Are we planning on throwing a fit every time somebody, somewhere doesn't agree with us?
That seems like an enormous waste of energy that could go to better use & doesn't seem to be a wise way to choose your battles. It's amazing how easily we like to get offended these days.
It's one thing to disagree about optimal economic policy or how prisons should be run. For these issues there are legitimate, differing views with different goals and different ways of reaching those goals. And indeed, it would be silly to throw a fit over such a disagreement.
Using your power, whether it's your vote, your money, or your vocal platform, to deny other humans basic rights for no valid reason other than "some old book kinda says it might be wrong if you read it in this particular way" is not that kind of issue. There is a right and a wrong side here, just as there is in human slavery or giving all adults the right to vote. It's entirely reasonable to throw a fit when someone is using their power to deny you, your loved ones, or simply your fellow countrymen their basic right to happiness.
It is baffling to me how you can write off fighting back against real and effective attacks on the basic rights, dignity, and even humanity of homosexuals as "getting offended."
There is evident conflict between the two. Discriminating against Eich expressing his religious views would be immoral to some people, in the same way discriminating against gays is immoral to some people.
Ultimately, we have to decide whether beliefs qualify in a class where all the other items (race, gender, sexual orientation) are considered innate.
Until we have that debate nothing will be solved.
Edit: because this got downvoted almost immediately, I'd like to clarify: I am not expressing an opinion either way in this matter, but rather highlighting a much larger conflict the matter is part of.
The entire issue is that this was an attempt to promote a belief likely grounded in religion into a law denying others a basic right. That cannot be permitted.
There's not much point to freedom of religion if you're not allowed to vote according to those beliefs.
> The entire issue is that this was an attempt to promote a belief likely grounded in religion into a law denying others a basic right. That cannot be permitted.
There are many restrictions put in place because they are voted for based of peoples beliefs, including their religious ones. Why can this not be permitted?
How can we know if a law is religiously motivated?
I shouldn't have to say this, but HN quality these days is so poor that I will: I support gay marriage. But people are turning this into a black and white issue. It isn't.
And I don't think people should be punished for voting in a way that meets their moral beliefs, even if those moral beliefs are spiritually grounded.
If it can be justified through non-religious means, then the law itself can be described as not being religiously motivated. Opposing gay marriage cannot be justified through non-religious means. And it's not through lack of trying, just look at any of the recent court cases.
> There's not much point to freedom of religion if you're not allowed to vote according to those beliefs.
Sure there is. You can do whatever your religion dictates you to do, so long as it doesn't require /other/people/ to follow those dictates, or prevent other people from following their (lack of) religious dictates. This seems a reasonable compromise. I certainly can't think of a better way of peacefully resolving the conflict. Apparently neither could the writers of the US constitution.
> But people are turning this into a black and white issue. It isn't.
The particular issue of the legality of gay marriage is a black and white issue, just like womens and minority suffrage were.
Yes it can. Someone against gay marriage may make a point that marriage is a framework for raising children and that children have the right to parents of both genders, for example. You may feel that it shouldn't be justified that way, but that doesn't mean that it cannot be justified that way by others.
> You can do whatever your religion dictates you to do, so long as it doesn't require /other/people/ to follow those dictates, or prevent other people from following their (lack of) religious dictates. This seems a reasonable compromise. I certainly can't think of a better way of peacefully resolving the conflict. Apparently neither could the writers of the US constitution.
Morality is enforced on others all the time, frequently in the US. Sometimes it's more religiously informed, other times less so. Most people are religious, and hence most people's morality is informed by their religion.
> The particular issue of the legality of gay marriage is a black and white issue, just like womens and minority suffrage were.
Gay marriage may be black and white in 2050, but it isn't now for most people - that's why they voted against it. Women's suffrage is a black and white issue now, but it certainly wasn't at the time.
They are significant changes with how we, as a society, live, and while you may not struggle with it, other people may - especially older people, that doesn't mean they should be punished.
Eich has convictions that are typical of his age and religious viewpoints. I don't agree, but I do understand and he is allowed to have those viewpoints.
Note: since this post has the HN 'controversial' flag set, I can't reply readily - this post took a few hours to be able to send, so this will be my last post in the thread.
Thanks for being pleasant, even if we disagree.
There's not much point to claiming a free society if a religious bloc can vote away everyone else's freedom.
You might not support that, which is reasonable, there's a lot of Libertarians in tech and I do understand where they're coming from. http://i.imgur.com/fV2tHeu.jpg illustrates the point quite nicely.
However: most people don't understand or agree with this, and believe in democracy and its compromises, including shitty things likes rules that may restrict you based on a majority of opponents.
Under the US constitution, this is blatantly false. See, for example, the First through Fourth Amendments, which place restrictions on what sorts of laws can be created.
I have to laugh every time someone uses this argument.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
I could quote some choice passages, but you should really read it in full. I'm pretty sure every single last one of you has "voted or supported with your vocal platform" positions or politicians taking positions that are directly contrary to what's in there.
We're in a society where even in the most progressive of places we're so far away from this ideal, that whenever someone claims something isn't a political issue because it's "obviously the right thing", I want to throw up.
Where is the public outrage over death-penalty supporters in the FOSS world?
I'm not sure that's true. Look at our murder laws for example. We have several different degrees of murder severity, depending on planning and forethought. In some cases murder is even downgraded to voluntary manslaughter where it legally is no longer considered murder. Causing the death of another human is hardly a black and white issue.
In short, a reasonable person could argue that removing certain people from the population is the best course of action. You and I may disagree, but this other person does have some rationale to back up his/her argument.
Here in Europe it is seen as imperative that the state should never be allowed to intentful kill one of its citizens.
Eich does not seem to have decided that one yet. IMO, a CEO should be better at politics.
as for upsetting "a few people", everyone has the right to react when upset.