For me, if it were the other way around I'd hold the same line. If a company that relies on a large constituent of people that are against gay marriage found their CEO doing something like monetarily supporting the gay rights movement, I could see why that company would ask that person to resign. That person just does not fit into the larger scheme of the business or their mission statement. That person could be an actual hindrance to the company.
Right, and the company is fully allowed to do so.
My question is, is it right that a large group of people can inflict damages on another merely because that individual expressed his/her belief in a manner fully defended by our country's laws, and in fact the essential component of our government's ability to function?
If Mozilla wants to be perceived by the public as a company that identifies with supporting rights for people who feel like second class citizens, then this move makes business sense. However, there are things I am not sure of, and this is a fine line to walk. Did they ask him to resign solely because of his beliefs or because they were genuinely worried what this revelation means to their business?
Read the OP. I specifically quoted out a section from the article where the chairwoman states "Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn’t live up to it,” Mitchell Baker, the executive chairwoman of Mozilla, wrote. “We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: It’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves. "
I couldn't find anything in their manifesto that claimed any of the above. Yet, she's making it sound as though the fact that he's a bigot is the main reason. Who knows what the reality is; the fact of the matter is that an individual of power in Mozilla said they forced him to resign because he did something "wrong".
Another issue is the fact that he was a CEO and had a larger public profile than most of the people who work for Mozilla. It would possibly be more scandalous if they had fired a janitor for supporting the same proposition. It gets messy, trying to defend his rights as a private citizen combined with the standard Mozilla wants to set for the people who come into contact with the public eye.
But it shouldn't. You do not void your rights because you're a CEO. The way I see it, all of these attempts to look at the situation in a different light is just special pleading.
You should be allowed to voice and act on your opinion in a manner fully allowed by law, regardless of whether you're a janitor or a CEO.
I think the belief that people in the public's eye can be scrutinized more is stupid. It is reminiscent of the view that actors should be allowed to be followed and pursued by paparazzi, because they're actors and they're in the public's eye. It's ridiculous. It doesn't ******* matter whether you're Nicole Kidman or the guy living in the house next to me. It's still wrong.
But it shouldn't. You do not void your rights because you're a CEO. The way I see it, all of these attempts to look at the situation in a different light is just special pleading.
You should be allowed to voice and act on your opinion in a manner fully allowed by law, regardless of whether you're a janitor or a CEO.
I think the belief that people in the public's eye can be scrutinized more is stupid. It is reminiscent of the view that actors should be allowed to be followed and pursued by paparazzi, because they're actors and they're in the public's eye. It's ridiculous. It doesn't ******* matter whether you're Nicole Kidman or the guy living in the house next to me. It's still wrong.
I can only concede a debate on the morality. I'm just not equipped to argue the larger issue at hand.
If I'm heading to my corner store and I see a big old "DEATH TO AMERICA" sign out front, do I have a moral obligation to go on in and shop, lest I trample the free speech of the owner?
If I'm heading to my corner store and I see a big old "DEATH TO AMERICA" sign out front, do I have a moral obligation to go on in and shop, lest I trample the free speech of the owner?
Of course you don't have a moral obligation to go shop there. And of course you wouldn't be trampling on the free speech of the owner.
And it's obvious you completely missed the point I wanted to make.
Of course you don't have a moral obligation to go shop there. And of course you wouldn't be trampling on the free speech of the owner.
And it's obvious you completely missed the point I wanted to make.
So this is the part that I thought was relevant:
My question is, is it right that a large group of people can inflict damages on another merely because that individual expressed his/her belief in a manner fully defended by our country's laws, and in fact the essential component of our government's ability to function?
In the corner store analogy, the owner is expressing his political opinion, and I'm withholding business that I otherwise would have given him. Is it "right" for me to do this? Is it "wrong" for me to do this? Am I even "inflicting damages" on him?
Or do I have to go ask someone else to not shop there either for it to cross a line?
Of course you don't have a moral obligation to go shop there. And of course you wouldn't be trampling on the free speech of the owner.
And it's obvious you completely missed the point I wanted to make.
So this is the part that I thought was relevant:
My question is, is it right that a large group of people can inflict damages on another merely because that individual expressed his/her belief in a manner fully defended by our country's laws, and in fact the essential component of our government's ability to function?
In the corner store analogy, the owner is expressing his political opinion, and I'm withholding business that I otherwise would have given him. Is it "right" for me to do this? Is it "wrong" for me to do this? Am I even "inflicting damages" on him?
Or do I have to go ask someone else to not shop there either for it to cross a line?
It's not a black and white issue. *gasp!*
The problem is not that it's possible to punish people for having unpopular ideas... the problem is that as a society we seem to dole out that punishment way to quickly and easily. I see a huge difference between hanging a sign in front of the store versus versus putting a sign in their own front yard, I see a big difference between donating the business's money versus donating private dollars. How about this example... lets say your neighbor owns a Subway in town and happens to have a "Vote X" in their yard that you do not agree with. Do you think it would be best practice to then tell everyone you can, not to eat at that Subway because the owner believes "x"? Can you see how that kind of behavior could quickly spiral out of control if it becomes the normal thing to do?
Virtually every single person believes in or has done something that some group of people do not agree with, probably quite strongly. Is it really in societies best interest to have everything being boycotted by someone over completely unrelated things?
Depends on what X is. If X is innocuous, no one's going to listen to me.
If both of my neighbors own competing sandwich shops, and one has a sign I agree with, and the other that I disagree with, am I acting against the best interest of society if I decide to go eat at the one I agree with?
Depends on what X is. If X is innocuous, no one's going to listen to me.
I dont care what X is... that's the point. Maybe he personally supports sending everyone with aids to an island in the ocean and nuking it... To me personally I dont give a crap... I dont want to go to that guy's 4th of July party but that has nothing to do with what he does for a living.
If both of my neighbors own competing sandwich shops, and one has a sign I agree with, and the other that I disagree with, am I acting against the best interest of society if I decide to go eat at the one I agree with?
Nope... like I said it's not a black and white issue. Clearly, if you don't care too much about which place you eat at based on food quality or options you might consider other factors like "man that owner is kind of a dick and lets his dog pee on my lawn I'm not going to eat at his shop". I am not saying that is bad at all. But if you then convince everyone in town to stop eating at his shop for letting his dog pee on your lawn.... that's a bit extreme.
Maybe it will make more sense this way... if I found out the owner of "random store I shop at" wanted to kill everyone with aids... I would wish I didn't know that because it has absolutely nothing to do with my shopping. I prefer to remain blissfully ignorant to the ideals and private beliefs of the owners/managers of places of business. Now on the other hand I find it to be very relevant to know what practices the business itself uses (for example whether or not they use child labor). Similarly if I found out my neighbor had a horse fetish... I would be very weirded out and probably hesitate to go to his 4th of July BBQ, even though his weird sexual desires have nothing to do with grilling some meat and watching fireworks. We would both be better off not having that bit of information shared. Sometimes it's better to just not know. By throwing these random facts out on social media and the news in general you remove people's ability to be blissfully ignorant.
Another point... why should we punish business owners for their personal beliefs? What makes them so special? If my neighbor who is a Postal Carrier, or works in the IT department at Best Buy, has a sign in his yard that says he wants to kill everyone with AIDs... I can't boycott his business, Even if I could would that make sense? If he was a sandwich artist at a sub place would you tell all of your friends not to go in while he's working and write to the owner asking him to fire the guy? I'm guessing no... So why is it that the sandwich artist can work without massive backlash for his beliefs, but the owner would have to risk facing backlash for the same beliefs and actions?
I dont care what X is... that's the point. Maybe he personally supports sending everyone with aids to an island in the ocean and nuking it... To me personally I dont give a crap... I dont want to go to that guy's 4th of July party but that has nothing to do with what he does for a living.
I don't think we're really talking about what your personal shopping practices are. We're talking about the whether boycotts of this sort are reasonable.
Nope... like I said it's not a black and white issue. Clearly, if you don't care too much about which place you eat at based on food quality or options you might consider other factors like "man that owner is kind of a dick and lets his dog pee on my lawn I'm not going to eat at his shop". I am not saying that is bad at all. But if you then convince everyone in town to stop eating at his shop for letting his dog pee on your lawn.... that's a bit extreme.
So if everyone on their own decides not to shop with the guy, that's "not bad at all", but if I suggest the idea to them, then we've got a problem?
Maybe it will make more sense this way... if I found out the owner of "random store I shop at" wanted to kill everyone with aids... I would wish I didn't know that because it has absolutely nothing to do with my shopping. I prefer to remain blissfully ignorant to the ideals and private beliefs of the owners/managers of places of business. Now on the other hand I find it to be very relevant to know what practices the business itself uses (for example whether or not they use child labor). Similarly if I found out my neighbor had a horse fetish... I would be very weirded out and probably hesitate to go to his 4th of July BBQ, even though his weird sexual desires have nothing to do with grilling some meat and watching fireworks. We would both be better off not having that bit of information shared. Sometimes it's better to just not know. By throwing these random facts out on social media and the news in general you remove people's ability to be blissfully ignorant.
That's just your personal preference not to know. Other people care who they're supporting.
Another point... why should we punish business owners for their personal beliefs? What makes them so special? If my neighbor who is a Postal Carrier, or works in the IT department at Best Buy, has a sign in his yard that says he wants to kill everyone with AIDs... I can't boycott his business, Even if I could would that make sense? If he was a sandwich artist at a sub place would you tell all of your friends not to go in while he's working and write to the owner asking him to fire the guy? I'm guessing no... So why is it that the sandwich artist can work without massive backlash for his beliefs, but the owner would have to risk facing backlash for the same beliefs and actions?
The mailman or IT worker is a tiny part of a huge business. The owner is a big part of a business.
The mailman or IT worker is a tiny part of a huge business. The owner is a big part of a business.
Ok... that didn't work at all. I feel like you are missing my point or maybe I am missing yours....
Why is it that you think it's ok to potentially cost a business owner his job but not a sub maker? John has a sign in his yard that says "burn all the X" and Jim has the exact same sign in his yard. John owns "yummy subs" and Jim works at "Tasty Subs" as a sub assembler. You are basically saying that you think it fits to tell literally the whole world (social media) not to eat at Yummy Subs because of John's sign... but at the same time possibly do absolutely nothing about Jim working at Tasty Subs? Why? To me that seems like a weird stance to have. Why are we harder on John? Just because he makes more money? What if John was the owner of a small struggling local flower shop and Jim was the Chief financial officer for a multi-billion dollar company, does that change the reaction?
It's not that we're harder on John. It's that Jim doesn't have the same relationship with his business as John does, so his expressed views will factor differently into our decision to shop there. It has nothing to do with how much money they make, or whether the business is doing well.
It's not that we're harder on John. It's that Jim doesn't have the same relationship with his business as John does, so his expressed views will factor differently into our decision to shop there. It has nothing to do with how much money they make, or whether the business is doing well.
I still dont follow you... What do John's views on Gay marriage have to do with his Sub Making business? Why does his relationship with his sub-making business open him up to mass public punishment when a regular employee doesn't? What's so different about being an employee versus being a CEO when it comes to unrelated views?
It is one thing to stand up for gay rights, and another thing entirely to go full-on thought police.
There is no discernible difference between the "oppressor" and the "oppressed" when the "oppressed" go onto "oppressing" the "oppressors".
In other words, just because your cause is just doesn't mean that you are allowed to cause direct harm onto others merely because their belief conflicts with yours.
I mean, what makes you any different from the people you're challenging otherwise?
The point of civil rights is acceptance and tolerance. The way I see it, this isn't that. You're merely trading one intolerance for another.
Sorry, bull***** alert. I sense a hardcore conservative Republican from San Diego.
You should always be tolerant of one another, except for tolerance of intolerance. You can't just spout the word "tolerance" everywhere you go because you've heard people defending their rights with it. Otherwise, we should all be tolerant of rapists, pedophiles, murderers, etc. Nobody forced him to step down. He did it on his own because he knows he was a mother******* asshat, and it would harm the reputation of his company. Sites like okcupid boycotted Mozilla, as it was their right.
I still dont follow you... What do John's views on Gay marriage have to do with his Sub Making business?
All else equal, I'd rather spend my money with someone who doesn't advocate for things I find reprehensible.
Why does his relationship with his sub-making business open him up to mass public punishment when a regular employee doesn't? What's so different about being an employee versus being a CEO when it comes to unrelated views?
A CEO or a business owner is the face of the company. When I'm doing business with them, that's the person I'm ultimately giving my money to. The guy at the register or the guy carrying the letter is just an employee. He has no say in the business. He has no share of the profits.
Why does his relationship with his sub-making business open him up to mass public punishment when a regular employee doesn't? What's so different about being an employee versus being a CEO when it comes to unrelated views?
A CEO or a business owner is the face of the company. When I'm doing business with them, that's the person I'm ultimately giving my money to. The guy at the register or the guy carrying the letter is just an employee. He has no say in the business. He has no share of the profits.
So what about stock holders? They get a share of the profits. If the business I work for has a good enough year I get a share of the profits in the form of a bigger bonus. You say "just an employee" but in a lot of places those employees actually have more say over your experience as a customer and the direction of the company than the CEO does. Also... "face of the company"? How many people even knew Mozilla had a CEO in the first place let alone who he was or any of his views until OK Cupid pulled their publicity stunt? In most cases the "CEO" is not the face of the company for it's consumers. Most of the time the consumers have no idea who the CEO is.
You should always be tolerant of one another, except for tolerance of intolerance. You can't just spout the word "tolerance" everywhere you go because you've heard people defending their rights with it. Otherwise, we should all be tolerant of rapists, pedophiles, murderers, etc.
They should most certainly be allowed to voice their opinions and act on them in a legal manner. Does that mean they should be allowed to vote for any hypothetical measures (hypothetical because I cannot ever imagine this happening outside of hypothetical situations) that legalizes those? Of course.
Nobody forced him to step down. He did it on his own because he knows he was a mother******* asshat, and it would harm the reputation of his company. Sites like okcupid boycotted Mozilla, as it was their right.
I'm tired of repeating the same thing over and over. So I'll just direct you to post #192 and #196 written by me, they're on page 8. They're probably the clearest way I can write how I feel about the issue.
If you actually have something new to bring to the table instead of repeating the same argument about a dozen others have, then I'm all ears.
I'd put a major stock holder in the same category as a CEO. I'd put a dude who owns a share or two in the same category as the guy behind the counter.
I'm not sure how a dude behind the counter at subway has "more say over the direction of the company" than the CEO. I'm not concerned with their say over "my experience as a customer".
Whether the average consumer knows who the CEO is doesn't change that they're the face of the company. That's the person who's going to be speaking at conferences. That's the person who's going to be on TV. That's the person whose job gets them into influential circles.
In the corner store analogy, the owner is expressing his political opinion, and I'm withholding business that I otherwise would have given him. Is it "right" for me to do this? Is it "wrong" for me to do this? Am I even "inflicting damages" on him?
Or do I have to go ask someone else to not shop there either for it to cross a line?
Of course it's right for you to do so.
The issue I talk about would be comparable to if you went and convinced everyone else in town to boycott the business because his personal opinions offended you.
Edit- But even then, the above isn't perfectly matching. I am more disturbed because they got angry that he committed an action that is very important to the functioning of our government- political action, than the fact that they got angry over him being anti-gay.
Supporting Prop. 8 and donating to it should be something anyone can do without consequence. For exactly the same reasons why people should be allowed to support anti-Prop. 8 measures and donate to it without consequences.
Think about what that means for a second. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like it if a bunch of homophobic individuals began a boycott on a store because they learned the owners are gay...
See. I would have started the same damned thread if the Mozilla CEO was pro-gay and a bunch of anti-gay people forced him to resign. Because the base issue is still the same.
And I'm pretty sure all of you would have agreed with me if that was the case. That's what makes this so upsetting.
The reason I wouldn't like it if a bunch of homophobic individuals began a boycott is because homophobia is an unjust stance. Not because I don't like boycotts.
I wouldn't like it if a bunch of homophobic people voted a gay person out of congress, but that doesn't mean I don't like voting.
They should most certainly be allowed to voice their opinions and act on them in a legal manner. Does that mean they should be allowed to vote for any hypothetical measures (hypothetical because I cannot ever imagine this happening outside of hypothetical situations) that legalizes those? Of course.
Because that is what true Liberalism means.
I didn't say they couldn't voice their opinions, I said that we didn't have to be tolerant of them. And people weren't. And he left the company as a direct result of intolerance against his intolerance. What I did say is that it's erroneous to assume the literal definition of tolerance, in any context, is what anyone advocates as fair or good.
The reason I wouldn't like it if a bunch of homophobic individuals began a boycott is because homophobia is an unjust stance. Not because I don't like boycotts.
I wouldn't like it if a bunch of homophobic people voted a gay person out of congress, but that doesn't mean I don't like voting.
And that is why you live in a double standard.
So long as it's something you agree with, you are fully supportive of the individual's rights and everything else.
But if it's something you disagree with? Nope. That person can go die in a fire for all you care (obviously hyperbole)
You know what this leads to? Tyranny of opinion. Where a collective group determines a "right" and punishes anyone who disagrees with that "right".
And before you go off talking about how certain things are "right" and whatnot, I'll just direct you to post #47 from B_S and #50 from me. Because we sort of addressed that already.
I didn't say they couldn't voice their opinions, I said that we didn't have to be tolerant of them. And people weren't. And he left the company as a direct result of intolerance against his intolerance.
Did you read the posts I pointed you to yet? Because I talked about this. But for convenience's sake (oh, it turns out that this isn't from the posts I pointed you towards, apologies)
It is one thing to disagree and voice that disagreement. It is another thing entirely to take your disagreement into action in a way that negatively affects the people you disagree with. Sometimes it is acceptable (disagreement into action via the viable established political method) and sometimes it is not (disagreement into action by harassing the individual, physically attacking them, what have you)
And I would still like to hear where you got the idea that I'm a "hardcore conservative Republican". Because I really did expect to hear that at least once on this thread, and it's great to finally see it happen.
I didn't say they couldn't voice their opinions, I said that we didn't have to be tolerant of them. And people weren't. And he left the company as a direct result of intolerance against his intolerance. What I did say is that it's erroneous to assume the literal definition of tolerance, in any context, is what anyone advocates as fair or good.
I never assumed that. I would like it if you pointed me to where you thought I assumed that.
And I would still like to hear where you got the idea that I'm a "hardcore conservative Republican". Because I really did expect to hear that at least once on this thread, and it's great to finally see it happen.
The point of civil rights is acceptance and tolerance. The way I see it, this isn't that. You're merely trading one intolerance for another.
You're suggesting that, to maintain our civil rights, we should accept and tolerate his perspective of intolerance, are you not? This is where I assumed you were conservative. It's an extremely common argument that conservatives use to defend their stance on intolerance.
So long as it's something you agree with, you are fully supportive of the individual's rights and everything else.
But if it's something you disagree with? Nope. That person can go die in a fire for all you care (obviously hyperbole)
I'm fully supportive of everyone's rights, whether they agree with me or not. Brendan Eich doesn't have a "right" to me using Firefox. I'm not violating one of his rights by using Chrome, because I don't owe him anything.
You know what this leads to? Tyranny of opinion. Where a collective group determines a "right" and punishes anyone who disagrees with that "right".
And before you go off talking about how certain things are "right" and whatnot, I'll just direct you to post #47 from B_S and #50 from me. Because we sort of addressed that already.
Am I "punishing" someone if I don't buy a sandwich from them? What right to they have to my sandwich money?
I'd put a major stock holder in the same category as a CEO. I'd put a dude who owns a share or two in the same category as the guy behind the counter.
I'm not sure how a dude behind the counter at subway has "more say over the direction of the company" than the CEO. I'm not concerned with their say over "my experience as a customer".
Whether the average consumer knows who the CEO is doesn't change that they're the face of the company. That's the person who's going to be speaking at conferences. That's the person who's going to be on TV. That's the person whose job gets them into influential circles.
Not everyone who is not the CEO just works behind a counter... there are at least 4 layers of management between me (an engineer) and my companies CEO. You really think the CEO has much say over my day to day tasks? Do you think the CEO even cares about what the developers are working on? No... he/the board had a vision of "we need to be more X to compete!" and then a bunch of managers break that down into ideas and engineers turn those ideas into more tangible things... Although this is sidetracking into an irrelevant discussion on Business management that I am not properly educated on...
CEO's are not always the "face" sometimes you might have a marketing manager giving those conference talks. Heck most CEO's are not on TV... I dont get this weird idea that being the CEO somehow means your job is now a target if you hold unpopular beliefs.
Basically what you are saying is that anyone that is a CEO/business owner should never express their views unless they want to risk their professional lives too. To me that is ridiculous. We would never try to hold every person to those standards so why do we think it's ok to hold high level businessmen to those standards... the only difference to me, between CEO and Sandwich guy is how much money they make..
Right, and the company is fully allowed to do so.
My question is, is it right that a large group of people can inflict damages on another merely because that individual expressed his/her belief in a manner fully defended by our country's laws, and in fact the essential component of our government's ability to function?
Read the OP. I specifically quoted out a section from the article where the chairwoman states "Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn’t live up to it,” Mitchell Baker, the executive chairwoman of Mozilla, wrote. “We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: It’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves. "
I couldn't find anything in their manifesto that claimed any of the above. Yet, she's making it sound as though the fact that he's a bigot is the main reason. Who knows what the reality is; the fact of the matter is that an individual of power in Mozilla said they forced him to resign because he did something "wrong".
But it shouldn't. You do not void your rights because you're a CEO. The way I see it, all of these attempts to look at the situation in a different light is just special pleading.
You should be allowed to voice and act on your opinion in a manner fully allowed by law, regardless of whether you're a janitor or a CEO.
I think the belief that people in the public's eye can be scrutinized more is stupid. It is reminiscent of the view that actors should be allowed to be followed and pursued by paparazzi, because they're actors and they're in the public's eye. It's ridiculous. It doesn't ******* matter whether you're Nicole Kidman or the guy living in the house next to me. It's still wrong.
I can only concede a debate on the morality. I'm just not equipped to argue the larger issue at hand.
Of course you don't have a moral obligation to go shop there. And of course you wouldn't be trampling on the free speech of the owner.
And it's obvious you completely missed the point I wanted to make.
So this is the part that I thought was relevant:
In the corner store analogy, the owner is expressing his political opinion, and I'm withholding business that I otherwise would have given him. Is it "right" for me to do this? Is it "wrong" for me to do this? Am I even "inflicting damages" on him?
Or do I have to go ask someone else to not shop there either for it to cross a line?
It's not a black and white issue. *gasp!*
The problem is not that it's possible to punish people for having unpopular ideas... the problem is that as a society we seem to dole out that punishment way to quickly and easily. I see a huge difference between hanging a sign in front of the store versus versus putting a sign in their own front yard, I see a big difference between donating the business's money versus donating private dollars. How about this example... lets say your neighbor owns a Subway in town and happens to have a "Vote X" in their yard that you do not agree with. Do you think it would be best practice to then tell everyone you can, not to eat at that Subway because the owner believes "x"? Can you see how that kind of behavior could quickly spiral out of control if it becomes the normal thing to do?
Virtually every single person believes in or has done something that some group of people do not agree with, probably quite strongly. Is it really in societies best interest to have everything being boycotted by someone over completely unrelated things?
If both of my neighbors own competing sandwich shops, and one has a sign I agree with, and the other that I disagree with, am I acting against the best interest of society if I decide to go eat at the one I agree with?
I dont care what X is... that's the point. Maybe he personally supports sending everyone with aids to an island in the ocean and nuking it... To me personally I dont give a crap... I dont want to go to that guy's 4th of July party but that has nothing to do with what he does for a living.
Nope... like I said it's not a black and white issue. Clearly, if you don't care too much about which place you eat at based on food quality or options you might consider other factors like "man that owner is kind of a dick and lets his dog pee on my lawn I'm not going to eat at his shop". I am not saying that is bad at all. But if you then convince everyone in town to stop eating at his shop for letting his dog pee on your lawn.... that's a bit extreme.
Maybe it will make more sense this way... if I found out the owner of "random store I shop at" wanted to kill everyone with aids... I would wish I didn't know that because it has absolutely nothing to do with my shopping. I prefer to remain blissfully ignorant to the ideals and private beliefs of the owners/managers of places of business. Now on the other hand I find it to be very relevant to know what practices the business itself uses (for example whether or not they use child labor). Similarly if I found out my neighbor had a horse fetish... I would be very weirded out and probably hesitate to go to his 4th of July BBQ, even though his weird sexual desires have nothing to do with grilling some meat and watching fireworks. We would both be better off not having that bit of information shared. Sometimes it's better to just not know. By throwing these random facts out on social media and the news in general you remove people's ability to be blissfully ignorant.
Another point... why should we punish business owners for their personal beliefs? What makes them so special? If my neighbor who is a Postal Carrier, or works in the IT department at Best Buy, has a sign in his yard that says he wants to kill everyone with AIDs... I can't boycott his business, Even if I could would that make sense? If he was a sandwich artist at a sub place would you tell all of your friends not to go in while he's working and write to the owner asking him to fire the guy? I'm guessing no... So why is it that the sandwich artist can work without massive backlash for his beliefs, but the owner would have to risk facing backlash for the same beliefs and actions?
I don't think we're really talking about what your personal shopping practices are. We're talking about the whether boycotts of this sort are reasonable.
So if everyone on their own decides not to shop with the guy, that's "not bad at all", but if I suggest the idea to them, then we've got a problem?
That's just your personal preference not to know. Other people care who they're supporting.
The mailman or IT worker is a tiny part of a huge business. The owner is a big part of a business.
Ok... that didn't work at all. I feel like you are missing my point or maybe I am missing yours....
Why is it that you think it's ok to potentially cost a business owner his job but not a sub maker? John has a sign in his yard that says "burn all the X" and Jim has the exact same sign in his yard. John owns "yummy subs" and Jim works at "Tasty Subs" as a sub assembler. You are basically saying that you think it fits to tell literally the whole world (social media) not to eat at Yummy Subs because of John's sign... but at the same time possibly do absolutely nothing about Jim working at Tasty Subs? Why? To me that seems like a weird stance to have. Why are we harder on John? Just because he makes more money? What if John was the owner of a small struggling local flower shop and Jim was the Chief financial officer for a multi-billion dollar company, does that change the reaction?
I still dont follow you... What do John's views on Gay marriage have to do with his Sub Making business? Why does his relationship with his sub-making business open him up to mass public punishment when a regular employee doesn't? What's so different about being an employee versus being a CEO when it comes to unrelated views?
Sorry, bull***** alert. I sense a hardcore conservative Republican from San Diego.
You should always be tolerant of one another, except for tolerance of intolerance. You can't just spout the word "tolerance" everywhere you go because you've heard people defending their rights with it. Otherwise, we should all be tolerant of rapists, pedophiles, murderers, etc. Nobody forced him to step down. He did it on his own because he knows he was a mother******* asshat, and it would harm the reputation of his company. Sites like okcupid boycotted Mozilla, as it was their right.
All else equal, I'd rather spend my money with someone who doesn't advocate for things I find reprehensible.
A CEO or a business owner is the face of the company. When I'm doing business with them, that's the person I'm ultimately giving my money to. The guy at the register or the guy carrying the letter is just an employee. He has no say in the business. He has no share of the profits.
So what about stock holders? They get a share of the profits. If the business I work for has a good enough year I get a share of the profits in the form of a bigger bonus. You say "just an employee" but in a lot of places those employees actually have more say over your experience as a customer and the direction of the company than the CEO does. Also... "face of the company"? How many people even knew Mozilla had a CEO in the first place let alone who he was or any of his views until OK Cupid pulled their publicity stunt? In most cases the "CEO" is not the face of the company for it's consumers. Most of the time the consumers have no idea who the CEO is.
Hah. I figured I'd read something like this sooner or later.
Mind telling me what makes you think I'm a "hardcore conservative"?
They should most certainly be allowed to voice their opinions and act on them in a legal manner. Does that mean they should be allowed to vote for any hypothetical measures (hypothetical because I cannot ever imagine this happening outside of hypothetical situations) that legalizes those? Of course.
Because that is what true Liberalism means.
I'm tired of repeating the same thing over and over. So I'll just direct you to post #192 and #196 written by me, they're on page 8. They're probably the clearest way I can write how I feel about the issue.
If you actually have something new to bring to the table instead of repeating the same argument about a dozen others have, then I'm all ears.
I'm not sure how a dude behind the counter at subway has "more say over the direction of the company" than the CEO. I'm not concerned with their say over "my experience as a customer".
Whether the average consumer knows who the CEO is doesn't change that they're the face of the company. That's the person who's going to be speaking at conferences. That's the person who's going to be on TV. That's the person whose job gets them into influential circles.
Of course it's right for you to do so.
The issue I talk about would be comparable to if you went and convinced everyone else in town to boycott the business because his personal opinions offended you.
Edit- But even then, the above isn't perfectly matching. I am more disturbed because they got angry that he committed an action that is very important to the functioning of our government- political action, than the fact that they got angry over him being anti-gay.
Supporting Prop. 8 and donating to it should be something anyone can do without consequence. For exactly the same reasons why people should be allowed to support anti-Prop. 8 measures and donate to it without consequences.
Think about what that means for a second. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like it if a bunch of homophobic individuals began a boycott on a store because they learned the owners are gay...
See. I would have started the same damned thread if the Mozilla CEO was pro-gay and a bunch of anti-gay people forced him to resign. Because the base issue is still the same.
And I'm pretty sure all of you would have agreed with me if that was the case. That's what makes this so upsetting.
I wouldn't like it if a bunch of homophobic people voted a gay person out of congress, but that doesn't mean I don't like voting.
I didn't say they couldn't voice their opinions, I said that we didn't have to be tolerant of them. And people weren't. And he left the company as a direct result of intolerance against his intolerance. What I did say is that it's erroneous to assume the literal definition of tolerance, in any context, is what anyone advocates as fair or good.
And that is why you live in a double standard.
So long as it's something you agree with, you are fully supportive of the individual's rights and everything else.
But if it's something you disagree with? Nope. That person can go die in a fire for all you care (obviously hyperbole)
You know what this leads to? Tyranny of opinion. Where a collective group determines a "right" and punishes anyone who disagrees with that "right".
And before you go off talking about how certain things are "right" and whatnot, I'll just direct you to post #47 from B_S and #50 from me. Because we sort of addressed that already.
I never assumed that. I would like it if you pointed me to where you thought I assumed that.
Did you read the posts I pointed you to yet? Because I talked about this. But for convenience's sake (oh, it turns out that this isn't from the posts I pointed you towards, apologies)
And I would still like to hear where you got the idea that I'm a "hardcore conservative Republican". Because I really did expect to hear that at least once on this thread, and it's great to finally see it happen.
You're suggesting that, to maintain our civil rights, we should accept and tolerate his perspective of intolerance, are you not? This is where I assumed you were conservative. It's an extremely common argument that conservatives use to defend their stance on intolerance.
I'm fully supportive of everyone's rights, whether they agree with me or not. Brendan Eich doesn't have a "right" to me using Firefox. I'm not violating one of his rights by using Chrome, because I don't owe him anything.
Am I "punishing" someone if I don't buy a sandwich from them? What right to they have to my sandwich money?
As you yourself said:
How is this not "tyranny of opinion"?
Not everyone who is not the CEO just works behind a counter... there are at least 4 layers of management between me (an engineer) and my companies CEO. You really think the CEO has much say over my day to day tasks? Do you think the CEO even cares about what the developers are working on? No... he/the board had a vision of "we need to be more X to compete!" and then a bunch of managers break that down into ideas and engineers turn those ideas into more tangible things... Although this is sidetracking into an irrelevant discussion on Business management that I am not properly educated on...
CEO's are not always the "face" sometimes you might have a marketing manager giving those conference talks. Heck most CEO's are not on TV... I dont get this weird idea that being the CEO somehow means your job is now a target if you hold unpopular beliefs.
Basically what you are saying is that anyone that is a CEO/business owner should never express their views unless they want to risk their professional lives too. To me that is ridiculous. We would never try to hold every person to those standards so why do we think it's ok to hold high level businessmen to those standards... the only difference to me, between CEO and Sandwich guy is how much money they make..