If Eich no longer believes what he believed, it's on him to make sure he makes that point. However, Eich never said anything to that effect, nor did he apologize, so we have no reason to assume that his opinion has changed.
If Eich no longer believes what he believed, it's on him to make sure he makes that point. However, Eich never said anything to that effect, nor did he apologize, so we have no reason to assume that his opinion has changed.
You judge a CEO by the actions/decisions made in professional context. You don't use a personal decision to extrapolate what-if scenarios.
So the issue is not speech but rather thought. George Orwell had a term for punishing people for their thoughts:
He just couldn't accept a definition of marriage which includes same sex couples.
But those are subtle details for the liberal fascists.
Then he took it a step further and donated to group that was working to destroy human rights for homosexuals.
> He didn't tried or even thought to split any gay couple apart.
You're right, he didn't try to split a gay couple apart, he just sought to dissolve their marriage...
I'd also stop giving that company money.
The problem is Eich doesn't see it as a human right. Indeed, to him, it may be the case he sees same-sex marriage as unethical. (We don't know what his objections are.) At any rate, he has no reason to find the support of gay marriage ethical or the opposition of it unethical.
There is no objective morality that tells us who is right or wrong here. There's no divine tablets we can all interpret listing out all our rights.
You can't stop at "same-sex marriage is a human right" and "opposing gay marriage is (ergo) unethical." That just leaves you talking right past people like Eich. It doesn't advance the argument or the cause - it just labels people as stupid or bad.