Its really nothing to do with any of that, its about money.

As it happens Mozilla is privately owned and so doesn't have shareholders who don't work for the company to worry about, but for most large corporations that is all that matters, what do the markets think of us, and if they think that we were a cool successful company selling cool products to an eager market in the past and so bought our shares on that basis, then what will happen to our shares when that cool facade is revealed to be led by a bloke who doesn't like gay people - it would have been carnage on the stock exchange when the likes of OkCupid were mounting an online protest to any client who accessed their site via Firefox, asking them to move to a different portal - muck spreads very fast on the internet and he SHOULD have realised this.

Its probably worse than being a public company actually because that very cool non-profit making, lets all share the code, sort of facade can crumble to dust when your users hear that your CEO is a homophobe who sponsors anti-gay pressure groups, moving from Mozilla is probably one of the easiest things you'll do in protest on the internet and it costs you nothing, no wonder they got rid quickly and apologised for not having got rid even quicker.

A $1,000 donation against gay marriage laws doesn't mean he's a homophobe. Just like Harriet Harman working for a legal organization that somehow managed to be linked with a loony bunch of kiddie fiddlers means she advocates sex with kids and should resign now.

But that's how you witch hunters work.

His donation may mean he's a homophobe, or it could simply mean he sees problems in allowing gay marriage laws to pass. For the record, if there's any men who want to give me 20 thousand quid to marry them so they can come and live and work in England, I value marriage so little I'd willingly take that cash and marry a bloke to let him come here. I'd also do that for a hot blonde Russian chick for nothing but sex and BJ's until she's been here long enough to divorce me.

If this guy is a homophobe then well done on burning him. I'm not personally convinced though. I hope that the owners of OkCupid are rabid anti-gays who simply used the fashionable cause to promote their website and their ruse is quickly exposed so you can see how easily you've been manipulated.

Two entirely different things, far be it for me to defend Harman but she has explained the situation with the NCCL and how she wasn't linked to or supported any of the more seedy elements within its membership, and how it was simply a smear campaign by the Daily Mail - as soon as that toilet paper gets mentioned then all credibility of any truth to the story goes out of the window.

On the other hand you don't accidentally donate money to an organisation without supporting its cause especially an organisation that only has one cause - its simply not possible to donate a decent wad of money to a single issue organisation and then afterwards say "Oh I didn't know they did that", nor is it a newspaper smear attempt for he quite openly admits it, opposing equality for gay people is homophobic behaviour, its very simple really.




You ?

JerryChicken wrote:opposing equality for gay people is homophobic behaviour, its very simple really. Opposing the introduction of gay marriage laws is not the same as opposing equality for gay people. Andrew Sullivan wrote:The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out. http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/04/ ... ndan-eich/

JerryChicken wrote:opposing equality for gay people is homophobic behaviour, its very simple really. Opposing the introduction of gay marriage laws is not the same as opposing equality for gay people. Andrew Sullivan wrote:The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out. http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/04/ ... ndan-eich/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morn ... ntolerant/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morn ... ntolerant/

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Unless, of course, as a moderator on these boards, you say something that is in breach of the AUP in which case instead of defending your "right" to say it I will delete it and you will be warned or banned.

There's an AUP??

How on earth do you manage to work that one out?

Quite easily. I am for equal rights for gay people. I do not personally care one way or the other whether gays are given the right to marry. So the issues are clearly not the same for me.

There will be some gay people who are anti-marriage like I am and don't want the gay marriage laws to pass. So is it okay by you if these gay people are labelled as anti-gays and run out of their jobs as well?

Jerry Chicken is coming straight out and calling this guy a homophobe based solely on the fact he donated money to the campaign not to allow same sex marriage. But 7 million people voted his way in the vote. Are all of these 7 million people certified homophobes now and should be disqualified from ever being a CEO of a company?