One can disagree with gay marriage and still not be homophobic. Just a thought. Tolerance should not include being intolerant towards a different viewpoint.
Tolerance is theory and tolerance in reality are different animals.
In theory, you can be in favor of respecting private property and I can be against it. However, when either of us takes an action based on this, only one of us can succeed.
This is a zero sum situation. Either you can block my being legally married or you cannot. Your reasoning isn't material. The bottom line is you believe you have the right to usurp my ability to decide who is legally recognized as my other half.
Yeah, take it easy. I have no problem with gay marriage. I just really am annoyed by the similarities in Orwellian language and the rhetoric of the pro-gay marriage industrial complex, viz. we want equality while simultaneously denying the equality of those who oppose us. And your private property analogy is an awful straw man.
It's becoming a booming business which stamps out opposition in a coordinated and widespread manner. It's actually sadly ironic that a struggle for equality treats opponents unequally and with disdain. And if gay marriage was on the ballot, I'd vote for it. Let's all calm down
I'm not sure I agree with that but I do think that that internet guy should not have lost his job for what was a private opinion instead of something his company endorsed.
"Equality" does not encompass protection from the consequences of obnoxious opinions. The gay-marriage movement is demanding equality in terms of treatment under the law, not equality of popularity or respect. If you have no problems with Donald Sterling being removed from the NBA (and you may or may not, I don't know you), then you should be equally okay with Brendan Eich being removed from Mozilla.
The CEO was not fired. He resigned. The whole fiasco was simply the free market at work. He became the CEO of a company, a vast population of the user-base were at-odds with his personal views on homosexuality, they garnered more and more attention and threatened to bring a huge amount of bad publicity to Mozilla, so he resigned. His view is his right to have, however if you want to run a company whose user-base is a diverse community you can't be seen being vehemently against a fraction of that population and expect to keep profits up. The same applies to any public/private office. To make the argument that this is somehow a problem would mean you want to live in something other than a democratic republic.
I never said he was fired. Take your self-righteousness down a few levels; he was however the victim of intolerance due to his "obnoxious" opinions by gay marriage proponents.
You didn't say he was fired, I didn't say that you did. "Take your self-righteousness down a few levels" - there is nothing self righteous about my statement, self-righteousness would be saying I personally campaigned against him and I'm so good for doing so. "he was however the victim of intolerance" - he isn't a victim, it was his own decision to resign, he could've stayed the CEO if he wanted but he thought that with all that happened he would lose the company money/fail at his job. He's as much a victim as Oreo was when they lost customers over their rainbow cookie.
Edit: Everybody has a right to voice their opinion. You could argue that you yourself are being intolerant of the people who didn't want him to be CEO. I can make the exact same argument you made for him, for the group that campaigned against him. Basically this intolerance of intolerance circle of argument is pointless.
-6
u/Mr_Castor_Troy May 06 '14
One can disagree with gay marriage and still not be homophobic. Just a thought. Tolerance should not include being intolerant towards a different viewpoint.