Political views

In the "Why can't we just get along" thread, the idea that "political views = fight" was brought up. The new Mozilla CEO has been attacked because he is anti-gay marriage. The fight goes on but I just read a blog entry that seems to address this in a sane way.

If you feel compelled to start a fight because you disagree with someone's view, I suggest your read Marco's blog post

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Gay-rights issues ...

... really get Putin's Russian underwear twisted in knots. The oligarchs' too.

So I wondered about their protege Cuba . . . Nope. Quite the opposite. It seems to be a case of the ol' Latino philosophy: any excuse for a 'party' is OK by me. Viva la fiesta,


I can't speak for all of Nicaragua, but in Leon, jodido, gays have effectively taken over UNAN's "Chica de CUUN" celebration & parade. (Some now refer to it as the "Chica de culo" parade.) Gay marriage? Most of the straight couples I know, having babies, aren't getting married. Seems a superfluous institution there.

It Wasn't Always

that way in Cuba. This tolerance is a recent phenomona.

Not that long ago Cuba used to imprison gays.

The world is getting better in a lot of ways. Gays have gotten the short end of the stick for too many years. His support of gay rights may turn out to be the enduring legacy of BHO.

Cuba and gay rights

As I remember (this was a long time ago) Cuba's fear of the spread of AIDS was the reasons gays were getting imprisoned. This is before transmission modes were known. It wasn't a nice thing but when you are an island, offer free medical care to your population and one segment of the population is getting an incurable disease, the response makes sense.

Total BS Article.

He claims it's not a free speech issue? How is that in the USA now if you express a political view that liberals disagree with you are now in jeopardy of losing your job and your career? But *they* are the supposed advocates for free speech and "tolerance". They tolerate no views but their own. What a bunch of hypocrites.

I've lost a job once because I was left of center

"Christians" claim their persecuted because they can't bully and beat up gay kids like they used to, or lobotomize gay adults (last lobotomy for homosexuality was in my lifetime, and can't throw gay people in jail anymore. O woe.

Conservatives are free to boycott anything they want to boycott to, but there are less and less of this kind of bigoted conservative left and even the smarter Republicans are trying to put some distance between themselves and the bigots. The anti-us petition had less than 1,000 signatures the last time anyone of my friends looked.

If you want to support bigotry, then you can, but there will be people who refuse to do business with you. And that, too, is part of freedom. Why should I support someone who hates me?

If the bigots just wanted to say things about how we're damned and stuff, that would be one thing -- unpleasant but so what. It's when the bigots try to interfere with the lives of people I know that they're going beyond free speech into harassment. If they genuinely believed in a God, they'd let him sort it out (I've met some true Christians who do have that position), but they don't really believe in God. They're using the prestige of religion to try to mess with other people's lives because they're nasty little bullies. And having a CEO who's a nasty little bully isn't good for business, free speech issue or not, because he tends to drive away the best workers.

Perfectly okay to say things, but that doesn't protect you from other people organizing a boycott of your product, either. I don't shop at Walmart; I have friends who do. My friends don't make me shop at Walmart; I don't stop talking to them because they do.

If you try to restrict my rights, then I will take exception to it and boycott anything having to do with you and anything that supports you. People who are petty little bullies about gay rights are quite likely to also be less than competent managers of people.

Rebecca Brown

Did you read the same article?

And where did the liberals come from?

Yes I read the article. Who

Yes I read the article. Who else but liberals demand people be fired for their political views? What kind of childish tactic is that?

I once knew a ordained minister

He had to resign because his congregation couldn't stomach that he rode a Harley. At least, that's how he explained it to me.


While I think both sides are pretty screwed up on this (remember, I am the Green Libertarian -- I don't think government should be involved) I regularly see where a conservative group wants a teacher to be fired for teaching evolution or any of the other just say no subjects.

The point I got from the article is that it is free speech to bitch about what you want to bitch about but who you hire and fire is just a business decision.

the New mexico court decision

that a photographer could not refuse to photograph a private gay ceremony is the opposite--a clearcut case of the Government forcing somebody to do a job he does not want to do and violate his religious convictions. I guess only white people can be subjected to involuntary servitude under obama.

``Socialism works fine until you run out of other peoples` money``

Margaret Thatcher

I Happen To

support gay rights from a civil rights standpoint. I do understand the objections of many religious people to gay marriage, but I feel these objections will diminish over time.

The Mozilla CEO was not in any sense bullying. He had made a $1000 donation to California's Prop 8, certainly a free speech right, but was not otherwise vocal in his position. That happened in 2008.

This (no gay marriage) was Obama's position until quite recently. After a long chat with Reggie, he changed his position. The man blows with the wind (Obama, not Reggie), so that was no surprise, but I find the hypocrisy amusing.

They bullying doesn't seem to be coming from the photographers who didn't want to photograph the "commitment ceremony". Rebecca doesn't shop at Wal-Mart, doesn't eat at Chick-Fil-A. Everyone respects her right of choice. How about a choice for the young photographer couple whose religious convictions made them feel uncomfortable with the prospect of supporting this event ?

That hardly rises to the level of bullying . . ..

Talk among tech folks about this

He was a good tech guy, but not the guy that should have be made the public face of Mozilla. The Prop 8 campaign was particularly nasty. The equivalent for gay people of the blood libel against Jews is the pedophilia libel. People don't forget attacks like that. And he could have spoken out earlier.

Orson Scott Card, who's a Mormon SF writer, threatened to pick up the gun if gays won the right to marry. Then, when people were talking about boycotting a movie based on one of his books, started whining about how we weren't gracious winners.

Obama appointed a lesbian to a sub Cabinet position on day one. I heard the news while driving in DC and teared up. And I know gay guys who think the marriage issue shouldn't have been the major issue -- that anti-discriminatory issues were more important.

Pretty much the case that a public company can't refuse service on discriminatory grounds, and then wrap religion around it. The South tried to pull that one with blacks, too. "God made 'um our slaves."

Most people who use religion to behave badly to other people are generally heretics of the religion they claim they're practicing. True of Islamic extremists as well as Christian extremists, Buddhist extremists, Hindu extremists, etc.

The final thing is if people actually believe their religions, there a far worse outcome for people who are hard core sinners than anything that humans on earth can deal out, so maybe being nice to them would make them more likely to change their minds and avoid the pain of rebirth, Hell, or whatever. The ugliness of their attacks on people who don't agree with them or have a different religion suggests that they do believe this is it and that they are free to violate their religion now since nothing bad will happen to them after they die.

Rebecca Brown

It's Interesting How

things affect people's attitudes.

I began using Internet Explorer (really, it's six of one and half dozen of another).

The gay marriage push really gave the issue of gay civil rights visibility,, so in retrospect was probably a good choice. How else to rise above the clutter that pervades the airwaves?

The Mozilla CEO and the New Mexico photographers brought more visibility. I guess we went through the same thing with black civil rights. There's a lot of cultural and parental upbringing baggage here, we all cary it. Attitudes will take a long time to change -as they did towards blacks- but change they will.

The religious crowd will eventually get past it, find a new biblical interpretation ,, as the Mormons did with their use of Ham and his incest with Noah's wife to deny the priesthood to African-Americans.

The Mormons get a revelation every time….

…that it's politically expedient. They gave up polygamy to get accepted as a US state.

The arguments against civil rights in South Carolina were that they took away white people's rights, plus some religious arguments based on some ancient text that also said rebellious children should be executed, and all previous inhabitants of a country should be killed except for the virgin girls when conquering it.

Rebecca Brown