SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Ian Bicking has confirmed that Mozilla has quietly shut down Mozilla Labs.
This development raises some interesting questions about the future of Mozilla and their products:
With Firefox's usage declining, with Firefox on Android seeing limited uptake, with Firefox not being available on iOS, with Thunderbird stagnating, with SeaMonkey remaining as irrelevant as ever, with Firefox OS suffering from poor reviews and little adoption, and now with a reduction in innovation due to the closure of Mozilla Labs, does Mozilla have any hope of remaining relevant as time goes on?
Will Mozilla be able to reignite the spark that originally allowed them to create products like Firefox and Thunderbird that were, at one time, wildly popular and innovative?
Is Mozilla still capable of innovating without Mozilla Labs, or will they slowly fade into irrelevance as the last remaining users of their products move on to other offerings from competitors?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by tftp on Saturday September 20 2014, @05:36PM
The Firefox team lost me as a customer when they hounded out their CEO for a lawful political contribution done long ago. I do not want to support a company of bigots who have no tolerance for other ways of thinking. (In part, that approach is also visible in their later products, as they do what they want, and not what the customers are begging them to do.)
I have IE, Chrome and PaleMoon now on Windows, used for different purpose. On Linux I replace FF with Opera. All, except IE, are loaded with adblockers and script blockers. IE is only for the Intranet; some of my video cameras have ActiveX plugins, for example.
As, reportedly, FF is on a march into irrelevance, it was a good time to switch to PaleMoon. It inherits most of FF code; has a simple, conservative interface; does not pester me with weekly updates; and it works. Most importantly, it accepts all the privacy extensions that I need. PM is my primary browser.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @06:28PM
That whole ouster episode really disgusted me, too. For all of the screaming about "tolerance" and "acceptance" that those people do, they sure don't tolerate or accept anyone who has a viewpoint that differs from theirs.
There has been far too much tyranny coming out of Mozilla lately. The CEO incident is a good example, but so is forcing all of these stupid changes on us Firefox users, especially after we've made it clear we don't like them and don't want them.
Australis is one of the worst things to have happened to any open source project ever. Never before have the users been treated like total and utter shit. Never before have such vocally despised changes been forced on so many.
I'm done with Firefox, too. There are better choices available now, and so I use them now. I have no need for Mozilla, because they treat me like I am a turd. I AM NOT A TURD!
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @07:07PM
Well yeah, you're a HOMOPHOBIC TURD
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @07:36PM
I've read and reread that comment you replied to, and I see no reference to homosexuals, homosexuality, homosexuals engaging in marriage, or anything of the sort.
The only thing I see outrage against is the intolerance and bigotry that the former CEO was forced to endure from hypocrites such as yourself.
You preach tolerance, but you refuse to practice it yourself. You preach acceptance, but you refuse to practice it yourself. That, my young one, is hypocrisy.
(Score: 0, Troll) by chris.alex.thomas on Saturday September 20 2014, @10:47PM
tolerance isn't a relativistic term, it's an absolute one, you have zero tolerance at one end and full tolerance at the other.
I tolerate homosexuality, you appear to not tolerate it, that means I'm more tolerant than you
I preach acceptance of being able to give homosexuals the same rights that everybody has
You preach the opposite, but you're crying because I don't tolerate or accept your bigoted views?
No, I'm sorry sunshine, you're a fucking turd, a scumbag, a boil on the testicle of humanity, go fuck yourself with a spade, nobody gives a fuck what you think anymore, please die in a fire or something, our species is better off without you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 21 2014, @01:02AM
Can anyone tell me why that rather awful comment is "2, Informative"? The last line is particularly immature. While he should be able to express himself in such a manner if he so chooses, I think it reflects badly on this site when lousy comments like that are modded up.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by chris.alex.thomas on Sunday September 21 2014, @10:30AM
it's modded up because we're sick of this shit, it's 2014, the 21st god dammed century and people are still crying over who sleeps with who, whether a woman has full control over her own vagina, has the right to vote and whether she should wear a dress which provokes a man to rape her.....
thats why it's modded up, because people agree and it's about time we stopped tolerating idiots who hold views more akin to the 19th century and just get with the program already......
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 21 2014, @12:49PM
My, my, my! Why so negative all of the time? Why so angry?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @07:21PM
Wanting to use the law to oppress people who are different is not a valid viewpoint. There's a difference between not tolerating somebody because they have a differing opinion and not tolerating somebody due to their discrimination over people with differing skin color/sexual preferences; stop acting like they're the same. The guy's a bigot, which wouldn't be a big deal, but using his wealth to try to get laws changed to enshrine his discriminatory complexes makes him a danger to everyone (except his fellow bigots).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @07:39PM
If you truly are tolerant, then you'll support those who support marriage as being defined as only between a man and a woman, even if you disagree with that position.
If you don't support Brendan Eich, then you aren't being tolerant, which inherently makes you intolerant. That, in turn, makes you a bigot.
You can't have it both ways. The only way you can yourself be tolerant is if you tolerate Brendan Eich. Anything less makes you an intolerant bigot.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @08:06PM
Yep, Homosexual Turd! Res ipsa loquitur.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @08:17PM
So the GP and the others present reasonable arguments that are logically sound, and you choose to respond with childish name-calling? And we're supposed to take you seriously? Sorry, I have to side with the people presenting the sound arguments, rather than the ones just throwing around insults.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @08:57PM
Sorry, sorry!!! My bad! I meant HOMOPHOBIC Turd.
(Score: 0, Troll) by chris.alex.thomas on Saturday September 20 2014, @10:51PM
nobody gives a fuck what you think, because most people here are not homophobes, so you're views are being ignored because they are invalid.
your argument is also invalid, tolerance is not a relativistic term, it's an absolute one, you're closed to 0, I'm closer to 1, therefore I'm more tolerant than you are.
I'm not tolerating your bullshit though, I'm going to keep not tolerating it until you and your bigoted friends either are forced to live on an island and die of typhoid or something equally nasty, or you merely die off out of old age and we don't have to deal with your bullshit anymore.
I hope I was clear on the points I illustrated.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @11:08PM
You were not clear. Your comment is riddled with spelling mistakes and obvious grammatical errors. You clearly misunderstand the terms "relativistic" and "absolute". You use the word "bullshit" far too often. But most importantly, your thoughts do not flow. They jump from here to there, peppered with rage and uncontrolled emotion that masks any logical thought that you may be capable of. Sorry, you did not clearly illustrate whatever points you were trying to make. Your comment was nearly incomprehensible.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Tork on Saturday September 20 2014, @10:45PM
If you truly are tolerant, then you'll support those who support marriage as being defined as only between a man and a woman, even if you disagree with that position.
So just to be clear: You're saying the truly tolerant person is the person that's against gay marriage. Right?
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @11:05PM
Try reading the quoted comment again. Then read yours. It should be obvious how they differ.
Yours should say, "You're saying the truly tolerant person is the person that tolerates the person that's against gay marriage. Right?". And the response would be, of course, "Right."
(Score: 2) by Tork on Saturday September 20 2014, @11:43PM
Try reading the quoted comment again. Then read yours. It should be obvious how they differ.
No, it isn't.
Yours should say, "You're saying the truly tolerant person is the person that tolerates the person that's against gay marriage. Right?". And the response would be, of course, "Right."
That isn't what I'm asking. I'll rephrase: Are you saying that the less-bigoted person here is the person who is against gay-marriage? I'm just asking because this whole attempt at word-smithing a group of people into hypocrisy seems more like a distraction than any sort of real criticism. They feel that gays should have rights and are consistent in that approach, but somehow defending them against bigots is somehow reprehensible, and I really don't understand that line of thought. It's like saying soldiers shouldn't be sent in to fight ISIS because that'd make em terr'ists!
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 21 2014, @01:05AM
Well, try reading it once more. The difference really should be obvious.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday September 21 2014, @02:15AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 21 2014, @12:15PM
I don't have to do anything to accomplish that. Your inability to distinguish between two very different sentences is doing it for me. Try reading them yet again.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday September 21 2014, @04:41PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 22 2014, @03:24PM
Yes, it was. It was answered with this comment. [soylentnews.org]
However if you are unable to interpret that response and need it spelled out for you then the answer is no, the person who is against gay marriage isn't the truly tolerant person. But the person who tolerates those whose views they think are wrong or even obscene is the truly tolerant person. Whether or not these views should be tolerated is a different question.
Re-reading the discussion I see where the confusion comes from, the other AC (I'm not the same AC you were previously discussing this with) said, "If you don't support Brendan Eich, then you aren't being tolerant," where I believe he meant, "If you don't support Brendan Eich's right to state his views, then you aren't being tolerant,"
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday September 22 2014, @04:03PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 21 2014, @09:23PM
(Score: 3, Interesting) by tftp on Sunday September 21 2014, @01:21AM
They feel that gays should have rights and are consistent in that approach, but somehow defending them against bigots is somehow reprehensible, and I really don't understand that line of thought.
It's very simple. One has a right to defend themselves against imminent actions that are directed against them. However one has no right to "defend" themselves from a lawful political process that may in the future turn out against their interests. You cannot shoot a boy because you fear that he will grow up, become a thug, and steal your precious.
Let's say there is a presidential election ahead. You want to vote for A, and your neighbor told you that he is voting for B. Would it be kosher for you to set fire to his house on the voting day, so that he won't vote? Obviously, not - because his political position is part of his freedom, just as your opinion is for you.
Now, let's look at another scenario. You wanted A, but B won - and you learned that your coworker voted for B. Would it be ethical and otherwise proper to accuse B of some heinous wrongdoing to get him fired? After all, probably this coworker agrees with many of B's ideas that you find repulsive. Again, no - you may not do that because political opinions, and voting, should be free. Otherwise how will we know who among A and B is more liked? You can shoot everyone who wants to vote for B, but that won't be democracy then, will it? This is what's happening in Zimbabwe, when remaining white farmers are killed by marauding thugs even though the law is on side of farmers.
Again, you are free to protect itself, but only against a specific, imminent threat. As I said before, you may not shoot a neighbor's son out of fear that 20 years later he will rape your newborn daughter. We have to ask, did Brendan Eich ever oppress anyone, be it gay or anti-gay, black or white, natural born or an immigrant, for their way of life? If he did, one can agree that he'd be a dangerous executive at the wheel of a company. But... what if he didn't? Is it then ethical to force him out just because he harbors ideas that you find despicable? Don't you think that persecuting people for their thinking is a little bit Orwellian?
Or, let's turn the table. You come for an interview. Would you want your prospective employer to judge you for your inner, private opinions that don't affect anyone at work? Say, you are a programmer; you dislike impressionism and like cubism. I hate you for that art preference (I indeed like impressionists.) Will I be justified in shredding your resume for just that reason alone? If you say "no" to that, as you should, then why Brendan Eich should be sent packing for his opinions that affect nobody at work? As I recall, he did not make his political preferences known - it was dug out and published by some dating web site employees. That looks like vengeance to me.
What I truly don't understand in this whole discussion on SN is how easily many can claim that firing "a bigot" is company's right. They do not understand that they themselves become bigots in the process. Some say that "it's different" - but it is not. You cannot kill for peace. Some fighters against bigotry went all the way to the end, then farther - and flipped the sign; they have fought the dragon, won, and became the dragon. A tolerant person will never attack his opponent over an opinion. He will simply say "sorry, I have a different opinion, here is why; if you still stick to your preference, see you at the polls." This is not what Mozilla people told to Eich.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 21 2014, @03:18AM
(Score: 2) by tftp on Sunday September 21 2014, @04:35AM
If I can be fired for my actions that go against the company's interests, he can, too
In what way his contribution back in 2008 went against Mozilla Corp.'s interests in 2014? Does Mozilla's corporate charter have an article about supporting or not supporting traditional or non-traditional marriage?
Or, perhaps, in their paperwork they stick to, you know, making software? If so, they have no say about employees' political and personal activity.
We should not exaggerate the power that an employer has over an employee. Usually employer's control extends only to work duties. For example, one could expect a priest to not fornicate in church. (They do regardless.) You can drink on weekends as long as you come to work sober. Employees still do get fired sometimes for such things... and courts immediately restore them, with back pay and all. Mozilla Corp. should count their blessings that Brendan Eich hasn't sued them into oblivion. He would have prevailed in court. But he, "an intolerant bigot," tolerated (forgave) his tormentors.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 21 2014, @04:58AM
In what way his contribution back in 2008 went against Mozilla Corp.'s interests in 2014? Does Mozilla's corporate charter have an article about supporting or not supporting traditional or non-traditional marriage?
Irrelevant on both counts. Prop 8 wasn't repealed until 2013. Also, it was his employees that first raised the concern.
Or, perhaps, in their paperwork they stick to, you know, making software? If so, they have no say about employees' political and personal activity.
He made a donation large enough that it had to be disclosed for transparency reasons. By doing so he indicated that he felt strong enough about the matter to put his own money into it, thus raising the concern that he will act against a segment of his employees. He was within his rights to make the donation, they were in their right to express dissatisfaction with it.
We should not exaggerate the power that an employer has over an employee. Usually employer's control extends only to work duties.
If we were talking about him voting against gay marriage, you'd have a point. He has a right to privacy with what he votes on. But that is not even in the ballpark of what we're talking about. He used his financial resources to withhold the rights of some of his employees. He used his money to project his opinion, others did the same, but for some reason they're in the wrong for it. You're free to say what you want, everybody else is, too. Yes, it actually is better that way.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tftp on Sunday September 21 2014, @05:55AM
He used his financial resources to withhold the rights of some of his employees.
This is a very dangerous path to take. All voting affects legal landscape, and new laws (or discontinued existing laws) affect someone, including employees of your company. Does it mean that no employee of any company is allowed to participate in legislative activities? That would be news to many.
You say that voting is sacred, but financing the vote isn't. Is there any law, or any moral norm that serves as a source for that opinion? Financing the campaign only means that you buy a milk crate for someone to stand and speak to the crowd. What kind of democracy would that be if you are free to speak, but not free to be heard?
Finally, you say that he was willing to withhold the rights of some of his employees. He wasn't even the boss back then. But that's not important. The important fact is that these rights are created - or destroyed - by adopting laws. If the law says that you cannot do that, you have no right to do that. You can say that it's sophistry. However let's say the law is about freedom to kill people that you don't like, and the new law says that you may not kill. Would the people complain that their right to kill had been taken away from them? No. They no longer have such right because the society doesn't see it as a good idea. The society as a whole has the sole right to decide what is and what is not allowed. You can be sure that there are always people that are impacted by such decisions; some will be among employees of your company. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. It is foolish to lash at one out of millions who decided that your freedom to do $something should not be allowed. It is undemocratic, just as it is undemocratic to punish people for voting for a wrong person. US corporations are not permitted to dictate to the people what to think, how to vote, who to associate with and what political agendas to support. What was done to Brendan Eich is more fitting to North Korea. In a democracy you cannot attack a person who advocates for a law that impacts you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 21 2014, @09:09AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 21 2014, @02:44AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @07:39PM
is a bunch of egotists and bigots or else they wouldn't think they knew better than their 'customer' base and do basically the OPPOSITE of what their customers asked for 10 years running! Honestly does anyone remember when Phoenix was an independent project to shave the fat off the mozilla browser suite? It was faster than shit, but didn't have extensions, had issues with plugins, etc. It also had quite a few less memory leaks at the time because many of them were in the xul UI for the browser rather than the rendering engine itself. Then it got rolled in as an 'official' mozilla project and we watched it slide downhill, from 0.5 to 3.x, finally cumulating in the 4.x releases which lead to the present day. Hell, the only reason most people jumped to 4 was due to HTML5 support. If the HTML5 version of gecko had been backported to the 3.6 UI, most people probably would've ignored the 'later' releases and the current UI mess could've been avoided.
Sadly that didn't come to pass and here we have the results of the catastrophe that is the Mozilla Foundation.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @09:41PM
If this guy had donated to the KKK instead of an anti-gay group, would you still be screaming about tolerance and acceptance? Would all those people mad that the CEO got ousted still support the guy? Bigotry should not be supported, or rewarded. You guys are off on this one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @11:11PM
Well, that would depend on whether or not one proclaims to be tolerant. If one does, then one would have to tolerate his behavior, even if one were to disagree with it. That's what tolerance is all about. One can't be tolerant if one engages in any sort of intolerance, no matter how small or insignificant it may seem. Even the smallest bit of intolerance makes a person fully intolerant. Either you're tolerant, or you are intolerant. There is inherently no middle ground. It's an either-or situation.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday September 21 2014, @05:04AM
Either you're tolerant, or you are intolerant. There is inherently no middle ground. It's an either-or situation.
Okay, so according to you, one can be against gay rights, and another can be for gay rights... except that'd be bad because they'd be in conflict with the guys that are against gay rights, and that's way worse, so it's better that just the bigots get their say unchallenged so gays don't have rights but at least there aren't worse people out there defending them.
You'll pardon me for not understanding the "either-or-situation" bit.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @10:39PM
The Firefox team lost me as a customer when they hounded out their CEO for a lawful political contribution done long ago.
He made the contribution in the name of the Mozilla foundation and it was his own employees that raised the issue about it.
I do not want to support a company of bigots who have no tolerance for other ways of thinking.
That isn't what they did, though. It wasn't his beliefs that got him in trouble, it was his actions. You should think about what your stance really is here, you would not be singing the same tune if you were on the other side of the fence.
(Score: 3, Informative) by TheRaven on Sunday September 21 2014, @10:57AM
No he didn't. He made it privately and in the belief that it would be anonymous. Then the donor list (which includes employer information for auditing purposes) was leaked.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 21 2014, @12:26PM
Somebody loses his or her job because he or she expresses pro-homosexual sentiment? IT'S AN ATROCIOUS CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY!
Somebody loses his or her job because he or she expresses anti-homosexual sentiment? IT'S A GLORIOUSLY GOOD SHOW OF TOLERANCE AND EQUALITY!
It really is disgusting that they think it's okay for somebody to lose his or her job merely for expressing an opinion about something relating to homosexuality.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 21 2014, @04:43PM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by chris.alex.thomas on Saturday September 20 2014, @10:41PM
you've got it the wrong way around, hounding bigots because they are bigoted, does not make you a bigot, there are some views which are better than others, not all views are equal.
equal rights for marriage is a better view than declaring gay marriage an abomination, you can't call me bigoted because I refuse to accept that you're a homophobe and won't accept your views when you're using those views to harass and intimidate people who are doing nothing wrong.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by tftp on Saturday September 20 2014, @11:05PM
there are some views which are better than others
Great news! Could you please publish the complete list of allowed political positions in this country? (Of course, in this democracy one is free to hold a different view, but then he will be fired, shamed, and otherwise destroyed.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 21 2014, @03:30AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 21 2014, @12:21PM
No, he does believe in such things. You are the one who does not.
Equality means that one can express pro-homosexual sentiment as freely and without repercussion as somebody can express anti-homosexual sentiment. Harming people who express anti-homosexual ideas by, say, taking away their jobs is blatant inequality. It's just as bad as forcing somebody from his or her job because he or she is homosexual.
It works the same way for freedom.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 21 2014, @04:46PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 21 2014, @08:42AM
Make sure the list includes any potential FUTURE positions that may change.
You wouldn't want to make a donation to a cause that might someday become unfashionable, would you?
Orwell had it right, except he thought it would be the RIGHT wingers that were the authoritarian jackbooted double-speakers.
(Score: 1) by chris.alex.thomas on Sunday September 21 2014, @10:26AM
the list is quiet easy, but I'm shocked that I have to tell you how it works.
1) anything that expands the rights of people to live peacefully and in the way that they desire
2) with regard to (1) it only supports the expansion of rights, never the contraction, therefore any expansion of rights which causes the contraction of other peoples rights, it not in the list.
Example:
1a) The ability to marry who the hell you want
1b) The refusal to accept gay marriage
==
1a) is acceptable because it expands the rights of people to live how they want and does not cause the contraction of rights given to other people
1b) is not acceptable because it expands the rights of people who wish to contract the rights given to other people falling foul of rule (2)
==
It's really not that hard, but I'm shocked that in the 21st century, this STILL has to be explained.......
(Score: 2) by tftp on Sunday September 21 2014, @05:27PM
Your list means that you will support expansion of rights of some pedophile to have sex with your baby. This example proves that you need to think again what is and is not allowed, and why. Hint: human rights are not the goal; survival of the humankind is.
You can also see that your list only expands rights, but has no mechanisms for taking some rights away that were given in error. In the end everyone will have *all* the rights. A stranger in the street will have a right to stick a knife into you, and you will have a right to shoot him before he comes close enough. I believe we have a name for such a society...
If, however, you do not advocate for anarchy, then your political system should have a mechanism by which some rights can be taken away, once they prove to be unwisely given. Humankind is not flawless, and democratic decisions are not error-free. There ought to be a method to correct those errors. So far you are of opinion that such method should not exist, and a right, once given, shall stay no matter how good or how bad it is for the society.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday September 22 2014, @01:26PM
That would violate the rights of the child, and therefore fails his second rule.
Only if you live in some weird parallel universe which has no concept of a right to life or safety...otherwise you're again violating his second rule.
Of course, there is one flaw in his rules, which is that you need a consistent set of rights as a starting point for further expansion. I'm not sure there's any current definition that's fully consistent, although the original founding documents of the US might work -- just not their current interpretations.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 22 2014, @11:39PM
That would violate the rights of the child, and therefore fails his second rule.
I guess a baby is clearly incapable of giving consent, but what if it was an older, but still pre-pubescent child that for some reason consented to having sex with a paedophile? Would that still be a violation of the child's rights? If so, why?
Of course there are reasons why it shouldn't be allowed, but I don't see how they fit into rules that chris.alex.thomas proposed.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Monday September 22 2014, @02:51AM
Typical evidence that you haven't thought this out. So why does 1b) the refusal to "accept" same sex marriage violate rule 2)? Your acceptance of someone's same sex marriage is not required in order for the marriage to occur. Even recognition by the state is not required in order for a same sex marriage to occur. For example, I attended a same sex marriage (Unitarian Church BTW) in the US state of North Carolina in 1998 or 1999 (I forget the year). The marriage wasn't recognized by the state, but it happened anyway and the ceremony was legal to conduct.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday September 22 2014, @01:30PM
Ignoring whether or not the issue at hand was a full ban or just "refusal to accept", the state refusing the recognize it IS a rights violation, as it is blatantly discriminatory. There are many legal benefits that come with state recognition of a marriage, and by refusing to recognize same-sex marriage they're saying that only heterosexual couples are entitled to those benefits.
Of course, if we abolished state recognition of marriage and the associated benefits entirely, that would solve that issue. Not sure why they have any business being involved these days anyway...
(Score: 2) by khallow on Tuesday September 23 2014, @02:45AM
We can't ignore that. The phrase was "refusal to accept gay marriage" not "full ban on gay marriage". That's a huge difference. chris.alex.thomas claims that we don't have a right to think or say certain things, not use the force of law to ban certain things or prevent certain rights from being exercised.
Of course, if we abolished state recognition of marriage and the associated benefits entirely, that would solve that issue. Not sure why they have any business being involved these days anyway...
I agree.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday September 23 2014, @12:01PM
Right, there's certainly a difference, I was just saying that that distinction didn't really apply to the point I was making -- whether or not one has a legal right to say something (and I'd agree, you have a legal right to say *anything*), the question at hand doesn't involve legal action. You have a right to say anything you want, but I have a right to stop doing business with you because of it.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Wednesday September 24 2014, @03:26AM
That's not necessarily true in employment. For example, the Eich case involved legally protected political donations. It was actually against California law [vtzlawblog.com] to force him out, even using the "voluntary resignation" fig leaf. And in federal employment, there are several protected classes for which you can't discriminate (such as sexual status or religion). A case exists for religious discrimination against Eich here.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday September 22 2014, @01:23PM
If I can be arrested for being a nudest, why can't someone be fired for supporting oppression?
I'm all for free speech -- I'd even say we don't take it far enough in this country -- but that does not mean speech completely free of consequences, and it CERTAINLY does not mean *actions* free of consequence. First of all, money is not speech. The Supreme Court can say what they want, but it's not. It's a transaction. If money is speech, so is selling someone an ounce of cocaine. That's absurd. Furthermore, free speech applies to *government* restriction only. He shouldn't be put in prison for those beliefs. But if someone is being an asshole, the rest of society has a right -- a duty even -- to call them out on it. You have every right to be an ass, but you can't force me to help you do it.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @11:17PM
I have to admit, while I defend your right to express ideas such as this, I do find them all quite scary.
Here we have you rationalizing the hatred, bigotry and intolerance that you engage in during your quest to suggest that such things are unacceptable. It's so obviously hypocritical that it's hilarious, but it isn't hilarious because you're serious.
You would, in all seriousness, go out of your way to absolutely crush freedom in your weird attempt to somehow increase it. It's so blatantly contradictory, and so blatantly self-defeating, yet you seem incapable of noticing this.
You are basically saying, "Bigotry is bad, but it's okay for me to engage in it." or "Intolerance is bad, unless it's something I don't like." It's all so absurd.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday September 21 2014, @04:11AM
You are basically saying, "Bigotry is bad, but it's okay for me to engage in it." or "Intolerance is bad, unless it's something I don't like." It's all so absurd.
"I want people to have equal rights" is absurd?
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by khallow on Sunday September 21 2014, @08:21AM
Who said that? Instead, what we have is:
'
As the original poster stated, some views are better than others. And as a result, it is just fine to hound bigots.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday September 21 2014, @09:05AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by khallow on Sunday September 21 2014, @11:24AM
You asked a leading question for a statement no one made or disputed.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday September 21 2014, @04:50PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by khallow on Monday September 22 2014, @02:38AM
You put the following in quotes: "I want people to have equal rights" Who said that? As I noted, nobody in the thread has made that statement. So you started your contribution to this thread with false pretenses, claiming that someone somewhere merely stated an uncontroversial statement.
In context, you're accusing an Anonymous Coward of stating the above quote was absurd. But what he actually wrote was:
So to summarize, you wrote a leading question based on a straw man. Now, you're indignant that somehow my accurate summary of your actions is "not true" and I "know it", belittling it as "word-smithing". Well, maybe you should have written something other than what you wrote and treat other posters' arguments fairly and without that grostesque misrepresentation. Then this "word-smithing" wouldn't be such a problem.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday September 22 2014, @03:19AM
You put the following in quotes: "I want people to have equal rights" Who said that?
The people he was mis-describing.
Well, maybe you should have written something other than what you wrote and treat other posters' arguments fairly and without that grostesque misrepresentation.
He mis-characterized the view and I corrected him and you knew that's what I was doing.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by khallow on Monday September 22 2014, @04:52AM
Maybe you ought to go back to that post and actually argue that rather than play silly rhetorical games? Please include your reasoning too for why you think that description was inaccurate. We don't automagically know what you are thinking.
Right, "corrected". We still don't know what was supposed to be inaccurate about the AC's characterization, especially given what chris.alex.thomas actually wrote. And I still don't know what in the world you are thinking. For example, you could just be disingenuously trolling away. Or you could have genuine psychological problems that cripple your understanding of others' viewpoints. Maybe more than one thing applies. I can't say.
But your continued insistence on knowing better than me what I think and believe is getting rather bizarre.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday September 22 2014, @05:33AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈