What you are talking about may be a reasonable solution, but it's not applicable to this particular case because it's not the cause he was donating money to.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Chris Beard Named CEO of Mozilla
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
What you are talking about may be a reasonable solution, but it's not applicable to this particular case because it's not the cause he was donating money to.
cdr_74_premium
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,577
What if he was fired because he was FOR gay marriage? I'm sure you would be here saying the same thing, right?
The AFA was founded by a reverend who was losing his shit over Carlin saying the seven dirty words. Like the Family Research Council, just about any group with the word "family" in it is the kind of social conservative nanny state group that Pat Robertson gets chubbies from. The Scouts were a good example, but that had the catalyst of their being federally funded, so the issue had a lot more nuance.
SoCons are kind of the flip side of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. The difference is that Rick Santorum was laughed out of the primary, and Barack Obama won two terms. Clearly the parties are not handling their fringe wings in a similar fashion.
Its how militant liberals respond to any slight to an issue they evangelize. You don't really have freedom of speech if any small comment you make or disagreement of opinion against liberal ideology results in threat to your livelihood, and they know that, which is why they do it.
Its like the Scientologists... sure you can voice your opinion towards them, but they will relentlessly engage in personal attacks, to teach you and everyone else to keep quiet. Militant liberals, which seem to comprise a huge portion of the left, have learned from and implemented this disgusting "Fair Game" practice, and they feel proud of themselves and morally justified too. Its quite sick.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
Probably not. Whenever these subjects come up, it's obvious to me how little personal experience that many of you have with discrimination. It's just all theoretical and rhetorical for most around here. When you start pointing fingers at people and single them out less than human or not entitled to the same freedoms as everyone else it is in human nature to resist and fight back. It's always been this way with humans and always will be.
Wow. That isn't at all an arrogant, pious, condescending statement or anything.
News flash: just about every human being has dealt with discrimination at some point. Anyone who has dealt with bullies sometime in their life has dealt with discrimination. Anyone who applied for a job and was turned down in favor of someone that had a connection to someone at that organization experienced discrimination. It's not some special word that only applies to certain labels.
Anyone who thinks they have some superior insight because of their belonging to some group or demographic doesn't really understand the concept of discrimination, other than how it applies to their particular segment.
Being for gay marriage isn't discriminatory, therefore it would not be justifiable. Framing this as a result of a mere difference of opinion is not accurate. The causal chain here starts with him discriminating, not with him having a different opinion.
I'll reiterate: Discriminating against people in your private life can justifiably lead to your employer dropping you; particularly for such a public position.
Since when is putting universal restrictions on behavior or simply not redefining the word "marriage" discrimination?
Are ephebophiles and polygamists being discriminated against, or are they not "people" (you dehumanizing bastard!)? Why can't I marry my donkey if I'm attracted to her? How does that affect YOU? All I know is that if I don't always get my way, its discrimination dammit. Period.
LeninGHOLA
Vladimir Hayt
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 18,416
The AFA is a bit nutty, but they have something like 200,000 subs, which might bump them up from more than just a fringe movement? I dunno. More influence and much more money and people than easily dismissable nutters, like Westboro.
The second point, if all things were equal, I could agree with. Obama won two turns because of the fractured leadership and overall ineffectiveness of the GOP. I wouldn't consider the progressive liberals as fringe, either. Not anymore, at least.
Yes you do have freedom of speech. You still don't understand what freedom of speech is. It's purpose is not to guarantee gainful employment.
Actively discriminating against a class of people may affect your ability to get a job.
No, you still don't understand what reading comprehension is. We're not talking about the government, we're talking about society that is being dominated by a very vocal very militant left wing that silences the majority through via the threat of personal attacks.
LeninGHOLA
Vladimir Hayt
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 18,416
Well, I'm not so sure there is consent, nor citizenship involved with your donkey scenario.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
I'm not claiming superior insight, simply more personal experience. And I'm not talking about sporadic incidences of discrimination, but long term, legalized variety. I had no control over being the first generation in my family not born into slavery or legal segregation. That simply had an impact on who I am because one way or another it was an issue that I had to live with daily. What's pious and condescending is thinking that blacks got everything they think about race from MSNBC.
Did you not pay ANY attention in school? This is elementary stuff.
D is for Donkey, if you know what I mean.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
I think much of this thread has been about a universal restriction on gay marriage.
It has been established for "marriage" since 1967. I already linked this, maybe consider reading it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
"classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. "
Marriage is a constitutionally protected right.
Also you might want to be aware that Prop8, the cause he donated to, was the one redefining marriage. It was already legal at the time.
Then we're not talking about freedom of speech.
Nonsense, it was understood without question what marriage meant at the time it was written, and not even remotely considered the possibility that two men would marry anymore than someone would marry their donkey. Guys were not marrying guys in the 1800s, and I'll read your wiki article right after you promise to, and explain to the class how that ruling was intended for and applied to guys marrying guys...
Not a single word I can disagree with.
Of course not. If even 1% of the black population watching MSNBC their ratings would triple.
I'm not the one trying to make the argument that changing the definition is a bad thing; that's you. I think bad laws ought to be changed.
I'm merely pointing out, that at the time of prop8, gay marriage was *explicitly* legal by recent court ruling. Prop8 changed that definition.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
LOL! I find it ironic how conservatives love to blame MSNBC with playing up the race card all of the time yet supposedly no body watches it.
I'm glad you think so, but your inability to grasp the difference between government interference and the spirit of the law, and the practical intereference from a militant segment of society that makes it entirely moot and which I've clearly explained ad nauseum doesn't change facts. And you would flip your shit if everyone that was found to be supporting gay marriage were losing their jobs because of it.
Unlike the famous saying, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", my entire point is that so much of the left has become militant to where their moto is "I disapprove of what you say, and I will make it my mission to destroy your livelihood to silence and make an example of you to others".
Well the ratings speak for themselves, but with hucksters like Al Sharpton and Michael Eric Dyson among their hosts and contributors, its hard to claim otherwise. Ronan Farrow just addressed the horrific injustice of insufficient diversity in emoticons. They're not really a threat, but they are a perfect cross-section of hardcore progressive groupthink...significantly more fringe than dullards like O'Reilly and Hannity.
Then we're just going to have to disagree. You can wrap this up in narrow legal definitions of freedom of speech, to me it much simpler: when it becomes acceptable to think that certain opinions are so outre that they must be punished with financial and social sanctions, you don't live in a civil society anymore. It's become what John Adams called the "tyranny of the majority".
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
Of course, you just need to make a few more comparisons between same sex marriage to cross species marriage to settle it once and for all.
LeninGHOLA
Vladimir Hayt
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 18,416
Goddamn Sharpton. There is a good example of hypocrisy.
Let's be clear here, he actively engaged in discrimination by donating to a group that campaigned against gay marriage.
Discrimination is probably one the more palatable things to ostracize someone from segments of society for. A public business would not tolerate having a CEO who was a member of the racial or religious hate group, and apparently also those who donate to organizations who discriminate against gay people. The difference between the former and latter, as far as I can tell, is opponents of gay marriage are unable to recognize that they are in fact discriminating against gay people.
Are you a scientologist? If not, you should be. You're just the kind of person they need.
So if someone has deep seated religious convictions that say that gay marriage is wrong, aren't you discriminating against them for holding those convictions? Is acting on those convictions by engaging in a perfectly legal process deserving of sanctions?
There's no evidence at all that Eich discriminated against gays in his professional life. You want to punish him for engaging in the political process, not because of any actual actions on his part.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
I wasn't talking about MSNBC ratings and don't care. My point is that when I've had these kinds of conversations with conservatives I've lost count of how many times they've made mention me being brained washed by the "liberal news" media and specially MSNBC.
The basis for my basic beliefs about race matters came from my parents and what they taught and shared with me about their lives under the conditions that they lived through until about middle age. If you think I'm sort of white hating bigot, you should talk to my 87 year old mother. And never did my parents teach me to hate someone because of the color of their skin. But that wasn't necessarily easy for them, couldn't have been considering some of the things they told me.
So again, I'll am saying is that the issue of discrimination just has a very long and deep personal history with me because simply because there was a long and deep history of the issue in my family. Whether someone else recognizes or understands the point is irrelevant, it is what it is.
You can frame it that way if you want.
What if they have deep seated religious beliefs that are incredibly racist and donates money to those groups? Should we tolerate that socially? Discrimination against gay people is bad. It is bad in the same way that religious and racial discrimination is bad.
If the "acting" is discriminatory, as it was in this case, then society can justifiably ostracize them.
"Engaging in the political process" is very much an action. In this case it was a really bad action, because it discriminated against gay people.
Firefox is a product I like and use. I have donated to Mozilla in the past, and generate revenue for them by using their product. Myself and many others didn't really want the possibility of the money they make off us going towards a discriminatory cause.
LOL, that's funny because they reverse cause and effect. Your political views aren't formed by watching Fox News or MSNBC; you watch them because they agree with your political views.
The last thing most people want is impartial and balanced news
And pretty much half the time that I make an argument, it's only a matter of minutes until "Fox News" is cited. Hey, look! We have a common struggle! Kismet!
And that's all well and good, but when you take that attitude as a license to proclaim that others don't understand discrimination, prejudice, racism, or whatever...you become pious and arrogant. You don't need to constantly affirm your own status as a "victim", nor do you need to speculate that others are or aren't. As I said, most people have been subjected to discrimination at some point, and as a matter of civil discourse, it's best not to automatically pronounce yourself as the most oppressed in the room. It doesn't prove you right in any way or advance a conversation. If you want to explain why you feel the way you do, then by all means do so. Just realize that doing so is inviting someone to understand where you're coming from...and that healthy debate involves extending the same willingness to understand without pre-judging them.
LOL. Yes. I'm sure you only do business with companies that don't hire anyone who is against gay marriage.
Seriously, get a copy of Dianetics. You'll be in Tommy Davis' shoes in six months. Hail L. Ron and Tom.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
I didn't say understand, I said personal experience, they aren't the same thing you know. I certainly don't have the same level of personal experience with discrimination that my black 87 year old mother does having gown up in the South during Jim Crow. Do you?
And victim? LOL! I've never complained once around here being a victim of anything, I'm just not naïve. Complaining about everyone exercise of freedom your department.
cdr_74_premium
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,577