No there isn't a First Amendment issue. I am bringing up an argument regarding principle since many here also didn't think KS shouldn't have an a law that allows businesses to discriminate based on religious views but also think that those who have views that don't agree with their deeply held beliefs they shouldn't have to do business with. Tallnover and others stated the exact same argument in that thread. There is a semantic difference in regard that we are talking about an company deciding who should lead it but as I've brought up whether this argument extends to those who you do business with, in my case clients of my architecture business. No and I am not sad about Eich's employment prospects (I actually don't care too much about it) either. I am just discussing this issue because I think it is an interesting and important issue with implications beyond just Eich and Mozilla.
I am just going to point out that equal protection is right. This is one reason why courts have mostly overturned bans on same sex marriage and one of the reasons within a decade or so same sex marriage will be legal throughout the whole US.
I seriously doubt you care about the massive problems in the world. Go ahead and pretend you do. I might be wrong. You very well may make every purchasing decision based on the ethics of a company. Considering you are typing into an electronic device to post these messages, its safe to assume you are using a computer product from a company that takes advantage of 3rd world countries near slave labor work force. Please explain to me how Mozilla hiring this unfounded accusation of bigotry from their newly hired CEO is so much worse. You're like most Americans; You sit on your aristocratic high horse, parading through the impoverish streets of the world, overcome with pity for the small folk of 3rd world countries while patting yourself on the back and telling yourself your pity is enough penance for using products from companies who take advantage of these people. You're assuming, jumping to conclusions and taking comments out of context. For example, you believe anyone against gay marriage are also against gay rights because by default, you believe marriage is a right. You ignore those that believe there should be equal rights for everyone, not just one segregated group. When it comes to gay marriage and the holy gay defenders for arguments for gay marriage, people like yourself ignore that there are others out there who are also losing rights (singles/polygamist for example). Do you not think they deserve certain rights too that the gays are complaining about? Or is it because they are not the hot topic for your political view, so therefore they are not important? To me, it seems more like a more of a crusade against those awful Christians who hate every single gay person in this world vs finding the best solution for all.
I would think that Prop-8 while technically political is actually a social issue. You could say the Civil Rights Movement was a political movement because it led to the passing of the Civil Rights Act, but in this case, while he is supporting a piece of legislation, it's clear that the act of his support goes beyond that and is a value statement, not just a political one. He's not supporting a candidate but rather a way of life that happens to be discriminatory. I don't think whether something is the majority or not is all that relevant. It's not about "should" or "should not". It's about whether someone has the right to work or not work based on these things. By walking away from a job whose CEO is anti-gay, that is a statement, that is a form of protest, that is a form of influencing change. It is one way to do things. Not the only way, but certainly can be effective in some people's eyes. Businesses already discriminate against those they don't like. I am not familiar with these laws, but there are venues here in NYC that turn down people because of their race or scrutinize them more. I can't speak for others, but yes, a business should be able to choose it's customers. They can't discriminate in hiring practices, but I think it's perfectly fine for a business to shoot itself in the foot for limiting itself in whatever way it chooses. I do believe that such businesses should be forced to admit their policies so that everyone knows about it and can choose whether or not to frequent their business. The only good thing from the lawsuit on Denny's for instance is that it brings awareness to what is going on there. So if someone is refused service, there needs to be a way of making a company own up to it. But should they be allowed to? Sure. Why force a racist to serve someone they don't want to? I think it will do more for society and social change to have all that in the open so that people can avoid them and let their businesses get squashed by those who are more open and tolerant.
And I disagree in that marriage is not a right. One should approach it on why we even have state sanctioned marriages in the first placeand work from there. There are rights built in this package called marriage that does not solely exist for straights and gays. Why not build a package that works for everyone? Why not fix the many flaws of the current marriage package? Personally, I believe its less about whats in the package (the rights) and more about recognition to have it.
um, that's a very passionate spiel about how I am an American, therefore I do not and cannot give a s**t about anything, and I'm evil, and I can only digest one issue at a time, and cannot think across multiple topics (I'm not American, first of all, you know what they say about assuming). But, just to let you know that alternatives exist and you should probably actually direct your ranting elsewhere or actually do something with it, I'm using an Acer, and when I hack some basic stuff I have been known to use Raspberry Pi. http://www.eicc.info/eicc_code.shtml Also, Raspberry Pis are just cool and will bring computing power to those same developing nation citizens (in fact I might be working on something like this in the future) you keep on ****ting on about for some strange reason, so have at it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raspberry_Pi
Couldn't you say the same thing about people who vote for a candidate based on party and value positions? Anyway I find this argument particularly troubling as you are essentially saying it's not enough that we address these issues legally but we also have to compel people to change the way they think. I said the majority view doesn't make it the right view but if you are going to take this type of stance there are a lot of practical issues to consider because of how many people took that stance. Let's say that you are driving through the Central Valley and running low on gas. You pull up to a gas station that has a sign saying "Yes on 8!" Should you then keep on driving because you don't want to give your money to a gas station that doesn't agree with your values, even knowing that in the Central Valley there are a lot of stretches where gas stations are few and far between? The fact that a lot Californians supported Prop-8 this stance will mean you will have to spend a lot of time and effort trying to weed out businesses, customers, employers and etc.. who did support it. If they do so they are breaking the law. The Civil Rights Act along with several state acts (I don't know about NY in particular but I guess they have a public accommodation law) bar that. The laws I am talking about were proposed by KS, AZ and several other states and were discussed at length in this thread. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=250775 They would allow businesses based on religious beliefs to refuse service on those views. These laws were specifically cited as allowing businesses to refuse service to homosexual couples. So in other words you would agree then with a law that allowed a business to not serve homosexuals on the basis of their own beliefs.
Space Ghost---I haven't assumed anything. Nobody here has really brought a rational argument to any of my points (you're really winning in this category). Somehow I have to wade through the fact that I'm an American who doesn't care and can't care about the developing world, polygamy, and single people to get at---um---nothing? My only assumption is that people who are arguing on the other side aren't data-driven or based beyond irrational animus, and I haven't seen anything up to this point, in this thread or anywhere else, to prove otherwise. Which is cool---it just means more Supreme Court cases will be won on this point, and laws will evolve further in the right direction.
That is such a stupid thing to say, completely lacking nuance or any real understanding of modern politics, and you actually think you're being clever, but there is a difference between clever and smug. Cleverness hints at insight, smugness suggest the opposite. What happened here was a hand wrapped gift to the right wing, it accomplished nothing, it certainly didn't help gay rights. It will, however, give the GOP another talking point that they can beat working class Americans over the head with in order to trick them into voting for the 1%.
I don't understand how you believe you're any different than someone who discriminates. Who do you suggest should be the head of the moral police? Where does the intolerance stop? Why do you think people should be punished for disagreeing with you? Society can take care of itself w/out imposing a moral police dept going around creating black lists of businesses you disagree with. Do you understand how ignorant is sounds to go around and post signs that state "This establishment doesn't serve (Blacks/Muslims/Gays/Women/Republicans). Boycott this establishment". Extremist views like this leave dumbfounded.
You can disagree with it but the courts are saying otherwise. Also has been pointed out repeatedly this argument that there shouldn't be state sanctioned marriage in the first place is a strawman. If the state provides for something then it has to provide it for all on the basis of Equal protection. I have not seen a serious effort to actually do away with state sanctioned marriages. There have a been a lot of bans regarding same sex marriage but all of those crying out that the state shouldn't be in the marriage business have never even bothered to get a bill or referendum passed to do so. This argument that government shouldn't be in the marriage business never was an issue until gays wanted to get married.
Wait, so you are more worried about the businesses here? People have a freedom to boycott anyone they want. And so long as it's true and not slanderous, I don't see the issue in saying "Hey don't eat at Denny's because they don't treat black people well". I am surprised you see this as extremist.
Let them beat on it. It's a losing track, and anybody who has a handle of the historical trend, and numbers, knows this.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...s-rights-failed-gay-marriage-backlash/284496/ "This is not the way that social conservatives expected this debate to play out."
I am very surprised you are troubled. Civil disobedience is a crux for change in world history. Legal means do not always work if the laws are unjust. In this case, it's also perfectly legal to leave a job for moral reasons. That is a legal way to address an issue. What is the purpose of protest? When people march on the streets, does that trouble you because it's about putting pressure on changing the way people think? If I had enough gas I would skip it. If I did not, i'd get enough gas to get to the next station. Given the choice though, I'd avoid doing business there. If a business wants to openly use itself as a platform for political advancement, then why shouldn't the customers who disagree with that agenda balk at it? It's one thing when it becomes obvious. I am just saying people have an individual right. Would you work for a rapist or a child molester who was now free if you had a daughter who had suffered something along those lines? It's not always logical. I think it's far more widespread than people think. It might be illegal, but can be very hard to prove. I think it's terrible of course. But I trust that people will be so disgusted by it that it will completely backfire.
And that is my whole point. it doesn't offer it to everyone. Straight people and gay people are not everyone. And your same argument has an opposite side. Since there has not been a a cry out to fix the current problems in marriage before we should just ignore it now that we have an opportunity to fix it? Is that really a valid argument? With 50% of marriages ending in divorce, do you think people should continue to be punished for a bunch of small print in a contract in which other institutes take advantage? Take away "rights" that should never be there in the first place. Add rights that encompass everyone. And I disagree with it being a strawman argument. There are plenty of people speaking up about fixing the system now that its a hot topic. I dont think we should discount their voice because they are riding on the coattails of gay marriage.
There is a difference between posting your personal experiences and opinions on facebook. Its a completely different story to say "There needs to be a way for everyone to know...". No need to back pedal on your extremist view. And to say "...they dont treat [your subject] well" is subjective, so therefore its an opinion. Opinions are neither true or false, so it could be considered slanderous.
You're missing the point, this isn't about gay marriage, it's about the right wing positioning themselves as the victim and positioning the left as bullies. 1. This does nothing to further gay rights. 2. This will be used as another "distraction point" by the right wing. So, taken as a whole, I think it was a massive blunder to force him to resign, which not only doesn't help gay rights in the slightest, but is also going to be yet another talking point used by the right wing to rally low information voters.
