The CEO of OKCupid donated ONCE to a right wing politician who turned out to be an adamant anti-gay politician in 2004. . .and obviously, he has regretted it as he evolved in his view of gay rights (as over 30% of the US population has done since 2004!). The fact that TODAY he finds it unconscionable to follow that same unfair and losing position is to his credit. If Eich had evolved since his MANY contributions to anti-gay politicians since 2008. . .he would have explained that he, too, had made a mistake and that he regretted his past bigotry. . .and everything would have been fine! No one is blaming people from bing intolerant in THE PAST. . .but it is obvious that one expects intelligent people, people in position of power and representative of an industry whose consumer basis is VERY supportive of gay rights to LEAR from their mistakes and to move forward, instead of being stuck with the dinosaurs.
Like I said, they haven't evolved, they're just going along to get along now. You've shown them what will happen if they publicly oppose you. And now they'll salute whatever flag you raise.
Bigot? You people throw that word around so much it has no meaning. What were the mans reasons for making the donation?
Of course it ruined him. He co-founded Mozilla and I'm sure he worked very hard to make it the successful company that it is. You are talking about his life work.....not just some 'job'. Sure, he might be able to find another job, but I doubt that it would be the same to him. Yep...message is loud and clear. Conform your opinion to coincide with ours, or you will regret it. Sure, gays have been victimized for centuries and still are. Even much so in other countries. That does not mean Eich is solely responsible for that oppression. Donating money does not even create more oppression. It only offers a differing of opinion. If the money is used to build a strong case for the continuance of the oppression, so be it. The opposition to Eich apparent opinion need only to raise more money to build a stronger case to oppose that opinion and the oppression. Fight the issue....not the individual. As I said, eliminating the opposition does not make one's stance on an issue stronger or more valid. If fact, elimination of opponents is what wars are all about.
Eich brought this on himself. Obviously, he wasn't as smart as he thought, at least as a CEO. He was fine as long as he was the CTO, and he might have stayed in that position. . .but when he becomes the CEO, he becomes the figure head of the corporation, and his image, and his believe influence the whole direction and the customer basis and employees of that corporation. He could have expressed his regrets for making those silly contributions, and demonstrated that he could move forward and learn from his mistakes. . .he chose not to. I, for one, will continue to give my business to companies that are not racist, and not homophobe, and not hyper-religious, and will withdraw my business from companies who demonstrate that it is more important for them to stay stuck in their bigotry than to move forward toward more equality.
you rejoice in forcing him to accept your definition of morals and values.... yet, would cry like a bich if a company forced out a pro-gay exec or CEO. Vwery telling of your hypocracy - - - Updated - - - probably an oversight by the gay lobbyists.... please don't give them targets to harrass
And if he doesn't have regrets? Btw....your opinion is very bigoted!!!! Conform or else!!!!! Maybe if you actually understood what the quote in your signature actually means, you might understand my point. p.s. Also, if you boycotted every company that does not conform to your beliefs, you would do business with....well, no one. I guess you have to pick and choose what business are less distasteful than others.
I am guessing he got more heat from his family and friends then he did from the lgbt crowd... cause we did not really see much heat on that front
gay marraige isn't a civil rights issue.... it's a civil privilege issue. just like the term "bigot" and "homophobe".... misusing a term over and over again is where the debate is, not in actual rights violations. had prop 8 said "all gays are to be arrested and detained" or "all gays must register with the state", and someone supported that, I would be right beside you protesting it. but not able to marry another guy is like not being able to marry a sibling..... not a violation when a right is equally limited for EVERYONE (because even as a straight guy, I can't marry my brother or any other man)
New law. People are no longer allowed to drive pick-up trucks. But this doesn't violate anyone's rights because it applies to everyone equally, even though former pick-up truck drivers are especially affected.
In reality, though, they can marry....in the sense of the original purpose of marriage. What they can not do in some States is to have the Government recognize that marriage with a piece of paper and be offered the Government benefits that it might provide. It will change eventually....things like this always do in society. However, some want it to change overnight and will ruin anybody that opposes.
Well, then, if marriage is not a civil right, why don't we make it fair and make every marriage illegal, instead of subsidizing marriage for ONLY heterosexual couples?
I give my business to whomever provides the best bang for the buck service..... but I'm not hypersensitive and "looking to be offended" as you are I guess....
How stupid of an analogy. - - - Updated - - - Because that's just the way it is. Deal with it. Why didn't the gay mafia go for rights in Civil Unions where many more people would have benefited and NOBODY would have been offended? Why was the offensive route chosen? I know why, I just want to hear you admit it.
There, I fixed it for you. Sure, that law might be coming soon....or a variation of it. Will it stop people from driving pick-ups? Not all, no.....at least until the existing pick-up trucks are too ran down to not run anymore. Society makes laws to govern...or control. Some make sense to you, but not to me...and vis versus. That does not mean they do not serve a purpose or that there is no basis for the law. As I said above, anybody can get married...in the true sense of marriage. What they can not do in some States is to have the Government recognize that marriage with a piece of paper and be offered the Government benefits that it might provide. Is it right or wrong? There are many differing opinions on this....and not all of them are formed from a base of hatred or intolerance.
Nope . . .you are the one who is bigoted. . .you want to continue "protecting" the bigotry of the anti-gay crowd. I want to continue advocating for equal rights for ALL. Free speech is a right. . . but it carries consequences! For years, gay people have had to give up their right to "free speech" for fear of "consequences" (like loosing their job, like being stigmatized, like being excommunicated, like being rejected by their family and friends, even being evicted from their home!). And NO, I do not have to "do business with no one!" I am just trying to be conscient when I choose a supplier of what they stand for. . .and, yes, I am certain that in some case, I am not aware that they are against my views on some issue! But if they go out of their way to make it known that they are some sort of bigots, I choose not to sponsor that business. (i.e., although I do a lot of craft, I have not put a foot inside a Hobby Lobby store for over a year, and I have not purchased a sandwich from Chick-filet for over two years). This is my right, just as it is Hobby Lobby's right to express their religious views (as long as it doesn't impact their employees).
It is your right. . .and it is my right to let my conscience speak louder than my wallet. . . although I doubt that the business I do sponsor are more expensive than those whom I stay away from!
The funny thing is you are NOT advocating equal rights for all. You are denying free speech rights to people you disagree with and you are leaving the people in Civil Unions hanging out to dry by not fighting for rights within that instead of marriage.
Nope. . . I do not deny anyone's free speech. I just act accordingly and apply my own free speech. . .by walking away from their business and expressing why I choose to leave. And, I am all in favor of civil unions FOR THOSE WHO WANT IT. . . but if someone wants a MARRIAGE, it should be their right. Either that, or EVERY couple in love, wanting a commitment, should be happy with civil unions only! EQUAL RIGHTS.
Don't put words into my mouth Sandanie....you fail miserably at it. Do you advocate equal rights for incessant relationships? Do you advocate the rights for pedophilia relationships? I doubt you do...therefore, you do not advocate equality for ALL. And, yes, I am bigoted on some subject.....but unless one is a saint, everybody is bigoting on some subjects. Do you really know what the word bigoted means? Hint: it isn't always about race, gender, or homosexuality. Sure, 'Free Speech' does have consequences. However, those consequences are usually imposed by those that can not focus on or understand the issue and feel a need to lash out at the messenger. It is a weakness of the imposer....not the imposee. Yep....being ignorant and turning a blind eye does make life a little less complicated. As does being bigoted about the opinions of others .
You are acting like a child throwing a tantrum. It WOULD be equal rights, you would get all the perks wouldn't you? See this ISN'T about perks or so-called "rights" it's about bullying people. Plain and simple. If you are for equal rights, should we do away with AA?
