what is your fear?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

only in climate change.

bet you didn't go to UNC
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I am trying to talk about political retribution, no matter the issue.  Gay rights, abortion, left vs right, etc.  Just because you are on the winning/losing side of an argument, should there be this third world retribution mindset?  After Prop 8 passed in CA, did the 52% go through all the "for" contributions and publicize them for punishment of all the 48%ers?

 

I am no so caught up on the cause here, which 98% of Huddlers are hung up on, but the actual effects of winning/losing elections, especially when your political opponents pay a price with their jobs for just contributing to a cause.  With 52% of Californians voting for it, does over half the population there need to lose their job?  Why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I chose to ignore it, just like you chose to forgo the context of that ruling. That Supreme Court of that day ruled on interracial marriage. The same ruling has now been applied to the gay marriage argument by it's proponents, mainly activist circuit court judges.

 

 

It doesn't necessarily matter what the ruling was on, it matters what the ruling says because it sets precedent.

 

So when the Supreme Court ruled and said marriage is a "basic civil right" that doesn't mean that it is a basic civil right for only interracial couples.  It is a basic civil right for everyone which is why interracial couples should be allowed to marry.

 

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I am trying to talk about political retribution, no matter the issue.  Gay rights, abortion, left vs right, etc.  Just because you are on the winning/losing side of an argument, should there be this third world retribution mindset?  After Prop 8 passed in CA, did the 52% go through all the "for" contributions and publicize them for punishment of all the 48%ers?

 

I am no so caught up on the cause here, which 98% of Huddlers are hung up on, but the actual effects of winning/losing elections, especially when your political opponents pay a price with their jobs for just contributing to a cause.  With 52% of Californians voting for it, does over half the population there need to lose their job?  Why not?

 

Here's the thing- this isnt political retribution.  These things dont happen to the same extent with other "political issues" because most people dont feel as strongly and therefore wont participate in a boycott.  This is about the government failing to do its job (protecting equal rights for all citizens), and the free market being forced to do the governments job for them.

 

The government is blocking the rights of people (mostly as a political statement to pander to their evangelical base) under the guise of majority rule.  The problem is, this is the exact sort of tyranny of the majority from which the government is supposed to protect minorities.

 

So the only recourse people have to this failure of government is a boycott. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I chose to ignore it, just like you chose to forgo the context of that ruling. That Supreme Court of that day ruled on interracial marriage. The same ruling has now been applied to the gay marriage argument by it's proponents, mainly activist circuit court judges.

 

 

Sorry, you're wrong here.  Either marriage is or is not a right.  IF you want to caveat that some rights are not available to some people (e.g. right to bear arms not being available to everyone), so be it.  But marriage has been upheld as a right.

 

The only question is if marriage as a right also applies to homosexuals, or if they are excluded from it cause they're gay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It doesn't necessarily matter what the ruling was on, it matters what the ruling says because it sets precedent.

 

So when the Supreme Court ruled and said marriage is a "basic civil right" that doesn't mean that it is a basic civil right for only interracial couples.  It is a basic civil right for everyone which is why interracial couples should be allowed to marry.

 

 

Well to be fair, rights can be basic civil rights and still restricted by special circumstances.  I don't think being gay is one such special circumstance, as I don't think preventing gays from marrying somehow protects the public good in a way which outweighs the restriction of individual liberties (e.g. convicts having guns)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

If the owner of one of the companies I have a contract with openly opposes Interracial marriage & donates money to groups that are seeking to ban it should I have to keep working with them?

Yes because of the contract but how does one view destroy a business relationship that has nothing to do with the business itself? Read Predictabily Irrational about value. There are two values, market and social. Mixing the two can cause strain and damage to relationships. This country has grown small minded and tyrannical to force one side or another to accept a way of life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

LOL at the CEO of the 'porn mode' browser donating money to support 'traditional family values.' As Rust Cohle would say..."fug that guy!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

LOL at the CEO of the 'porn mode' browser donating money to support 'traditional family values.' As Rust Cohle would say..."fug that guy!"

 

Don't pretty much all browsers have privacy mode?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Don't pretty much all browsers have privacy mode?

 Yep. However that doesn't exonerate the Mozilla CEO of his complicity in facilitating the killings of billions of kittens. "Everyone else is doing it..." is not a valid defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites