Do you think someone can really work effectively with their gay married co-contributors in this case?
Being inclusive is great, but you have to recognise that including certain people drives others away from the project.
Can an atheist work with a muslim?
In either case, the answer is the same: if the individuals behave professionally, yes.
If the married gay couple are the ones freaking out at work about my hiring someone who posted against gay marriage on his blog two years ago, they are behaving unprofessionally and should be let go.
If it is the anti-gay marriage advocate who is making snide comments about his colleagues at work (or, in the context of a non work environment, in a shared community forum), then it is he who should be excluded.
Can a Muslim person work with someone who believes the practice of religion should be outlawed and is working to make that happen?
There's no obvious delineation between belief and action and a the gist of what I was replying to was along the lines of 'can people work with each other even tho they have strong and significant differences in their beliefs or opinions'.
There's no way to even know a person's beliefs without some action on their part.
Take Brendan Eich – he donated to a group that was engaging in 'speech'. Are you claiming that all 'speech' is action? So how exactly is someone stating that they're a Muslim not an action in the same way? Are you saying it would be fine if Eich believed that gay marriage should remain illegal as long as he never expressed that belief in any way to anyone?
I don't believe I've made any assumptions about who is correct. I simply stated that there is a difference between working with someone who holds a belief, and someone who actively lobbies for that belief to be legislated. I think that's true irrespective of what those beliefs are, and the question of whether or not I agree with some specific belief or not is separate from "holding a belief" being distinct from "lobbying for that belief".
>There's no way to even know a person's beliefs without some action on their part.
Indeed, and this is one of the most vital distinctions between "discrimination" based on belief and aspect. You cannot not express your race or gender, or perhaps you can, but it requires expending significant effort. This is not true for beliefs, you can always not express a belief, even a strongly held one. I do it all the time.
>Are you claiming that all 'speech' is action?
I'm willing to claim that a donation to a lobbying group is an action. Would you disagree?
>So how exactly is someone stating that they're a Muslim not an action in the same way?
Does you being a Muslim convey any kind of information to me about the opinion you hold of me? Does you stating that convey any information to me? On the other hand, does you stating "I hate people with the username joshuamorton" convey any information? I'd say no, no, yes. That's the difference.
>Are you saying it would be fine if Eich believed that gay marriage should remain illegal as long as he never expressed that belief in any way to anyone?
I mean I absolutely do think that would be alright. I by no means think that people should be forced to express their views, so yes I would have zero problem with Eich choosing not to express his views.
I would expect so, yes.
Firearms are a huge part of my life, as is political advocacy for self-defense rights. I've worked with many people who disagreed with me on that issue to the degree that I expect that many people disagree with gay marriage. For the vast majority of them, it wasn't an issue.
Imagine you’re a gay man, happily married. You work at Mozilla.
Don’t you think it would be difficult to go into work, and report to your CEO, knowing that he had donated against gay marriage? That he feels your way of life has no place in America?
Mozilla is an outspoken champion of net neutrality, anonymity, free speech, open standards, and several other ideologies that emphasize freedom. How can you clap at an all-hands meeting when your CEO stands in front of the company and talks about the importance of these freedoms, while knowing that he also feels so strongly that your private relationship with your husband is so abhorrent that he thought it was a good use of $1000 to try to ban it?
If the liberals “win”, and guns are banned tomorrow, like they are in Australia, are you so committed to your firearm rights that you’ll consider moving to another country, or suicide because life just isn’t worth living? Do you think it’s ludicrous that gay people might consider those options?
Firearms are a choice. Being gay is not. Judgement against gay marriage is judgement against who you are. Judgement against firearms is judgement against a hobby.
Take the argument back 50 years. Do you think a white boss who donated money against equal rights could/would treat black employees fairly?
Imagine that you’re a gay employee at Mozilla. You’ve been gunning for a promotion into upper management, and someone else wins the position. Are you never going to wonder, “Does his skin crawl when we shake hands? Would I have won the position if my Facebook didn’t have pictures of me and my husband on it?”
Have you ever wondered if your love of firearms has impacted your professional career?
I get that it feels different to you - but I'm telling you in good faith that it doesn't to me.
> Don’t you think it would be difficult to go into work, and report to your CEO, knowing that he had donated against gay marriage?
Certainly. I've quit jobs because of similar issues. If someone feels about gay marriage the way I do about guns and the right to self-defense, it sounds entirely reasonable to me for them not to financial support people who actively work against their political interests.
> If the liberals “win”, and guns are banned tomorrow, like they are in Australia, are you so committed to your firearm rights that you’ll consider moving to another country, or suicide because life just isn’t worth living?
Yes. Five years ago when I was choosing a place to move from rural Arkansas to further my career as a developer, California, Illinois, New York, and several other states were out of the question because of their gun laws. Now that I'm more established, I'm moving back to Arkansas and a large part of that is the political climate here in Virginia.
Given the choice between disarmament and emigration, I'd emigrate. Given the choice between disarmament and death, I would fight. It's that serious of an issue to me and to far more people than you'd believe unless you've lived somewhere surrounded by people who share this view.
> Firearms are a choice. Being gay is not. Judgement against gay marriage is judgement against who you are. Judgement against firearms is judgement against a hobby.
Respectfully, you're completely wrong here. Firearms are not a hobby for me, they're symbolic of my entire cultural perspective. It is no more a choice than religious affiliation.
> Have you ever wondered if your love of firearms has impacted your professional career?
Of course it has. I'd be making significantly more money right now if I'd moved to San Jose, New York City, or even Portland.
---
I'm re-reading my comments above, and hesitating to submit them because I'm concerned that they might easily be seen as justification to lump me in with the GOP. Let me be clear about that - I don't consider myself a Republican, and I don't consider myself a conservative. I'm an extreme libertarian. I have no animosity towards homosexuals, and it doesn't matter to me how someone presents themselves or structure their personal relationships. "It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
The main point I'm trying to make is that online communities in particular are made up of people with drastically different perspectives on life. Some of those differences are obvious, but some are not. Some of them are expected to be respected while it's socially acceptable to disregard others out of hand. That's not right.
I think there's a very obvious difference:
(hopefully) Your views on guns and personal liberty are based on ethics and under the system you believe is ethical, personal liberty and firearms are important. You do not hold a code of ethics because it allows you to use firearms, but you believe you are allowed to use firearms due to the ethical system. (I may be mistaken here, but allow me to overstep and state that I'd find anyone who developed an ethical system to support their use of firearms downright scary).
For someone who is gay, there's nothing like that. They find different people attractive. No ethical systems to it.
In other words, "I love people of my same sex" is an axiom, "people should be allowed to use firearms" is a conclusion.
And why is that difference relevant?
I feel that I addressed that.
Why is a firmly held conviction less important than a physical attribute you are born with?
I respect that we live in a country where people have different political beliefs and we should engage with them. And I respect that a large part of the country feels strongly about owning guns. And I also understand that the Constitution has the second amendment -- and even though the first explanatory clause is invariably ignored by gun activists ("A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state") I leave it up to the Courts to make this decision. Incidentally, after McDonald vs Chicago it's likely that ALL cities including New York may eventually be forced by the federal government to allow open carry and concealed carry on the street!
That is why I upvoted this comment to counteract knee jerk downvotes.
To everyone who thinks Brendan Eich's support for Prop 8 is "different" than supporting a ban on guns, you have to ask yourself if you have a huge double standard.
It is not ignored, it is misrepresented and misunderstood by anti-gun activists, but I am not about to go into all the details of that here...
> Incidentally, after McDonald vs Chicago it's likely that ALL cities including New York may eventually be forced by the federal government to allow open carry and concealed carry on the street!
People with Licenses are not a concern, and should not concern anyone. Gun Violence against others is committed by criminals. Most "Gun Violence" committed by Legal Gun Owners is suicide which I believe should be legal anyway and not considered "Violence"
> I would make it illegal to carry guns outside the home / firing ranges / etc. because then we wouldn't have gun homicides the size of the Paris attacks every 6 days in the USA, even so.
Once you account for other sources and caused of Gun Violence (i.e the War on Drugs, and other government actions) the "threat" from legal gun owners is a statistical abnormality
If you want to reduce gun violence focus less on the tool (i.e the gun) and more on the causes of violence in general. Put that effort in toe Drug Abuse reform, decriminalization of Drugs, better mental health systems, reduction in poverty, inner city out reach and educational programs, about 1,000 other things that would be more effective at ending a lot of violence including gun violence than attempting to ban guns from law abiding people
Of course they concern people including myself! Just because someone has a license doesn't mean they won't do something stupid. That includes a license to drive cars. There are lots of restrictions such as speed limits, traffic lights and so on. And everyone is a "law abiding citizen" until their very first homicide.
>Once you account for other sources and caused of Gun Violence (i.e the War on Drugs, and other government actions) the "threat" from legal gun owners is a statistical abnormality
I am well aware that half of all gun violence is suicide, and I specifically exclude it from my estimates when I say that the USA has gun HOMICIDES the size of the Paris attacks every 6 days.
Just to be clear - mass shootings account for a tiny percentage of those, and the issue is not with assault weapons. It is with GUNS. More guns means more chances for regular people to get into spontaneous gun violence over altercations in a bar or on the street. Nevermind gangs and so on.
Yes I am NOT talking suicides.
My point, however, is that just as we are discussing things now, you should discuss about gay marriage and other things. And not just knee jerk fire someone when they don't bring their political views to work.
Really? Everyone is law abiding until they commit a murder...
>I specifically exclude it from my estimates when I say that the USA has gun HOMICIDES the size of the Paris attacks every 6 days.
It is completely absurd to compare a nationwide static about violence where many many many many individual events unconnected to each other occur to one organized event.
> Nevermind gangs and so on.
This is the core problem with your aurgument, France does not have the same Gang problem we have in the US, France does not have the same Aggressive Policing as we do in the US.
You can not simply "never-mind" the gangs, as the gangs are what account for the statistical differences between the US and France, if you remove Gang Related Homicides you get a comparable level of Violent crime between France and the US
>>>My point, however, is that just as we are discussing things now, you should discuss about gay marriage and other things. And not just knee jerk fire someone when they don't bring their political views to work.
I agree with this, Free Speech is under attack, not by government but by people that believe they have the right to not be offended, not be confronted with opposing views, to live their life in a echo chamber bubble where only people that agree with them exists.
When a Tweet or facebook post that some one finds "offensive" results in a national boycott to get an individual fired we as a society have lost all connection with the concept of Free Speech
Fine, if you want to be that pedantic before you address what I say, I meant "everyone WHO MAKES THEIR FIRST HOMICIDE is not a killer until their first homicide". So the phrase "law abiding citizens" doesn't mean you have "nothing to worry about".
>It is completely absurd to compare a nationwide static about violence where many many many many individual events unconnected to each other occur to one organized event.
It's not absurd at all if the other country (France) doesn't have gun homicides the rest of the time! And it's doubly not absurd when the President tweets this:
http://variety.com/2015/biz/news/donald-trump-paris-terror-a...
>I agree with this
So we mostly agree, but you chose to comment on the stuff we disagree on to pick a fight? :)
If you look at the criminal history and actions of most murders, homicide is not their very very very first crime. There is normally a pattern of behavior often time resulting in them losing their legal right to own a gun well before their first homicide
This of course does not apply to "crimes of passion" but Gun Control will do very little to prevent those murders it will just not be gun that is used to kill the person
>>but you chose to comment on the stuff we disagree on to pick a fight? :)
I am not picking the fight, nor did I bring gun control into it. I will however defend my right to defend myself using what ever tool I choose to including a gun. I will defend this right to self protection in all venues and at all times.
One thing though, having recently been in the Portland area I can tell you firearm rights are not as badly abused as the general Portland stereotype would suggest. Portland itself has a few silly gun laws, but Oregon as a whole has a decent CCW law which overrides those of the city. It's a surprisingly gun friendly place to be.
Important: disagreeing with or opposing a gay marriage law is really not the same as being against inclusivity, diversity, or gays. Some people will have both traits; the problematic (for lack of a less polite word) one is the latter, not the former.
The sexual organs don't have a pre-ordained purpose. The argument falls apart at the very first premise.
If the actual concern is that all of humanity will turn gay and then we will go extinct, well, it's safe to say I'm not too worried about that.
The parent's point about philosophical literacy is apropos here. Natural law and its underlying metaphysics is very technical and deep. It is definitely not falling apart by pointing out the obvious, that biology varies over time. In some respect, NL has dealt with that "problem" since the time of Aristotle. (For a start: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/essential-accidental/)
This may be true, but such endeavors must reconcile with modern scientific understanding one way or another, or they can lose validity/usefulness. I haven't seen any convincing efforts to do so.
Note, this would be less of an issue if they didn't make certain specific claims or rely on certain specific premises that the natural sciences directly touch. E.g. the "purpose" of sexual organs.
One relevant idea that has been growing stronger for me is that a philosophical endeavor needs some sort of strong, tangible connection to reality in order to have meaning or usefulness. Without such grounding, it is far too easy to end up with something that seems reasonable on the surface but may actually be nonsensical or illusory.
This is a minor technical point that distracts from the main discussion, and doesn't really support the implication from your earlier comment that some gay people are against gay marriage rights. Saying method 2 is better than method 1 is not the same as opposing method 1.
What about outright opposing Method 1 because you don't think the Ends justify the Means? Even if you agree with the Ends? Even if you like Method 2?
I'm my experience, that gets me branded as a monster. I tend to keep my mouth shut.
The implication does not exist unless you want to put it there. I even added a second, longer sentence to emphasize that being against a particular law is not the same as being against gay rights. The fact that you insist the implication is there despite all that is precisely my point.
No adult should have to seek permission from government to form, codify, or have a relationship "recognized"
At most you should be required to file civil contract declaring a partnership has been formed between 2 or more adults, what the terms of that partnership are from a financial and property stand point, and should include a disillusion process.
That is a radical shift from what we have today, but "Family law" is a complete mess and needs to just be completely abolished and replaced with Voluntary Agreements and Civil Contracts outside the control of government.
Even if he can manage to separate out his professional life from his personal life, that sort of belief poisons the well for people that have to work with him.
When those views become part of the public sphere they're put under scrutiny. Each person has their own individual limit for what they're willing to put up with, and a community in turn has a collective limit. There are some companies that might be more friendly, but I would imagine if you held an opinion like that in say, Seattle you might have a bit of trouble if it was well-popularized.
Actually to the best of my knowledge, it is the same, at least under US law. De facto discrimination is still considered discrimination.
This is difficult to discuss in the work place, because this makes it topical.
Yes.. But to be fair, adults are in short supply these days.
If gays wanted to prevent people who are anti-gay from marrying, then you might have an argument.
- marriage is a natural institution that the state recognizes (the state, technically, does not marry people)
- marriage is ultimately rooted in the intrinsic capacity (though not necessarily the successful exercise e.g. impotence does not render marriage invalid) for sexual reproduction and the complementarity of the sexes
Therefore, they hold that there simply is no such thing as gay marriage, and you cannot deny what does not exist.
Humans didn't invent gravity. This is why it is the same in the US as it is in Asia, as well as everywhere else in the universe.
Thus, gay marriage can easily exist. People simply have to believe that it is a useful abstraction.
When people with opposing personal views stop working together is when the problems occur. Echo Chambers and Mono Cultures lead to extremism in most instances. This is true no matter what your political or personal world view is.
Peaceful Collaboration in one area of life even with people that in other areas of life you disagree is essential to a functional society.