Intolerance of Intolerance is Tolerance

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Friday, April 4. 2014

Intolerance of Intolerance is Tolerance

The CEO of Mozilla, Brendan Eich, was forced to step down over a personal belief. This is what our country is coming to. You can't have a belief if it is not in line with that which is approved by the shrieking masses.

It's worth noting his donation has been known about since 2008. It's also worth noting Eich penned a blog post about his donation and how it did not conflict with his position, that his role as CEO was to pursue Mozilla's goals regardless of whether employees agreed with his personal views or not.

This is not enough anymore. As this author notes, your views are meaningful and can play a role in what happens to you. Should they? If I disagree with much of what Donna Shalala supports, should I prevent my child from attending her university even if it's the best place for him to go?

I don't agree with most of Zuckerberg or Gates' political views. I still use their products. I fail to see what led to Eich's ouster. They hired him knowing his views, they may have expected a backlash, but felt they could deal with it. They should have.

I opposed gay marriage legislation, too. Admittedly, for wholly different reasons, since I think gay people have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us married folk. I opposed it because I just don't think government is the proper guarantor of contract, or grantor of right, of marriage. Were Martha and George Washington married? As far as I can tell they were, though not necessarily, because the US government didn't exist when they got married. In fact, government involvement in marriage was originally designed as an exclusionary tool, not an inclusive one. The earliest laws were designed to prevent miscegenation. The easiest way to avoid the discussion is to simply say government shouldn't have passed any laws preventing people who consent to marriage from entering that contract. Since I opposed gay marriage legislation, could I suffer the same fate as Eich? Quite possibly, in our intolerant society, I could, because I don't support laws giving special exceptions to existing laws, I just want to do away with those laws altogether.

Personal views are personal views, and as long as Eich was cognizant of his long-term goals as CEO, and didn't let his personal views impact his treatment or management of people within the organization, then he should have been kept on. Otherwise, his removal is an act of cowardice and shame.

Posted by Bulldog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects, Our Essays at 12:46 | Comments (20) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

It's part of a concerted effort to stifle conservative fund raising across the board. Frank VanDerSloot audited. Harry Reid slandering the Koch brothers from the Senate floor. It's remarkable how quickly this country is degenerating into a thugocracy. My wife is already afraid to have our name attached to any kind of political donation. It's a coordinated effort to terrorize people.

#1 forest on 2014-04-04 12:53 (Reply)

Consumers have every right to patronize businesses on whatever basis they choose including politics I suppose. I tell people all the time not to buy the NYT, for example, even though I find it heartbreaking not to have it around the house on Sunday mornings. If employees want to politicize their place of employment though, that's another matter, and if Boards are going to start taking politics into consideration in hiring CEO's or in fixing compensation, then that's also a very different thing. In a just world decisions like this would be immediately punished by the marketplace, and the complaining employees fired.

#2 MTF on 2014-04-04 13:13 (Reply)

Absolutely!
And if Mozilla were seeing a particular fall-off in business because of its CEO's position, then that's one thing. But their business model is an odd one, and there is no clear indication this was taking place. They crumbled to media pressure, so much so that LGBT sites are trumpeting their 'victory'. I see no victory here, except a politically motivated assassination of character and position.

If Chick-fil-A sales fell off (as the owner seems to indicate they did) after their owner's comments about the gay community, that's perfectly legitimate. People get to choose where they buy their food, and if they've politicized their food - so be it. Frankly, I like Chick-fil-A and their owner is welcome to whatever opinion he wants even though I disagree with him, just like I disagree with Gates or Zuckerberg. I don't politicize my choices. I went to see Roger Waters in concert even though he's a socialist shill. I love his music.

But I just don't see anything meaningful in the marketplace that led to this outcome. Mozilla says he 'resigned', but that's just shorthand for 'we ousted him'.

#2.1 Bulldog on 2014-04-04 14:17 (Reply)

" I see no victory here, except a politically motivated assassination of character and position."

which is how leftists define victory...

#2.1.1 J.T. Wenting on 2014-04-04 23:07 (Reply)

from PJ Media:

The IRS actions create a serious chilling effect. Your donations to any group can be leaked by a hostile operative within the government, to your enemies, for use against you — up to and now including costing you your job.

Check this out. The IRS abuse scandal started the process that got Eich ousted.

Amazingly enough, it is entirely due to the fact that Eich made a $1,000 donation to the campaign urging a ‘yes’ vote on California’s Proposition 8. When this fact first came to light in 2012, after the Internal Revenue Service leaked a copy of the National Organization for Marriage’s 2008 tax return to a gay-advocacy group, Eich, who was then CTO of Mozilla, published a post on his personal blog stating that his donation was not motivated by any sort of animosity towards gays or lesbians, and challenging those who did not believe this to cite any “incident where I displayed hatred, or ever treated someone less than respectfully because of group affinity or individual identity.”

To whom did the IRS leak NOM’s files? The Human Rights Campaign.

The HRC evidently engineered Eich’s ouster, in the name of equality and tolerance.

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/04/03/the-fascist-thugs-win-one-firefox-ceo-steps-down/

#3 feeblemind on 2014-04-04 13:35 (Reply)

B.S.
Years before the files of the National Organization for Marriage were illegally leaked by the IRS to Human Rights campaign, the names of donors to N.O.M.'s "Yes on Prop.8" campaign were published, as required by law on the website of the California Secretary of State . This public information was then tabulated into a convenient spreadsheet and published by the Los Angeles Times .
So while one can get mad at the IRS for despicable actions that were obviously intended to intimidate potential future donors to NOM and other organizations working to promote traditional families, they cannot be blamed here.

#3.1 Douglas2 on 2014-04-04 23:31 (Reply)

I guess I'll have to be honest, I've never given financially to the Gay Marraige Bans, but whole heartedly supported it in every other way possible.. socially, petitions, word of mouth, speaking on call in radio, etc. It doesn't matter if I did or did not contribute financially, but, the IRS & the donkeys that pushed Eich out of his job, THEY are the ones that deserve to be 'un-tolerated' & the IRS once again has broken the law. If we lie down & keep rolling over for 'intolerance' then we probably deserve to lose our Blessings of a free nation, founded on CONSERVATIVE Principals. Not on repubs or dems, but on God-honoring-conservative laws of justice.. Like it or not, this nation was founded on Jewish & christian principals of LIFE. It needs to stay that way, or we'll continue to go down the toilet of degeneration in every area of life, liberty & the pursuit of MORE Life & liberty..Racial laws that put down any race or did not give them all the same equality in this country, were just plain WRONG, from the beginning till now & I know that a large part of our founding fathers did NOT agree with enslaving others. (We also still have uninforced anti-sodomy laws on a lot of state's constitutions,) what matters most to me tho, is "what does gay marraige promote"?? Good, Bad or Ugly.. I dont approve of it, & states that vote AGAINST it, should not be allowing Judges to flush their votes down the tubes, again, IN My Opinion.

#3.2 SARAHMAX on 2014-04-05 01:37 (Reply)

You know who else was against gay marriage in 2008?

Barrack Obama.

When the grassroots effort to remove him from office begins I might start to consider anything these lunatics have to say.

#4 B Moe on 2014-04-04 14:31 (Reply)

The people who made sure that Eich left Mozilla were fascists (or bullies - but somehow those bullies are ok). I am against gay marriage, too. I do not mind them living together, visiting each other in the hospital, make contracts between them and or straight people, and all the other stated reasons for having gay marriage in the first place.

However, I believe the real reason for gays wanting to be "married" is money. They want survivor's benefits from Social Security, tax breaks and all the other giverment and private sector goodies. I think the other issues they claim (wedding cakes, etc.) are just to stick their finger in the eye of those who don't agree with them.

This issue has caused me to reassess my support for giverment tax breaks for real married couples.

#5 mudbug on 2014-04-04 14:45 (Reply)

Does OKCupid or the gay use javascript? I'd hate for them to be accused of being open minded and/or inclusive.

#6 L.B. on 2014-04-04 18:03 (Reply)

The motto of the Democratic Party may as well be, "It's not fascism when we do it."

#7 John on 2014-04-04 23:27 (Reply)

We all know about the villainy of the left.

This story shows, once again, the cowardice of the right. Eich should have declared personal war a la the Romans and fought to the last dollar he had to pay his lawyers.

The left will continue its stream of victories until the right grows some testicles, which Eich clearly did not.

So, sorry, I'm glad he's gone. Him and his crummy one thousand dollar donation. With his income it just shows he's committed to nothing.

#8 Fred Z on 2014-04-05 00:10 (Reply)

"In fact, government involvement in marriage was originally designed as an exclusionary tool, not an inclusive one. The earliest laws were designed to prevent miscegenation."

No. No. No. By buying into this, you're buying into the purported analogy between bans on interracial marriage and the illegality of Gay marriage. State marriage laws existed to fill the role that state-churches had played in the area of law after the Revolutionary era; areas such as marriage, divorce, inheritance and family relations. The church's role in marriage has consisted (beside sanctification of course) in oversight of such concerns as consanguinity, forced marriage, rape, under age marriage and of course inheritance . Marriage affect on property rights and property disbursements was also a prime concern.

That some American states, principally in the South, and principally the Nineteenth Century, banned marital (as well as other relations) between the "races" hardly overturns these historical facts

It most glaring failing as an argument, is its lack of relevance to the practice of Civil marriage and its modern historical development outside the United States.

#9 K. S. McPhail (Link) on 2014-04-05 00:34 (Reply)

I'm assuming you are saying this facetiously.

I'm not purporting an analogy with interracial marriage and gay marriage. Even if I was, it's a legitimate analogy.

The church's role was overtaken by the state, and while some of these items were picked up by the state along the way, the state wasn't required and in each case there was an overriding goal in mind (taxes, miscegenation, etc.). However preventing interracial marriage was standard. I provide a link which shows one of the first laws occurring in Maryland in 1660 - a point in time when state sanctioned marriage was still relatively unknown, and law regarding marriage was still in its infancy.

Laws regarding inheritance and family relations are not laws of marriage. They are contracts and were typically dealt with on a contract basis. The other items you listed, which typically fell on the church, were social constructs which were later codified by state law. In any case, each of these are based on some kind of exclusion - preventing relatives, underage, or unwilling people from engaging in marriage - and still support the same perspective I have invoked. To a degree, even inheritance is exclusionary. It is a determination of who has rights to property - an issue of contract and who is included in the contract or excluded - and while it can be related to marriage, it doesn't have to be.

The point is, marriage is a contract. Even if I were to assume, as you did, that the analogy is imprecise or incorrect, the idea that these laws are 'needed' is wrongheaded.

If I were to assume the analogy as a singular point of discussion, where is it wrong? In each case of interracial marriage being prevented, the same thing happened with gay marriage - the state decided who is allowed to tie the knot. So the issue is simply one of stating what I did - the state has no role in that decision and those laws were illegitimate from the start. Adding new laws which allow and define gay marriage is superfluous and unnecessary.

I have several gay friends who, upon the law changing in NY, I asked what their view was. They laughed and said it's all a show, that they had worked out all their issues contractually anyway, and while being allowed to be married is nice, they never considered it an impediment. It did make items like sharing benefits or passing along inheritance more difficult, but they were both highly educated (one is a lawyer) and knew how to work the rules.

I asked if they supported changing the law, and they said of course - but the best solution was to simply remove government from defining them as a separate class of people.

#9.1 Bulldog on 2014-04-05 08:05 (Reply)

Marriage cannot be a valid contract, as it binds those not party to it to act in prescribed ways.

What two (or more) parties pledge to each other cannot compel anyone else. My homo friends can call themselves married for the rest of their lives. But the cannot force you, me or the priest to call them married, nor to give them any special regard.

The view that marriage is something available to all, and was proscribed or banned in certain cases, has it backward. Once the state took on marriage as a legal arrangement which it would enforce on everyone, it simultaneously limited that grant of privilege only to those contracting parties it deemed worthy of such favored treatment.

That a couple (or group) without the full complement of sexes does not merit the set of legal privileges called marriage is special discrimination. Any more than limits on aid for the blind to be granted only to blind people. Is aid to the blind “anti-sighted discrimination”? To assert so, as to assert that gay marriage bans discriminate, is to first redefine the subjects.

If we can redefine terms at will, to give the proper emotional frame, and thereby eventual legal force, there is no limit to the power of the state. It is capricious tyranny enabled by post-modern relativism.

#9.1.1 foxmarks (Link) on 2014-04-05 12:33 (Reply)

I missed this comment.

I don't see how marriage can't be a valid contract.
A contract is only between those who sign it - it doesn't compel anyone else to take part in it.

The state can say I am married to my wife, just as a church could. If her father didn't like me and never recognized the marriage as legitimate, and does not accept me into his family, that doesn't mean the contract between my wife and myself is any less legitimate.

Whether you recognize your gay friends as being married or not matters little in the reality of the contract they have set up for themselves. What does matter, right now, is how the state views it. But why should that matter at all? Only because the state says it should.

Aid to the blind is not at all analogous to an anti-gay ban on marriage. Aid to the blind does not hurt anyone, yet does provide a positive benefit to someone at a disadvantage. However, if you are suggesting that all sighted people MUST PROVIDE aid to the blind, then yes, that is discriminatory since that implies that we give up something of our own to help someone else because others think that is right.

Which, in essence is why I oppose the current gay marriage rulings and laws, but not gay marriage in and of itself. If the state were not passing marriage laws, then gay people would be free to enter into marriage and whether you or I recognized it wouldn't matter at all. Nor would we be compelled to recognize it.

Today, however, the laws (especially those compelling bakers to bake for gay weddings or photographers to work for gay weddings against their religious beliefs) today are doing exactly that - taking something from those who do not want to recognize gay marriage as legitimate (as is their right, just as my father in law may not consider my marriage legitimate, as is his right).

Thankfully, I have a great relationship with my in-laws and I don't have to worry about that.

My marriage doesn't bind anyone to anything between my wife and I. So yes, it is a valid contract. It doesn't bind anyone in society to recognize it as a valid marriage - that's just a social construct. You can't legitimize a social construct with a law. If my neighborhood didn't like me marrying my wife, even if the law says we are right and truly married, they don't have to treat me well or act as if I'm really married to her. Sure, I'd have some legal redress - but would it make sense for me to go to court every time the neighborhood didn't grant me whatever 'rights' I was due as my wife's husband? Alienating people further doesn't fix the problem at hand. As a result any law which suggests it can make a marriage appear 'real' simply because the state says it is real is misguided.

The contract of marriage does not extend beyond the two being married, it never did and never will. It's just a contract between two souls of any race, nationality, belief system, or gender. What anyone else thinks of them is superfluous. It's nice to have society's consent, but plenty of marriages throughout history didn't have that and were still successful.

#9.1.1.1 Bulldog on 2014-04-08 20:10 (Reply)

"I'm assuming you are saying this facetiously."

I do not even see a glimmer of facetiousness in my comments.

Not to get too pedantic in a point by point refutation of your analogy which is not an analogy but at the same time is supposedly a good analogy; the fact that Massachusetts had an anti interracial marriage law in 1660 merely proves that Massachusetts had a anti interracial marriage law in 1660. It is a fact that exists in a vacuum without reference to the history of marriage law in Early America or the special circumstances of Puritan/Separatist attitudes toward the Church of England which would lead to marriage falling sometimes into a civil bailiwick. The link you gave lead to a page (which I read) which was a glorious exercise in cherry picking American history to prove a false analogy.

"Laws regarding inheritance and family relations are not laws of marriage. They are contracts and were typically dealt with on a contract basis."

I worked in a Clerk's office. I am familiar with the probate law of my state and the history of probate law in general. I worked with marriage licenses.
Inheritance follows family relation which is recognized by codification in law. Marriage itself not being a contract as such but "an institution of society founded upon the consent and contract of the parties". There is a distinction.
As for contracts themselves they are meaningless without the codes that spring from laws that provide the sanctions and arbitration that are necessary for their functioning in a real setting. One of the considerations of said law being who is actually competent to make and enter into a contract.

As to "exclusionary" laws, all laws are exclusionary in some for or other in that they discriminate, unless of course they are revenue measures.

#9.1.2 K. S. McPhail (Link) on 2014-04-05 21:52 (Reply)

I don't think you get pedantic at all, but since you work in a Clerk's office, what I see is acceptance of precedent - not in the sense of legal precedent, but in the sense that if a law exists, it must exist for a reason.

I don't take that view. I believe most laws exist because someone or some group developed them to gain advantage over somebody else. The only legitimate laws are those which exist to punish some one or group for imposing their will forcefully upon another.

As a result, the point you make differentiating contract as a standalone item from 'consent and contract of the parties' is meaningless to me because except in cases where someone is forced to sign a contract, the consent is implied in the contract signing itself. If force was utilized, the contract itself ceases to have any legal value.

All laws are not exclusionary. The point I made above, about how most laws have come into being, is the only reason why laws might be exclusionary.

As a result, I fail to see how, even if that data was pulled in a cherry-picked fashion, the analogy of interracial marriage and gay marriage is not a legitimate one.
Each law was designed the same way, for the same reason. The only difference you seem to append it with is that they were made within a framework of other 'marriage and family law'. That doesn't make the analogy incorrect, it just suggests that marriage and family law has a broader context, though I'd argue its scope is limited.

#9.1.2.1 Bulldog on 2014-04-07 11:05 (Reply)

I agree foxmarks.. I also DISAGREE with a couple others' suggestions that what most 'southern' churches, or churches in general, practiced, which led to true discrimination on all levels of marraige law (specifically racial/state issues) or that they were MOSTLY exclusionary, & THEY were what led to this mess today, as it is not so. There of course have always been churches that were not 'Christ' centered &/or Biblically centered, wherein they sought to 'control marraige law & many other non scriptural issues, for CARNAL/ &/or STATE lawful issues', but in the early years, & as in maybe 60+ years ago, the great majority of churches were NOT so 'state or racist Law focussed'. I've studied enough church history of all denominations, including Catholic history, to know that the majority of protestant churches were NOT focussed so much on State law AT ALL..nor were very few so racially prejudiced as to come up with laws forbidding interracial marraiges or inheritance laws. Phooey on that. For a FACT, there have always been, until the last 50-60 years; a true God/Christ centerdness of MOST denominational groups & for the basis of evangelism & in many cases thru church history, HAD intermarraiges in their family histories & of missionary people's. NOT so much in the 1,700's, but certainly in the past 70-100 years. I've also had numerous missionary friends in the last few decades that intermarried, (I was a missionary who worked with ALL church groups in several areas for many years & still have contact with people in several parts of the world, uncluding Africa, the Middle East, etc.) altho there's not a lot of history pertaining to this, there's plenty of familial history on this subject in more than a couple of denominations. Not to even mention all the American & Native American intermarraiges. I know of very few state laws that have been affected by such, other than the rare, odd groups, such as the "United Churches of Christ", (including Rev Wright's so called church, which supports everything EXCEPT America & Israel) which is where our famous President 'grew up'. NOW, that group has lobbied Congress for decades on issues such as "changing our Nation's support of Israel, to support of Palestinians", wherin they had great success, but they're fellow churches also have supported state/Government subsidised SEX CHANGES, wider & more extreme levels of cruel & unusual Abortions, which is partly why; before he ran for Pres, Obama's most avid political actions for Illinois, were more sick & cruel abortion laws, including more late term abortions, which that whole 'denomination' has promoted for decades, along with pro-gay marraige. Of course that's a large focus right now, but Not only that, certain ones of that denomination have ALWAYS had at their roots, numerous levels of Communism & pro-Labor legal issues & much more. There's so much to read on United Churches of Christ groups, that it could take a person not only days, but weeks of study on everything they've had their paws into on the government level, & most Communistic Roots imaginable. You could also check out the connection between "pastor" Wright & Louis Farrakhan's black Muslim roots, as there's plenty there too. Other studies on this group might just lend some insight into how & WHY Valerie Jarret is Obama's right-hand buddy. Both her & Frank Davis...?what's his name, are actually related thru marraige. Another major communist/black muslim activist. Sorry, I guess I got a little bit off-subject there...

#9.2 SARAHMAX on 2014-04-08 19:44 (Reply)

Putting aside the arguments re "gay" marriage or anything else. The concern I am starting to develop is that some day I am going to need customer service from one of these companies and they are going to want to know my political leanings for the last decade before they decide what to do. It is kind of like going to a restaurant where your sister used to work and she told you that the chef spit in the food.

#10 ama on 2014-04-05 12:28 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Friday, April 4. 2014

Intolerance of Intolerance is Tolerance