Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 14 submissions in the queue.
posted by NCommander on Tuesday April 01 2014, @11:00AM   Printer-friendly
from the i-guess-they'll-unfriend-mozilla dept.
Sir Finkus and keplr writes:

The controversy around Mozilla's new CEO Brendan Eich continues. Eich made a personal $1000 donation to California's Yes on Proposition 8 campaign in 2008. Now, dating site OkCupid has started redirecting Firefox users to a page explaining Eich's views against marriage equality, and asking users to switch to IE, Chrome, or Opera.

The page states:

If individuals like Mr. Eich had their way, then roughly 8% of the relationships we've worked so hard to bring about would be illegal. Equality for gay relationships is personally important to many of us here at OkCupid. But it's professionally important to the entire company. OkCupid is for creating love. Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure.

Visitors are then provided links to alternative browsers, or they can continue to the site by clicking a hyperlink at the bottom of the page.

 
This discussion has been archived.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 Leebert on Tuesday April 01 2014, @12:54PM

    by Leebert (3511) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @12:54PM (#24102)

    This whole thing is ridiculous. To me, it's pretty clear that OkCupid is doing this to get attention.

    This reminds me of that whole Arizona thing... I find it absolutely astounding how it was OK for the gay hairdresser of the Arizona governor to refuse to do the governor's hair anymore due to her beliefs, but people want to insist that a photographer not be permitted to decline to take photos at a gay wedding because the photographer disagrees with gay marriage.

    The Mozilla Foundation isn't in any way actively harming people's rights. This isn't AT&T giving access to the NSA. That's an action that you can reasonably boycott. This is a guy's personal opinion that has no real bearing on his job.

    For the record, I have a religious opposition to homosexuality. I also voted FOR gay marriage in my state because, despite my opposition, what consenting adults do with other consenting adults is neither any of my business nor any of my interest. One can hold an ideology while still protecting the rights of others...

    I swear. Bread and circuses... keep us arguing about pointless crap while actual things that matter go unresolved.

    Whew. That was cathartic. I feel better.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=2, Interesting=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2) by metamonkey on Tuesday April 01 2014, @03:59PM

    by metamonkey (3174) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @03:59PM (#24268)

    You are right on. The powers that be love these phony social "debates" because they keep people distracted from the wholesale theft of actual rights, wealth and human dignity that goes on every day between Capitol Hill and K Street. People are getting bombed, tortured, imprisoned indefinitely in our name, but ignore that! Dudes are kissing dudes! Gross!

    Also, people should have every right to refuse to participate in a gay marriage. I'm Catholic, it is against my religion to participate in a gay marriage. I don't care what the state decides to do about issuing marriage licenses (which are really just a method of making divorces easier for the state to adjudicate), but my religion says no. Should I be compelled to violate my religious principles?

    I'm completely fine with the state sanctioning gay marriage (although I will vote neither for nor against it), so long as they don't force churches to do so.

    --
    Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @05:29PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @05:29PM (#24343)

    "The Mozilla Foundation isn't in any way actively harming people's rights."

    Nah, they just put a guy who uses his money to harm people's rights in charge of the company... and then their employees asked for our help.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @07:21PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @07:21PM (#24421)

      Only some of them did. Others are coming out and basically saying 'shut up your hurting our company'. This stinks of a small minority of a minority coming out and saying something 'we all think' when it really is '*I* think'...

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @08:08PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @08:08PM (#24443)
        Gee... think that small minority is around 10%?
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @08:44PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @08:44PM (#24459)

          Sure why not? Have not see stats that say otherwise.

          But my point was sometimes people overstep their authority to speak for others. Especially if they are pissed off about something. I had neighbors who would regularly do that. Putting up passive aggressive notes 'from everyone in the neighborhood'. Until I asked around then I find out oh its just you who are pissed off... This smells like that.

          but dont take my word for it...
          http://christianheilmann.com/2014/03/31/on-hating/ [christianheilmann.com]
          http://www.twobraids.com/2014/03/the-mozilla-ceo.h tml [twobraids.com]
          http://bholley.wordpress.com/2014/03/31/on-brendan -eich-and-the-thought-police/ [wordpress.com]

          But I will let you get back to nitpicking details and your all around rage machine.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @08:51PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @08:51PM (#24462)
            > But I will let you get back to nitpicking details and your all around rage machine. You don't get the significant of that number. Figures.
  • (Score: 1) by guises on Tuesday April 01 2014, @10:09PM

    by guises (3116) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @10:09PM (#24494)

    It does seem pretty hypocritical to condemn Mozilla for having a single bigoted person while, in the same sentence, endorsing Microsoft and Apple as "more ethical" alternatives.

    Your comment about the wedding photographer brings up an interesting issue, and a slippery slope: discrimination can't be permitted, but it does seem a little much to force someone to actually participate in the ceremony that they find heretical. On the other hand, it would be awfully difficult to craft legislation which would allow only just the right amount of discrimination. You can envision another situation - say there's a pharmacist who doesn't want to sell condoms to a gay person or couple. This, in my mind, is clearly over the line and entirely plausible given that something similar has already happened with a pharmacist and Morning After pills.