Forgot your password?
Firefox Software News

OKCupid Warns Off Mozilla Firefox Users Over Gay Rights 1482

Posted by Soulskill
from the unwelcoming-is-unwelcome dept.
PortWineBoy writes: "The Beeb is reporting that OkCupid is prompting Mozilla Firefox users to switch browsers over Brendan Eich's support of Prop 8 in California in 2008. Users are met with a message stating that OKCupid would prefer no one access their site with Mozilla software. Eich is the new CEO of Mozilla."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

OKCupid Warns Off Mozilla Firefox Users Over Gay Rights

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @02:42PM (#46632247)

    But making a stand against someone because of their religious beliefs seems petty... and I'm an Athiest...
    what happened to live and let live?

  • by Altus (1034) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @02:45PM (#46632269) Homepage

    Not an april fools story, this one is real.

  • Re:Wait... wha? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ArcadeMan (2766669) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @02:47PM (#46632293)

    And Facebook didn't make the Oculus Rift, Apple didn't create AAC, etc.

    Haters gotta hate.

  • by jythie (914043) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @02:48PM (#46632303)
    In this case at least, it is due to the new CEO not adhering to 'live and let live'. Gay rights activists rarely care about people's personal religious beliefs, it is when they put resources into having those beliefs enshrined in law and thus using state power to force their religion on others that people get annoyed.
  • by SuperKendall (25149) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @02:49PM (#46632311)

    I'm fully in support of gay marriage, and have been to a few same-sex ceremonies for friends.

    But in no way do I support the demonization or boycott of people just because they have a different opinion of something than I do. To me that's a for of bigotry itself, and why would I want to be bigoted?

    I'm pretty sure that there are almost no two people on earth who have the same opinion on every single subject. If we go down this road of shunning those who think differently, we all wind up as islands - and not the fun kind with umbrellas in in drinks, for we will have shunned all of the umbrella makers...

  • by abies (607076) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @02:49PM (#46632313)

    Want to get unpaid product placement on BBC? Boycott Mozilla! I suppose that not watching Ender's Game is already not enough.
    News for tomorrow: Kazakhstan Airlines cancel flights to Vatican quoting lack of official support for gay priests from the Pope.

  • Terrible precedent (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JDG1980 (2438906) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @02:51PM (#46632325)

    So we're politicizing browser selection now? This amounts to dragging end users into a political dispute that they have nothing to do with. Is this really a road we want to go down? How long before people start blocking IE because they don't like Microsoft's business tactics, or before Apple starts blocking Google Chrome users with a message complaining about alleged patent infringement?

    Once this Pandora's box is open, it will be impossible to close. This time it may be aimed at Brendan Eich for the heinous crime of holding onto outdated views of gay marriage a whole two years longer than President Obama, but next time it could be anyone.

  • by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @02:51PM (#46632331)

    There's an important point that I think is often lost in these discussions. Orthodox Christian theology maintains several points: (1) Homosexuality is a sin, (2) unrepentant sin goes hand-in-hand with alienation from God, and (3) alienation from God leads to both unhappiness in this present life and a missed opportunity for happiness after death.

    Based on that set of axioms, it can be completely loving to encourage someone to repent of his sins and choose to follow Jesus. Practicing homosexuality is a sign that someone isn't doing that. It would therefore be unloving or even hateful to affirm homosexual relations.

    Now I'm sure 90% of the Slashdot crowd disagrees with those axioms. And it's certainly the case that a person can proclaim to be Christian but actually hate gay people. But there are some Christians for whom that's not the case, and I don't think any of us knows Mozilla's CEO well enough to guess in which group he sits.

  • by x0ra (1249540) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @02:51PM (#46632333)
    Religious belief is one thing, forcing that belief upon other by supporting (or not) a policy change that would ostracize a non trivial part of the population is another.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @02:53PM (#46632359)

    I was in the same boat as you about this. Until, I thought about it in this manner:

    If your religious beliefs include the destruction of equal rights for others, then yes, to hell with you. All humans may be created equal, but not all beliefs are; especially the ones that restrict the freedom of others.

    Maybe the extremist Islamic belief that all infidels need to be killed is also A-OK with you? If people justified slavery and a lack of women's suffrage under their religious beliefs is that also a full go ahead for you?

  • Boycott California (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SpaceManFlip (2720507) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @02:53PM (#46632361)
    If the torch & pitchfork crowds are going after this dude now because he supported CA Prop 8, shouldn't they also call for a boycott of the state of California? You know, since a majority of their voters voted for the infamous Proposition 8 and passed it. I would say that voting for it counts as supporting it, right?
  • It's all good and well that he spent $1,000 of his own money on legalizing bigotry.

    Look at it from the other side of history: he *wasted* $1,000 for pretty much no reason at all, now that the courts have asserted that the ban was unconstitutional.

  • Dear Slacktivists (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hsmith (818216) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @02:54PM (#46632369)
    Fuck off and die.

    This whole internet activism bullshit has gotten out of hand. Hey, stop using JavaScript if you want to put your money where your mouth is.

    Not using Firefox will change nothing.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @02:59PM (#46632431)

    So you can believe anything you want; but you cannot act on it? That's downright religious of you... Imagine if someone said, "Hey, its cool if you're gay and all, just don't act on it".

  • It's not just about his opinion. It's about his political donations (to California's Prop 8 specifically). Making him CEO will give him the wealth of hundreds of ordinary people which he could donate to further anti-gay-rights causes.

    Opinions are worth boycotting too though. Throughout history, a few people have done horrible things wielding nothing but opinions and words. What if their opinions had been boycotted early on?

  • Irony (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dega704 (1454673) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @02:59PM (#46632443)
    People's attitudes on this are extremely hypocritical. We rail against hatred and discrimination, and yet here we are with a "BURN THE HEATHENS!" mob mentality the second we find out about someone donating a relatively measly $1000 to Prop8. With the way some people are acting, you would think we just discovered that the guy was a raging pedophile. Did he really give out anywhere near the amount of damage that he and Mozilla are now receiving? Is this how we win the battle against discrimination? By replacing one form of irrational hatred and bias with another? We may view it as poetic justice, but it's hypocrisy; plain and simple. People love to hate. The only thing that ever changes is who the current easy target is. Plenty of CEOs are vile, unscrupulous pigs who cheat on their wives and sexually harass female employees, but you won't see this sort of backlash against them because it isn't the current political hot topic.
  • by kamapuaa (555446) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @03:00PM (#46632455) Homepage

    Saying it's "a different opinion" is under-playing it. "Cheese is delicious" is an opinion. "I will donate money to deny a class of people basic human rights" is something more, something that speaks ill about you personally. I have no plans to stop using Firefox, but you'd have to be a dick to do that.

    By your logic Fred Phelps just had a different take on the world, and can't we all just get along?

  • by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @03:02PM (#46632473)
    Seems to me, OKCupid trying to boycott a perfectly good company and product over a single person's political views, is grounds for boycotting OKCupid.

    Stupidity abounds. This is a grand example of the INtolerance of opposing views we have been seeing since Obama took office. (I'm not blaming him, just pointing out the approximate timing.)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @03:05PM (#46632507)

    For once /. got it right.. (hand-shake)
    I think and feel using tech to promote your views on life and werld around us in a negative manner is BS!!
    or example, when clicking on the link, a sound byte came up, unsolicited.. Promoting someone'[s views.
    While I agree that gay rights are IMPORTANT, I feel those whom feel strongly about this should be the ones to act. like the LGBT or something of that nature..
    Not the owners of websites, whom may cater to this, but not have an opinion either way, and are looking for a business tactic.. I feel it de-value's the true intent and really helps us to understand how stupid, bitchy, and cowardly these business individuals are..

    Moving past that, I truly think and feel OK cupid is wrong for forcing their agenda those whom do not necessarily agree..
    If there was an option to allow display, etc then it would not be so bad.
    But the forceful aspect is BS.
    wouldn't it be funny if bevcause of this ignorace, stupidity, etc there was a major outbreak from a security perspective, credid card numbers, personal info leaked, etc all because some one hast to make the community use a less secure method of accessing their site because of their social beleifs.

    This is just stupid, all together..

    thanks for your time (stepping off soap box)

  • by Etcetera (14711) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @03:11PM (#46632567) Homepage

    Religious belief is one thing, forcing that belief upon other by supporting (or not) a policy change that would ostracize a non trivial part of the population is another.

    ... You mean that self-evidently hellacious period known as 2007? (a/k/a the "status quo" at the time the proposition was written and submitted)

  • by bberens (965711) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @03:11PM (#46632569)
    I support open source for purely political reasons. I stopped using IE for mostly political reasons. I don't use FF anyways but I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that people might not use FF for political reasons.
  • by geekoid (135745) <dadinportland AT yahoo DOT com> on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @03:11PM (#46632573) Homepage Journal

    wow. You are a truly horrible person.
    You forget to check AC, btw.

    Here comes the 'I don't post as AC' lie.

  • by Grishnakh (216268) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @03:12PM (#46632591)

    And moreover, if Mozilla hired a CEO who said that women shouldn't be allowed to vote, and that black people should be returned to slavery, is it wrong to call for a boycott?

    As much as the religionists try to spin it, Prop 8 isn't much different.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @03:13PM (#46632597)

    They'll call you a horrible person for not washing your hands after going to the bathroom but throw you a fucking parade and cheer you for hours because you stick your dick in someones ass.

    We aren't dealing with rational human beings. They are perverted, mentally ill people. Unless you join in their illness you are to be mocked, called a bigot and run out of town. There is no room for dissent.

    When I was a student I would have strongly disagreed, and probably called you a bigot. Then I spent ten years living in San Francisco, the epicenter of Gay fascism. Now I'm damned close to agreeing with you.

    (Posting anonymously because I still live in SF, and get straight-bashed often enough already.)

  • by eht (8912) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @03:13PM (#46632607)

    When did marriage become a basic human right? Why is the government involved pro or con with it to begin with? Why is it only limited to two people?

  • by sjames (1099) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @03:15PM (#46632637) Homepage

    It's not about beliefs here. It's about what he tried to do because of them. I can assume you would have no problem working for a Christian, but how might you feel about one who was actively campaigning to make Sunday church attendance mandatory for everyone? Would you care to support his endeavor even indirectly?

  • by jythie (914043) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @03:16PM (#46632659)
    Well, if your action impacts other people (when trying to pass laws requiring others to take the same actions), esp ones who are not part of your faith, yeah, you are going to get called out on it.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @03:16PM (#46632663)

    But haven't Gay rights activists done the same thing? They have put resources into having their belief that marriage can be redefined into law and thus using state power to force their beliefs on others.

  • From Okay Cupid... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bdwoolman (561635) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @03:17PM (#46632673) Homepage
    ...To Okay Stupid. This requested boycott is a cynical media troll that plays on people's lowest impulses. I doubt this gutter play buys Stupid Cupid much goodwill just some media attention. Besides, Eich has stated that he supports a diverse workplace. And a lot of people have evolved on this issue over the years.
  • Re:Wait... wha? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NotDrWho (3543773) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @03:23PM (#46632749)

    If I based every software purchasing decision on whether or not the company CEO was a prick, I wouldn't have many products left to choose from. Even choosing an OS would be next to impossible. Apple would be out (Steve Jobs was a notorious asshole who parked in handicapped spaces and refused to give to charities). MS would be out (one word: Ballmer). Shit, even Linux would be out (ever seen one of Torvalds' infamous rants?). I guess I could use FreeBSD or OS2/Warp. But I'm sure someone would have some bone to pick about their creators/parent companies too.

    I just don't have the time to vet every goddamned person over every goddamned thing. It would be one thing if Mozilla as a company were putting up big "We hate gays!" banners on their webpage or something. But I just can't bring myself to care that their CEO may be a prick as an individual. After all, most of them are.

  • by jythie (914043) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @03:24PM (#46632771)
    OKCupid is briefly bringing it to the attention of Firefox users and then allowing them to continue using the site unimpeded. As 'retaliation' goes that is pretty damn mild. Also keep in mind this is an issue that directly effects their business model, so this is not just some random person's political speech, this is someone who was engaged in passing a class of law what not only would impact nearly a 10th of their user base but would by proxy impact their corporate mission and profits.

    I am also getting rather tired of this 'making people afraid to voice their viewpoints' meme. The anti-gay movement is not even remotely afraid to voice their views, they are in a very strong position. Even if they were, maybe they should be. The groups behind these campaigns are generally accustomed to being on the giving side of discrimination to the point they see any loss of their privileged position as some type of persecution. Thus they tend to want immunity for actually being called to task for the things they say and do and whine when they do not get it, even when what they were trying to accomplish was worse on others. So maybe they should actually fear some repercussions, it might make them think more about people unlike themselves.
  • by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @03:25PM (#46632775)

    Based on that set of axioms, it can be completely loving to encourage someone to repent of his sins and choose to follow Jesus. Practicing homosexuality is a sign that someone isn't doing that. It would therefore be unloving or even hateful to affirm homosexual relations.

    He didn't "encourage someone to repent". He contributed money to an effort to institutionalize oppression in the law. His actions affected others, so those who disagree are entitled to do the same.

    I agree completely. The problem is, we don't have a universally accepted theory about what makes a given law just or unjust to impose on those citizens who don't like it. We all have some laws that strike us as oppressive.

    Some see this CEO's advocacy of Prop 8 as oppression. Many Christians see their being forced to support gay marriages (case in point, that wedding cake bakery story from a few months ago) as a form of oppression against them. I see being forced to pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffet as a form of oppression.

    Without a unanimously agreed-upon standard regarding when it's right for a majority to impose its will on the minority, I don't see how we can non-hypocritically single out just a single person or issue in a case like this.

  • by lgw (121541) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @03:26PM (#46632785) Journal

    Intolerance abounds these days under the theme of "shouting down bigotry". People blithely unaware they're acting much the same as those who opposed civil rights laws in the first place.

    In this specific case, however, eHarmony is perfect for anyone offended by OKCupid's behavior, given their own history here. Heck, this could improve the utility of both dating services by filtering up front on this issue.

  • Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by causality (777677) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @03:29PM (#46632837)

    Because tolerance of intolerance is intolerance. I don't understand why you Republicans can't comprehend that. In other to be tolerant, you must be extremely intolerant of things that aren't tolerant.

    Only if you have no belief whatsoever in the power of your own example and your own message. In that case, I suppose you would want to use some form of coercion.

    But then, I question your true motives for believing what you believe. Is it to join the majority and avoid the shame and invective of being accused of intolerance? Or is it because you truly believe that tolerance is superior? If the latter, why not act like it's superior and let it stand on its own merits? Why not show everyone a shining, pure, hypocrisy-free example of what real tolerance is?

    See, what many of you really want is is to issue righteous judgment against those who disagree with you. You think the fact that you are right excuses this desire. You still haven't performed the introspection and the difficult internal work of overcoming and transforming your own hatred. You think espousing the correct doctrine makes you superior, but you did not eliminate your own hatred at all. You merely found a socially acceptable way to channel it. This still fails to reduce the amount of hatred in the world. Hating evil does not make you good, no matter how desperately you want to feel self-righteous.

    The failure to comprehend this is not because it is so difficult to understand. It's really simple, in fact. No, the failure to understand this is the same failing behind most of the vices that remain today: it raises too many difficult and uncomfortable questions concerning who you really are and why you believe what you believe. It's so much easier to find something external to yourself to hate. Isn't it?

  • by jellomizer (103300) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @03:35PM (#46632905)

    Did he use his own money or did he use use the companies money for this?
    Does his personal views and how he chooses to spend his money in this way seem to conflict with managing the Mozilla Foundation?
    Is their any evidence that he as a CEO tried to make Gay Customers/Employees/Contributors feel unwelcome in this institution.

    As far as we know he just doesn't like the idea of Gay Marriage, that is a far cry from being a radical anti-gay advocate.

    We have this silly notion just because someone doesn't 100% allign with the party, that some how they are 100% against it.

  • McCarthy Jr. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mr_Wisenheimer (3534031) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @03:37PM (#46632925)

    California is a State that recognizes that people have a legal right to participate in lawful activities outside of work without consequence to their job. I voted against Proposition 8 and I am disappointed in everyone who supported it, but people have a right to their private lives and their religious freedom.

    If the company, Mozilla, were discriminating in any way against employees or customers because of their sexual orientation, then taking them to task would be appropriate and ethical. However, hounding a private citizen at work is not ethical. Imagine if someone read the blog post of a pro same-sex marriage activist and got 1000 of their Christian friends to bombard the activist's place of employment with thousands of phone calls and dozens of angry citizens trying to gain access to the premises and talk to the employer about their employee's "immoral" behavior.

    It is not McCarthyism, but it is the same sort of attitude, ruin the professional lives of all your perceived political opponents. While only a tiny sliver of proposition 8 opponents engaged in this sort of behavior, it does nothing but a disservice to their cause. When conservative Christians talk about being persecuted by homosexuals for their beliefs, most people rightfully laugh in their face, but actions like this do lead an iota of credibility to their claims, and we all know that anecdotes of someone claiming to have been forced to quit their job because of harassment from "homosexual activists" speak a lot more convincingly to many people than the millions of proposition 8 supporters who were not harassed.

    The bottom line is understanding the difference between tolerance and acceptance. I tolerate a lot of bad behavior and stupid ideas because I am a tolerant person. When you go to work or school, you are required by law (at least here in California) to tolerate the beliefs of your coworkers, those who believe that same-sex couples should wed and those who are religiously opposed to the idea. You do not have to accept their beliefs, just tolerate them and their rights to them.

    Acceptance of same-sex marriages is something that should flow naturally out of tolerance, not something that activists should try to force on people. As it becomes legal in more States and acquires more popular support, those who do not accept it will tend to die off or change their mind. You are never going to get 100% acceptance and harassing people in their workplace for what they believe in their personal life is not doing the same sex marriage cause any justice or service.

  • by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @03:38PM (#46632943)

    "You're only noticing it more because YOU are paying more attention now than you did before."

    No, I am referring to a definite trend that I have observed over the last 6 years.

    Of course intolerance has always been around. But when the Left, which promotes itself as the group most behind social and civil tolerance, instead becomes an intolerant bully to those who politely disagree, it is noticeable. VERY noticeable.

    Many people, not just me, have noticed how the political Left has turned into "the party of political correctness and intolerance". It isn't something I imagined.

  • by spire3661 (1038968) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @03:44PM (#46633011) Journal
    Christians that hold that view need a STRONG lesson in civics then. Its fine they hold that view, but we are going to constantly remind them it is immoral to force their morality on the rest of us. This is exactly where the religious need to be reminded of what the limits of tolerance are.
  • Brace Yourselves (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Uberbah (647458) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @03:46PM (#46633027)

    False Equivalency Buuuuuullshit Is Coming

    People's attitudes on this are extremely hypocritical. We rail against hatred and discrimination, and yet here we are with a "BURN THE HEATHENS!" mob mentality the second we find out about someone donating a relatively measly $1000 to Prop8.

    When a not-even-boycott of Firefox results in Eich not having custody, visitation, medical or inheritance rights, then you can whine about hypocrisy. Until then, you are simply full of shit to pretend that the public shaming of bigots is in anyway shape or form equivalent to legalized discrimination.

  • by N0Man74 (1620447) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @03:46PM (#46633031)

    I'm sorry, but I am intolerant of your intolerance toward intolerance.

    Thinking one group of people is subhuman, and not worthy of the same rights isn't "an opposing view", it's bigotry.

    According to the Right, liberals are racists, because they are the only ones who talk about race issues. Apparently liberals are also the intolerant ones, because they are concerned about intolerance.

  • Re:Who cares? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Yosho (135835) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @03:50PM (#46633087) Homepage

    Because the people who "preach tolerance" are advocating tolerance of things that don't hurt anybody.

    You're gay? Cool, whatever. You want to create legislation that makes gay people into second-class citizens? You're an asshole.

    I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

  • by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @03:52PM (#46633119)

    Christians that hold that view need a STRONG lesson in civics then. Its fine they hold that view, but we are going to constantly remind them it is immoral to force their morality on the rest of us. This is exactly where the religious need to be reminded of what the limits of tolerance are.

    Unless you're a uniquely talented moral philosopher, you are unable to define "moral" in a way that all rational persons would accept. So I think you're just kicking the can down the road by saying that you plan to give Christians a lesson.

  • by Cpt_Kirks (37296) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @03:54PM (#46633155)

    PROSECUTED? Are you frakking SERIOUS, or is this some lame 4/1 type joke?

    The man gave his own funds to a campaign for a proposition, and you think he should be PROSECUTED?

  • Re:Irony (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dixie_Flatline (5077) <vincent DOT jan DOT goh AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @03:55PM (#46633159) Homepage

    This is a completely false equivalence.

    OKC asked people to consider stopping using Firefox as long as Eich is the CEO. They haven't asked people to attempt to have Eich's marriage annulled, put money into a fund to pass laws that abrogate his fundamental human rights, or indeed to take any action against him at all.

    I don't see why racists and homophobes shouldn't be called to account for the things they do and the things they support. He supported a law that in the end was unconstitutional--by definition, the thing he supported was against the rights that these people hold. It's not hypocritical to ask people to denounce inequality unless what you're proposing is a NEW KIND of inequality. Saying that you should think twice about using the product from a company that is run by someone with identifiably questionable positions on human equality isn't taking anything away from him other than his hopes that this will blow over quietly without notice.

    And there's a way out for him, certainly. Admit that what he did was wrong, and contribute $1000 to marriage equality in some other state. Done.

    I have no sympathy for racists or xenophobes. I live in Quebec, and right now an entire election hinges significantly on one party's desire to codify discrimination against religious groups. They've admitted that they'd use the Notwithstanding Clause--a clause built into the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that allows a province to override fundamental protections for five years--which is a tacit admission that what they're doing is deliberately holding groups of people down. It's dirty and disgusting and I want nothing to do with it.

    If it's hateful of me to believe in the rights of other people, well, there's no hope for any of us.

  • by seepho (1959226) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @03:55PM (#46633161)
    Donating money to a group that me I'm not allowed to marry who I want isn't politely disagreeing with someone: it's taking an active measure that will have a negative impact on my life. I know you feel like you're being civil, but telling people that "It's just my opinion that you shouldn't be allowed to marry who you want" is far more insulting than I think you realize it is.
  • by Megol (3135005) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @03:56PM (#46633181)
    If you think closures are the reason people think Javascript isn't a good language you are 100% mistaken. Some people may complain about it but those people would complain about pointers too - simply because one haven't spend time to understand a concept doesn't mean the concept is a problem after all.

    Real problems are among others lack of _good_ modularity support - abstraction and data hiding, single numeric datatype, global variables, "this" etc.

    It is possible to hack around some problems but the language as such just sucks. IMHO - YMMV.

  • by Rix (54095) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @03:56PM (#46633183)

    There's not much you can do about Jobs, Balmer, or Cook being assholes, but we probably can force Mozilla to kick Eich to the curb.

    Now, assholes don't much care about being assholes, but this will make at least some of them think of the future implications of supporting something assholish like Prop 8.

  • Being against gay marriage is being anti-gay. You can't oppose certain rights only for members of a certain group and not be against that group in effect, even if you believe so with all your heart.

  • by Archangel Michael (180766) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @04:00PM (#46633231) Journal

    Prop Eight defined marriage (legal) as between a man and a woman. This has been the historic case for thousands of years for all but a few examples. And most of the exceptions were Polygamists (and occasional Polyandrous). From a Historical perspective, gay "marriage" is something that didn't exists until very recently. Saying society is bigoted because of this long standing tradition (one man, one woman) is simply nothing more than projection.

    1) The purposes of marriage and acceptance of that was for Progeny. Gay people cannot procreate (adoption, artificial and out of wedlock sexual relations not withstanding)

    2) Benefits that were granted by government was to allow for Families (biologically impossible with gays) to have societal support for raising children and wealth (asset) transfers to the children.

    Neither of those two things are "bigoted".

    As a Libertarian, I realize that "gay" people are pushing the historical boundries for marriage apart. But I rather doubt they realize the full extent these changes will eventually take. Do they support Polygamy or other plural marriages? If not, does that make them bigoted? How about letting me "marry" my daughter to gain the government benefits granted to gay people for the transfer of wealth and other assets (retirement benefits) to her generation? If not, is that bigoted?

    The best thing we can do is get Government out of the "marriage" business (a left over of religion in the first place) and just deal with people as individuals. The smallest minority is that of the individual. IF government doesn't grant the same rights and privileges to the individual as it does to the most discriminated group, then we have already lost our liberties to Group Politics.

  • by natophonic (103088) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @04:00PM (#46633235)

    You must be pretty young, or have a very selective memory, because when I voiced my objections to the US invading Iraq in 2002 and '03, I encountered quite a bit of intolerance for differing opinions. If you had to choose between being called an asshole and having your company boycotted, or being called a traitor and threatened with physical violence and potentially imprisonment, which would you choose?

    I'm writing this post via Firefox, and would agree that this boycott is a bit silly (if I'm going to boycott the products of every company whose CEO has stupid, fucked up political opinions, I might as well pack up and go live in a log cabin in the woods and make my own soap). But laying this at the feet of "The Left" much less Obama is utter horseshit. Hell, I remember when I was a kid in the late 1970's, and my dad wouldn't take us to Burger King because they were supposedly supporting communists somehow.

  • Re:Wait... wha? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by oh_my_080980980 (773867) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @04:00PM (#46633241)
    So it makes you feel better that he used his own money to deny another person their rights? Wow....
  • by oh_my_080980980 (773867) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @04:03PM (#46633289)
    Slavery was the status quo. Perhaps you want to defend that.
  • This just in... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SeaFox (739806) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @04:10PM (#46633393)

    Companies are made up of many, many people and some of them may have disagreeing opinions. And people are not the company.

    OKCupid is only providing support for the idea an employer has a right to control their workers personal lives when they're off the clock, and being wage or salary has nothing to do with it, as folks here like to drag into the situation. Even if I'm a salaried worker I'm not "at work" 24/7. I have specific hours I'm doing my job, and hours I'm not. We are human beings and have our own opinions on issues, sometimes unpopular opinions. If you don't like the ideas of a single person you have an issue with the human, not the company. There's no reason to take any action against Mozilla just because you don't like their new CEO. Now, if his personal beliefs begin to shape corporate policy or find their way into product design, then you have an issue with Mozilla the company.

  • by harrkev (623093) <<kfmsd> <at> <>> on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @04:17PM (#46633493) Homepage

    And I am sure that you spent money supporting gay marriage. Some people disagree. I just don't see why people can't be polite while they disagree, instead of all of this jumping up and down and screaming.

    Homosexuality has been taboo for the last few centuries in western culture. Some things take time to change. You cannot be surprised if centuries of social inertia take longer than than a generation or two to turn around.

    Here is an idea: try winning people over to your side with NICENESS! Radical thought, I know.

  • by tempmpi (233132) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @04:26PM (#46633595)

    You can, but others can voice their objection, like OKCupid does here. Freedom of speech is for all, and does not mean freedom from criticism.

    And other can voice their objection on the objection. And in this case there are several good reasons to object to OKCupid's objection even if you completely disagree with Eich:

    1. Pragmatism: Living together in a democracy requires people to work together even if they have strong disagreements in their religious or political beliefs. For this reason objections should primarily be aimed directly at the belief itself and not at the persons holding them. This enables working together even with disagreements.

    2. Fairness: Even if you disagree with someone you should still not misrepresent his stance. OKCupid claims gay relationships would illegal if Mr. Eich got his way on gay marriage. But Gay relationships would still be legal, even when gay marriage are banned. So you can not claim Eich wants gay relationships to be illegal, just because he supported California's Prop 8.

    3. Proportionality: Brendan Eich donated $1000 for Prop 8. A rather small sum of money for a high profile engineer such as Eich. This clearly not the most important topic for Eich. He is not a major spokesperson against gay marriage, he is best known for his Javascript work and not for his opposition to gay marriage. The response should have a reasonable proportion to the thing that is being criticized. Brendan Eich's $1000 are now 100x more visible than the $1,000,000 by Alan Ashton.

  • by Hewligan (202585) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @04:35PM (#46633715)

    The Left has become fascist in the name of tolerance. Tolerance will be imposed and all who stand in the way will put against the wall.

    Yeah, I mean on the one hand we have people who wish to use the power of the state to deny the recognition of relationships of a minority group because it doesn't fit with their own view of the world, and on the other we have people refusing to use a company's product because they disagree with the politics of the CEO.

    OKCupid are clearly the fascists here...

  • by flaming error (1041742) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @05:01PM (#46633985) Journal

    Nobody is denying you your opinion, they are just telling you what an asshole you are.

  • by Soporific (595477) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @05:01PM (#46633987)

    I suppose if you are cherry picking religious quotes it is, but I find it odd that people seem to latch on to particular ones like this and forget the rest of the bible as if it contains blank pages.

  • Re:Wait... wha? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jedidiah (1196) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @05:15PM (#46634121) Homepage

    That's the thing about liberty. It means that you have to tolerate people that you disagree with and don't particularly like. It's not liberty if everyone only tolerates people with their own brand of group think. That's more like communism or theocracy.

    Your intolerance is the same as his intolerance.

  • by poopdeville (841677) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @05:39PM (#46634313)

    People blithely unaware they're acting much the same as those who opposed civil rights laws in the first place.

    Yes, except for the fact that they aren't lynching niggers.

  • by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @05:55PM (#46634425)

    know you feel like you're being civil, but telling people that "It's just my opinion that you shouldn't be allowed to marry who you want" is far more insulting than I think you realize it is.

    I realize it. And I even agree that his political views may reasonably be seen as offensive, or wrong-headed, or harmful. But you're missing my point. Or rather points.

    The first point is: those are his personal views, not those of his company. Attempting to punish the entire (large) project because of the opinions of one person is just stupid. Even if they felt that what he did is a crime, trying punish everybody else for his behavior is not exactly acceptable behavior.

    The second point is: he is ENTITLED, legally and morally, to his opinions on politics. If you don't like his views, vote against them. That is the way the United States is supposed to work. Here are a couple of quotes that illustrate the point:

    "Freedom of speech is worthless without the freedom of offensive speech. Goebbels and Himmler were for freedom of speech... that was inoffensive to the state." -- Noam Chomsky


    "I may disagree with everything that you say, but I shall defend to the death you're right to say it." -- Voltaire


    "Popular speech does not need protection. Part of the Founders' concern in writing the First Amendment was that majorities might try to use the force of government to silence people with unpopular views." -- U.S. Supreme Court, National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 1977

  • by serbanp (139486) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @05:59PM (#46634461)

    Prop 8 is a California-specific law and a clear majority of votes were in its favor. You're likely as ignorant about what Prop 8 is all about (hence the stupid comment regarding "dehumanizing") as you are regarding its context.

  • by AmiMoJo (196126) * <> on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @06:03PM (#46634497) Homepage

    There's nothing wrong with not tolerating bigotry. If someone believes something stupid or morally objectionable and spends money trying to deprive a group of people of their rights because of their sexuality, it's perfectly fine to criticise them.

    The key difference is that gay people can't help being gay, any more than black people can help being black or women can help being women. They guy's view is something he decided on himself, something he could easily change, something he chooses to believe.

  • Re:McCarthy Jr. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Mr_Wisenheimer (3534031) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @06:08PM (#46634553)

    You are making a false dichotomy logical fallacy. Tolerance and Justice are not mutually exclusive concepts

    Treating people as equals under the law is an issue of justice.

    Not persecuting people for exercising their right under the law to engage in same sex marriage is an issue of tolerance.

    Supporting the legality of same sex marriages is an issue of acceptance.

    The issue of whether employers can discriminate against someone because of their race, religion, ethnicity, et cetera, is an issue of justice that was decided by the Civil Rights Act.

    The government can and does force employers to mandate their employees tolerate the rights of people with different religious beliefs (including the belief that same sex marriage is wrong), ethnicities, genders, and in some States, gender identity and sexual orientation. In some cases, there are no doubt racists at work who do not accept the idea that people of different races or religions should be working alongside them. That is their right, and so long as a KKK member who believes blacks are 3/5ths of a person is tolerating the rights of his black coworkers and not harassing them, he is entitled to his private beliefs. In States like California, those private beliefs are protected by law.

    And therein lies the problem with this sort of harassment. You are going beyond mandating that an employee tolerate the rights of his subordinates to be black, gay, Jewish, et cetera and mandating that he accept, in his personal life, your personal beliefs. In California, it would potentially be illegal for an employer to refuse to promote an employee because they donated $1000 to the KKK, the New Black Panthers, or any other lawful group advocating for a cause. These activists are essentially trying to force Mozilla to violate California labor laws, the same labor laws which protect their own right to not be fired for their personal activism.

  • by egranlund (1827406) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @06:09PM (#46634561)

    It is very much a religious issue for many people.

    Which is why religious people are free to not enter same sex relationships.

  • by flaming error (1041742) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @06:14PM (#46634605) Journal

    You confuse freedom of opinion with freedom from consequences.

    The first is impossible to take away. The latter is impossible to grant.

    So really your argument makes no sense at all.

  • by seepho (1959226) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @06:20PM (#46634635)
    The people who run OKCupid are afforded those same rights. They chose to run an ad on their website bringing the issue to users' attentions, and giving them instructions how to act. Those users are then free to choose to switch browsers, quit using OKCupid, and hell, they could even choose to continue to browse the website using Mozilla. You're linking all of these quotes saying that unpopular speech must be offered the same protection as popular speech, but so far the only difference I see here is that you agree with Eich's views and disagree with OKCupid's, and you've reached the conclusion OKCupid is doing something either illegal or immoral (or something along those lines). Why are Eich's actions acceptable to you while OKCupid's are not?
  • by markass530 (870112) <markass530@ g m a i l .com> on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @06:51PM (#46634869) Homepage
    another willfully ignorant christian, here let me help you out: (Christians will kill you for being gay just as quick as Muslims) []
  • by TsuruchiBrian (2731979) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @07:02PM (#46634963)

    Shouting down bigotry is the best way to deal with bigotry. It doesn't violate anyone's rights. Laws which deny people equal protection under the law actually do violate people's rights.

    So yes shouting down bigotry and opposing civil rights are the same thing in the sense that they are both shouting, except that one is shouting in support of bigotry and the other in opposition to it, which is in my view, a big enough of a difference to make supporting one and not the other perfectly reasonable.

    To me this is like claiming that the slavery abolitionists were just as intolerant as the slave owners because they were intolerant of slavery. Yes you can look at it this way, but I don't think it serves any real purpose other than to confuse the issue.

    I don't think it's profound at all to claim that those opposed to intolerance are intolerant of intolerance. This just seems like an obvious and necessary exception to the concept of intolerance.

  • by AK Marc (707885) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @07:03PM (#46634967)

    The Bible says that homosexuality is a sin... period...

    The Bible also says that spandex is a sin. Yet I don't see lines of Christians pushing for bans on it. Why?

    The only reason I can think of is that the Bible is the excuse for denying the right, not the generator of the hate.

  • Re:Wait... wha? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hairyfeet (841228) <> on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @07:34PM (#46635175) Journal

    OS/2 hasn't been IBM's for the better part of a decade, its controlled by eComstation [] who does a decent amount of business supporting financial markets.

    As for those trying to make excuse for Mozilla? 1.- like it or not the CEO is the face of the company and in this case the face belongs to a bigot, 2.- For those that use the "the state voted for it" excuse? The southern states voted repeatedly and by a VERY large margin that Jim Crow was fine, so by your argument the southern states should still be segregated, and finally 3.- Those that make the lame "gay agenda" bullshit excuse? Did you say the same about blacks in the 60s, that it was a "Negro agenda"? Its about CIVIL RIGHTS, PERIOD.

    The state gives preferential treatment to married couples when it comes to taxes, child visitation, property inheritance, there are VERY few places that the government doesn't give some sort of preferential treatment to couples. While I personally believe it is unconstitutional since its clearly joining church and state until we are ALL treated as individuals under the law by the government? it very much IS a civil rights issue, since straight couples are given rights and privileges that gay couples do not get. Oh and before somebody makes the foolish statement about wills and the like? In most states the will does NOT change the tax burden which will be felt by a surviving spouse, which again isn't the same if that spouse was in a hetro marriage.

  • by AK Marc (707885) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @10:14PM (#46636093)

    It was a metaphor.

    A metaphor for what?

    Once he came, those laws were, in essence, fulfilled.

    But Jesus never condenmed homosexuality, did he?

  • by enter to exit (1049190) on Wednesday April 02, 2014 @01:58AM (#46636871)
    The CEO of a company, and anyone in general, has a right to influence the society he lives in and how his government makes laws. He can do what he wishes with his money.

    He should not be punished for taking part in the democratic process, he shouldn't be silenced, he should be outvoted. So, if you care enough, you need to become politically active. Boycotting things amounts to mob rule, it works the same way repression works.

    The CEO of Mozilla doesn't own Mozilla, nor was he using it to influence his worldview. He's essentially an employee

    OKCupid is leveraging it's own brand and Mozilla's to benefit itself and real losers are gays who let themselves be taken cynically taken advantage of.

    Corporations don't have opinions, they only reflect those of it's customers. Where was the Rainbow Oreo [] in the 80's and 90's when gay rights was a divisive issue? Why didn't Oreo have an opinion then? These kinds of corporations only support the winning side of the culture wars. As we saw with Duck Dynasy and Cracker Barrel [], if enough people complain, the company will unashamedly backflip. It's purely business, not ideological.

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell