Let's find all the heretics and burn them! j/k
I'm glad that we are beginning to have a rational discussion about the implications of internet mob justice. I hope it continues.
Please refrain from flagging rational points of view that you don't agree with. That's called censorship.
The blog posts stopped. Match.com acquired them. And their data-centric roots seemed to have eroded badly.
The message they put up -- "If individuals like Mr. Eich had their way, then roughly eight percent of the relationships we’ve worked so hard to bring about would be illegal." [^1] -- was pretty sloppy hyperbole. As if 100% of the 8% were going to get married. As if OKCupid were marriage-oriented like Eharmony.
Although a mob has many members, OKCupid is the company that chose to crank this into a higher gear, and volunteer to be Conseja de la Suprema y General Inquisición. [^2]
Marriage equality is right. Purges are wrong. Shamers should be ashamed.
[1]: http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/04/okcupid-to-firefox-u...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#Compositio...
I feel kind of guilty about this, as it feels like fighting fire with fire, but I would hope it would illustrate that this sort of witch hunting and "six degrees of separation" will lead to absolutely stupid results if applied to the utmost degree.
P.S. Not to mention they surely use Javascript, another technology tainted by Mr. Eich himself. They harass users of "his" browser, but don't seem to see an issue with their own use of another of his projects.
My pitchfork is itching for some action.
What I would like to see happen -- not vindictively, but out of a sense of basic fairness and justice -- is a resignation at OKCupid. Also resignations from Mozilla board members, such as the chair, and whoever was on the executive search committee. The resignations would be not due to political beliefs, but for very poor judgement and lack for competence.
The only thing I can think of is that Mozilla are to blame for firing him, except that Mozilla has a (limited) freedom to choose their employees. As far as I can tell, even in the UK, where we have rather far-reaching employment discrimination law, companies have the right to fire people for political actions, although not for pure philosophical beliefs[0] or being a member of a political party. I could be wrong there, however.
So the question is, exactly who acted in the wrong and exactly how, in a way which does not lead to a slippery slope?
[0] http://www.pureemploymentlaw.co.uk/2011/05/19/what-is-a-phil...
Anyone with half a brain knew that Obama did not really oppose gay marriage. When he switched views no one was really surprised... At least of those with half a brain.
The only reason that I've seen is 'my beliefs say it's not okay, so you're not allowed to do it even if you don't share them'. Which comes across as spite, more than anything. 'I'm going to prevent you from getting married even though it costs me nothing to allow it', and in fact it cost Eich a thousand dollars to try to prevent it.
I can't imagine spending a thousand dollars to prevent someone from doing something they wanted to do if it wasn't going to affect me in any tangible way. That's why Eich seemed like an untrustworthy choice for CEO: this doesn't seem like a rational decision for a person to make.
b) Insistence on having marriage be concretely defined as "one man and one woman" and potentially introduce similar but differently named unions for non-traditional couples. This actually has some basis, as marriage used to be widely defined as such (even in dictionaries) until the debate of gay marriage led to a shift in terminology.
Those are two that I can name of. Note that I personally belong to argument A. Not that it's a vehement opposition, just a personal view on the futility of it.
The churches have learned a great deal from the ACLU given its constant suing of any religious display. They know you fight every inch of the way and don't compromise, since your opponents won't. They are fearful of the state forcing doctrine on them. The 1st amendment is very fragile given what has happened to the 4th, 5th
1) once again, I don't believe in state sponsored marriage of any type beyond basic contractual law between 2+ people meeting certain biological conditions (no possible inbreeding). I also have some problems about lack of consideration for the situation of conjoined twins and current rules given our ability to allow them a healthy life will exceed our ability to separate them in vitro.
2) an artist is a different discussion then a restaurant, motel, hospital, etc.
There is legal recourse when a restaurant owner refuses to serve black people, but forced labor is not on the list of possible outcomes.
1) don't ever think that it didn't happen to others
They can be offered the choice, "Do it, or suffer the legal ramifications.", but if they choose "suffer the legal ramifications" standard legal ramifications are the extent of what happens. You can't actually legally force them to do the work, they can choose to not do the work and accept the consequences instead.
"Accepting the consequences" is a nice way to say the law makes it illegal and you will be punished. So, yes, you can be compelled to do work. In the case of a hospital or restaurant that is a public place and licensed as such, this is a very good thing. Forcing artists (which the ruling acknowledges get no exceptions) is another and leads to the reason why churches and others will spend the money campaigning (see my original post).
I think it is important to understand the law before posting foolishness and twisting the meaning of words.
In the mean time, treat them with respect, just as you want to be treated with respect.
In a democracy, you work to make your opinion heard and effective. If you have the opinion, whether based on religious or other grounds, that homosexuality may damage the overall morality of a society, then you would work to protect that society from what you would view as a potential issue. You would also support laws that would be a means to that end--the goal not being to put somebody else down but to uphold it. Therefore a person that holds such beliefs would support enacting a law that prevents something, even if it didn't constrain them in any way.
This seems like a reasonable enough position to me -- although I don't share it because I think the injustice to the individuals affected outweighs any potential drawbacks I can come up with, sometimes the law of unexpected consequences surprises us in interesting ways.
I've also heard people say "judge-made law causes resentment and entrenchment in a minority of the populace and leads to long-term conflicts (see, for instance, Roe vs. Wade). Therefore, while it'd be nice to have gay marriage everywhere simultaneously, we should wait to introduce it in a jurisdiction until we have an electoral majority there."
Again, this seems like a reasonable enough position to me, although not one I personally share.
Brendan Eich would be just fine as CEO in a more civil society where people are capable of separating personal opinions and professional actions. My personal dislike of his 'resignation' comes from a desire to have that (sadly imaginary) society instead of the one we've got. If I can work peaceably with a bunch of left-wing people, y'all should be able to work just fine with Brendan.
You have just blown thousands of collective minds. Such a stance is possible?
And for any proposed law change, there's always some annoying folks who agree with the overall spirit of the change, but oppose because they disagree with some specific details. Like, maybe the new law doesn't go far enough, or doesn't have the right wording. Or maybe they just object to the process by which it was created or campaigned for.
heterosexual marriage was "an essential institution of society", that leaving the constitution unchanged would "result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay", and that gays "do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else."
Apparently the prop 8 argument is basically a massive appeal to tradition fallacy?
Proponents of the constitutional amendment argued that
exclusively heterosexual marriage was "an essential
institution of society"
[T]hat leaving the constitution unchanged would "result
in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage
is okay"
[And] that gays "do not have the right to redefine
marriage for everyone else."
> Proponents of the constitutional amendment argued that exclusively heterosexual marriage was "an essential institution of society."
This is not an argument, it's a statement of opinion. I'd be interested in seeing what facts back it.
> that leaving the constitution unchanged would "result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay"
This is making the presumption that gay marriage is not okay, which again, is an opinion without any backing facts.
> and that gays "do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else."
This is a non-sequitur - gays are not trying to redefine marriage for everyone else. Nothing pertaining to hetero marriage would be changed in the slightest by allowing gays to participate in the institution.