New Mozilla CEO resigns over anti-gay views

Who isn't allowing you to be heard? There is a public debate ongoing between two sets of ideas. One side is winning. Do better.

 

A bit harder to do that now when those who have more money are entitled to have more speech.

 

Prop 8 was only 6 years ago, but in terms of where the public is on this question, it's a lifetime. As poindexter points out, it passed, in California, a very blue state.

Gay marriage was barely on the radar only 10 years ago, and had no support outside of the gay community, and major city centers like New York and San Francisco (and, even there, remained extremely unpopular in minority communities, as it does to this day).

If being against gay marriage means you are anti-gay, then nearly American of a certain age was anti-gay at some point in their life.

What was the cut off date for determining which of us is a hateful bigot, and which of us are enlightened beings?

 

Let's unpack this.

If a politician said the latter, he would be ostracized politically, unelectable outside of very small pockets of America, and drummed out of either of the two dominant political parties.

The Republicans have denied support to candidates like David Duke when they won primaries, going so far as to endorse other candidates in the race.

And, while Barack Obama was anti-gay in 2008, which was the same year this guy donated to Prop 8, that timeline apparently didn't ostracize him from the Democratic Party.

But, surely, in 2014 such a position would mean certain banishment from the party, right? So, when are Mark Pryor and Joe Manchin getting their walking papers?

Because, if they don't, then the Democratic party does not agree with you that opposition to gay marriage is the same thing as opposition to inter-racial marriage.

 

I support the rights of women, but I don't think they should vote.

I support the rights of blacks, but I don't think they should own property.

I support the rights of homosexuals, but I don't think they should be allowed to marry.

 

OK. So Mark Pryor and Joe Manchin hold views that are the equivalent of saying women shouldn't be allowed to vote, and blacks can't own property. Is that right?

If you can't hold these views and be the CEO of Mozilla, surely the Democratic party won't support these guys run for re-election, right? Has Harry Reid kicked them out of the Conference? Stripped them of committee assignments?

How can anyone who would "boycott" a web browser support a party in which such men are members in good standing?

If we're going to take this to extremes, let's do it. Let's make this a real civil rights issue, and not a pretend, opportunistic one.

 

The answer is, basically, "yes."

 

So, when will they be politically ostracized?

If the parties and the public really believed this issue was so discriminatory, you couldn't hold their views, and be a member in good standing in a mainstream political party, right?

 

Because politics.

 

OK. So, the Party doesn't feel like it can throw out folks who hold these views, because they still need them, and their voters.

But, certainly the folks who would boycott a web browser (that has about 15% of the North American market share) would also boycott a party that would have guys like Pryor and Manchin as members, right?

Starman thinks that if you are truly pro-life, it's your obligation to bomb an abortion clinic.

What is your obligation if you are for full rights for gays, including marriage equality?

 

"BUT THAT'S DIFFERENT!" is the answer you'll get.

And that's all you'll get.

 

Gay rights activists really went after a big target, didn't they?



Fucking Safari has a larger market share in North America.

Way to speak truth to power guys.

But, I guess Mark Pryor is shit out of luck if he tries to sign up for OK Cupid!