Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Thursday April 09 2015, @09:00AM   Printer-friendly
from the shhh-don't-tell-anybody dept.

National Journal's Rebecca Nelson reports about the Republicans lurking in the shadows of the Bay Area:

Deep in Silicon Valley, where the free market reigns and the exchange of ideas is celebrated, a subset of tech workers are hiding their true selves.

They're the tech company employees, startup founders, and CEOs who vote for and donate to Republican candidates, bucking the Bay Area's liberal supremacy. Fearing the repercussions of associating with a much-maligned minority, they keep their political views fiercely hidden.

The consequences for being outed for conservative views can be dire. In a highly public controversy last year, newly-hired Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich stepped down after critics attacked his 2008 donation to support Proposition 8, the anti-same-sex marriage law in California. Eich, who declined to comment for this story, faced an internal uprising from within the Mozilla community, as well as boycotts from other tech companies, and quit after just two weeks on the job.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by q.kontinuum on Thursday April 09 2015, @02:11PM

    by q.kontinuum (532) on Thursday April 09 2015, @02:11PM (#168333) Journal

    Having convictions is still no excuse for demonizing people who disagree with you.

    To me this sometimes depends. I'm convinced that anyone's freedom ends where the freedom of the next starts. So, if someone feels gay people are an abomination, they can, and I won't ask them to sympathize with gay couples. They can just stay away and look the other direction. But if they lobby for taking actions against gays, this crosses a line for me towards evil. Same with black people. If someone feels racist deep inside, it's his opinion. If he starts attacking black/white/red/green/yellow people or lobbies against there equal rights, it crosses the line to evil for me. Both seems right-out selfish to me, because they just have to close their eyes to be not affected by those groups.

    On the other hand, while I have a clear opinion on global warming, I do accept that some people might just rely on other sources, and even though I consider denial of global warming stupid, I wouldn't consider the people evil.

    I figured it would spark discussion, and it has. So, thanks for your reply.

    You are welcome :-) I didn't mod your post, because the only mod relevant would have been "disagree", and I find it quite poor to moderate "disagree" when I could instead engage in an exchange of arguments.

    --
    Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @04:37PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @04:37PM (#168396)

    I'm convinced that anyone's freedom ends where the freedom of the next starts. So, if someone feels gay people are an abomination, they can, and I won't ask them to sympathize with gay couples. They can just stay away and look the other direction. But if they lobby for taking actions against gays, this crosses a line for me towards evil.

    What's your opinion, then, on the issue of Christian bakers/florists/etc refusing service to gay couples for wedding services? Is the baker's request to not be involved "staying away and looking the other direction"? Are the laws guaranteeing that right to refuse service lobbying against equal rights?

    Posting anonymously out of cowardice, as apropos for this thread.

    • (Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Thursday April 09 2015, @05:58PM

      by q.kontinuum (532) on Thursday April 09 2015, @05:58PM (#168425) Journal

      Is the baker's request to not be involved "staying away and looking the other direction"? Are the laws guaranteeing that right to refuse service lobbying against equal rights?

      These are two different question. I will only answer only to the first question, as I don't know much about the legal situation in US.
      First of all, I think the whole discussion is a bit overblown when I compare it to police violence against black people etc. Second, I think anyone should have the right to purchase what the bakery sells, no matter what colour or sexual preference someone has. If someone gay wants a standard wedding cake, (s)he should be able to buy one. "Gay" is not written on their forehead, and it simply isn't part of the purchase-discussion.
      The situation might be different if they want a special custom-decoration. In that case I would still consider the bakery nuts for refusing the deal and would definitely never buy in that bakery again, but I'm not sure a law should be required to oblige them to serve these wishes. I'd hope enough people would just boycott the shop to make them reconsider.

      Personally I have a few friends who are openly gay (plus, as I expect most people have, some secretly gays). I'm straight. I have to admit that I find the imagination to kiss another man disgusting, and I wouldn't like to see a male gay couple fondling, and I openly told those friends while telling them that I definitely wish them all the best for their relationship and that I hope they consider this attitude my personal weakness rather than an offends. The same holds true, by the way, for straight couples I find ugly, or for people eating Balut [wikipedia.org]. It's because I easily and involuntarily imagine myself being part of situations I see. (I also count a gay woman to my friends, but with gay women, especially when they are attractive, the first impulse for most men is probably not to reject them but to ask if they can join in ;-) [Obviously that would be stupid as well, since she is gay, not bi-sexual])

      --
      Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
      • (Score: 1) by Rickter on Thursday April 09 2015, @08:18PM

        by Rickter (842) on Thursday April 09 2015, @08:18PM (#168477)

        The issue comes in where the baker or caterer has to decorate a cake that is contrary to what their belief of what marriage is, and then deliver it to an event that celebrates the couple's union. For the photographer, you are helping somebody document and remember something, and trying to do so in a positive, artistic way. But for some of these people, it's not that the people participating are evil, it's that the actual event is a lie.

        Consider, if you are a caterer who is liberal, and the Republicans or NRA (gun rights) comes to you and asks you to cater an event, for instance, make cakes in the shapes of guns and bullets or the Republican elephant, and otherwise help them celebrate a fund raising event. Should you be forced to participate as a business in their political free speech? Or should they be prepared to go to another shop to find somebody who will take their business if you should say no?

        If I were one of these businesses, I would post a sign that I will give 10% of all profits to an anti-gay marriage political advocacy group, and let them spend their money at my business if they choose to do so.

        • (Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Thursday April 09 2015, @08:56PM

          by q.kontinuum (532) on Thursday April 09 2015, @08:56PM (#168490) Journal

          The issue comes in where the baker or caterer has to decorate a cake that is contrary to what their belief of what marriage is, and then deliver it to an event that celebrates the couple's union.

          So? It's a celebration of a couple and their invited guests. It should have no impact on society. (It might have because there are many getting upset about things which shouldn't concern them,)

          For the photographer, you are helping somebody document and remember something, and trying to do so in a positive, artistic way.

          If a photographer would argue he couldn't do this, I could understand. Even if he says he doesn't want to, because it means spending a significant amount of time on a celebration he can't relate to, I could understand and applaud his honesty while also questioning his professionalism.

          But for some of these people, it's not that the people participating are evil, it's that the actual event is a lie.

          How can an event be a lie? The intent might be considered a lie by some, the event simply takes place.

          Consider, if you are a caterer who is liberal, and the Republicans or NRA (gun rights) comes to you and asks you to cater an event, for instance, make cakes in the shapes of guns and bullets or the Republican elephant,

          So far, no problem. It's only a cake, and if they like that shape - so what. If they like, I'd make it butt-shaped. Maybe not a swastika, but other than that I wouldn't mind much.

          and otherwise help them celebrate a fund raising event.

          That's where the difference lies. A wedding, gay or straight, is an event for the people getting married. A fund raising event is an event to influence politics in a way which might have very practical implications to everyone. Also being gay is not a decision, being republican or NRA-proponent is.

          Should you be forced to participate as a business in their political free speech? Or should they be prepared to go to another shop to find somebody who will take their business if you should say no?

          They shouldn't be forced. Reason see above.

          If I were one of these businesses, I would post a sign that I will give 10% of all profits to an anti-gay marriage political advocacy group, and let them spend their money at my business if they choose to do so.

          ...and you might lose a lot of straight customers as well. This [newmediarockstars.com] story is interesting: A pizza-store which announced they'd stop serving gay people based on the new law. They had to close down due to the backlash. They got donations from supporters of their policy, but I predict, the backlash would grow while support-donations would decline over time, should other shops follow.

          --
          Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @10:49PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @10:49PM (#168534)

            > backlash

            To be fair, it seems they were getting a lot of prank delivery orders. A couple of those a day can be the difference between the black and the red.

            > They got donations from supporters of their policy, but I predict, the backlash would grow while support-donations would decline over time, should other shops follow.

            Well, people went fuckin nuts to support chik-fil-a after their CEO advertised his anti-gayness. Like crazy fucking nuts. [washingtonexaminer.com]

            With $800K they don't even have to stay open anymore, they won the lotto. But, for a small restaurant it doesn't take all that many dedicated customers to keep it afloat. And that's the thing about being a bigotted business - as long as there are enough people who aren't offended by your discrimination because its not directed at them personally it doesn't really matter if you shit on minorities or not. Their $$ vote doesn't count.

            • (Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Friday April 10 2015, @10:03AM

              by q.kontinuum (532) on Friday April 10 2015, @10:03AM (#168686) Journal

              With $800K they don't even have to stay open anymore, they won the lotto.

              Maybe. The next job that tries it might still get ~$700K, the next-next ~$500K, and so on. People will get more and more tired of paying for all shops rejecting their paying customers. On the other hand I think the support for gay-rights is growing, the amount of people willing to boycott such backward will increase. I might be wrong, of course, but I think the assumptions are reasonable enough...

              --
              Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
          • (Score: 1) by tftp on Thursday April 09 2015, @11:41PM

            by tftp (806) on Thursday April 09 2015, @11:41PM (#168554) Homepage

            So far, no problem. It's only a cake, and if they like that shape - so what. If they like, I'd make it butt-shaped. Maybe not a swastika, but other than that I wouldn't mind much.

            It's just your threshold is different. You stop at the swastika. You most certainly would stop if the customer wants you to write obscenities about your own family. You most certainly would stop if the customer wants you to make a cake that celebrates racism. Those examples only prove the simple point: everyone has a threshold past which they won't go, no matter what. Christians place their threshold at celebration of LGBT practices. You place your threshold at celebration of fascism. There is no fundamental difference between you and them.

            ...and you might lose a lot of straight customers as well. This story is interesting: A pizza-store which announced they'd stop serving gay people based on the new law. They had to close down due to the backlash.

            I don't think it is proper to refuse sale of common, standard products to gay people. However if the owner only refuses to participate in gay activities, it certainly should be his right. I would definitely buy from them, no matter if the owners are gay or anti-gay themselves, as long as they sell what I want. If they don't, I'll have to look for someone else who will make me an FSM-themed cake. (It may well be that a Christian baker will not want to support proud wearers of colanders.)