> If the business wants to succeed, it has decide whether it will be more profitable to capitulate or not.
economic blackmail is wasteful and silly. I'm an atheist are you ok with the religious attacking my livelihood as a small business owner? That's not capitalism that's the dark ages.
It's neither wasteful nor silly. It's the only avenue of protest left available to citizens in a capitalist society.
In the UK, businesses aren't allowed to discriminate when offering services to the public - you can't stick a sign up in your bar saying "No Gay/Black/Atheists Allowed."
But, as a customer, you have the absolute right to vote with your wallet. If you don't like my stance on Open Source, don't buy my products. If you hear the pub landlord cracking a homophobic joke, you can either politely ask him to change his opinion - or you start drinking somewhere else.
As an atheist myself (nice to meet you!) I wouldn't want you or me to be attacked or harassed. That hasn't happened here. Customers have said "well, if that's your attitude, I'll go elsewhere."
The only other thing we can do is ignore it - and that's simply not an ethical option for many people.
You have to differentiate between individuals deciding for themselves to go elsewhere and organized boycotts designed to ruin a person. I would hate to be a minority business owner in a society that condoned flippant use of organized boycotts.
Individuals only have power against large organisations when they collectivise. That's why big businesses are (often) anti-union.
If the imaginary Christians-Against-Internet-Explorer decide to boycott IE10 because they believe the new MS CEO is Muslim, no one is being forced into joining their misguided crusade, are they?
So, what is an organised boycott? It's individuals using strength in numbers.
The myth we're sold is "one man can make a difference." That's rarely true. Many people, acting as one, are what makes a difference.
There was nothing organised about this current situation. I don't remember anyone forming The National Committee Against This One Guy We All Hate and then asking me to pay dues.
Nope. Just a bunch of individuals expressing their collective economic might.
You're right, organised members of the KKK aren't going to eat at "Hamza's Hummus Hut" - but neither are individual racists. If they want to run him out of town - I'll take a stand against that. If they don't want to eat there, I won't force them.
It was a political issue in 2008, it was a ballot initiative. You grandiose view of the issue doesn't change the fact that he is being punished for his political expression.
Is it impossible for an issue to be both political and human rights related? Did the political nature of the civil rights movement of the 1960s somehow make it less of a human rights issue?
@visualR: No. To publicly take a position and then not change it is to keep that position, for one thing. Furthermore, he has made it clear that he has not changed it over the last week with his blog post and interview.
@Rinon: His views amount to bigotry, so not changing them merely amounts to unrepentant bigotry. Did you have great respect for those who fought on for Jim Crow laws, or who today use voter intimidation to express their lack of compromise? I would rather his views changed, because they are harmful and indicate a deep prejudice, or that he suffer the consequences of publicly taking a position against awarding a group civil rights.
Would you rather he compromise his integrity to "change" his opinion on something based on pressure? I personally respect people who do not pretend to change their views, regardless of whether I agree with them. I also respect people who, after careful consideration, do truly change their mind, but I cannot require this of anyone but myself.
Im not sure anti same sex marriage is the same as homophobia. Is it the wrong opinion, yes. But I wouldnt say being against same sex marriage is sufficient to make someone a homophobe.
Yeah it would make them a racist. Because its most likely hate or disgust for the other race which is causing a person to be against interracial marriage. But for same sex marriage, there are BS religious reasons to be against it, not just hatred or disgust of gays.
The "BS" in "BS religious reasons" is the tell. There are huge swaths of the Bible the religious set is happy to set aside when it's convenient. Go read Leviticus for a start.
It says more about Christians than it does about gay people or even the Bible that they're fixated on homosexuality.
The conservative talking point against gay marriage is that it will somehow undermine "traditional" marriage and the culture at large. It comes from a standpoint of quite literally being afraid of homosexuals and homosexuality.
I think it's fair to assume that Brenden Eich's reasoning shares some of those features. (Or he donated that money cynically for some other reason. I suppose that's a option.)
Either way: He gave money to prevent an entire class of Californians from enjoying their rights. Which is a pretty shitty thing to do.
VisualR: what would you suggest people do instead of nonviolent protest like boycotting and public declamation? Tweet about it? Change our profile pictures? This is a serious cultural issue. We are not talking about Baskin Robbins eliminating a flavor. A major force on the Internet was going to be led by a man who clings to the belief that gay people should not have the same civil rights as straight people. That this belief is unacceptable to many should be made clear by them in the most direct and visible way possible.
It helps by removing a bigot from a position of great power, showing others that bigotry will not be quietly tolerated, even (perhaps especially) in men and women of great talent and wealth.
Maybe. Or it could just anger the other side to push back harder. Education and time are the forces that will cause an LGBT victory, not these boycott games.
If he was against it because of some non-homophobic reason wouldn't he probably have shouted that from the rooftops?
Let's say he was against it because it expanded the institution of marriage (a decent idea, but I wouldn't vote against gay rights because of it). Libertarian with perhaps a misguided set of priorities (equality > smaller government), sure, bigot? No.
So it's probably because of homophobia, because if it was something else, he probably would have made that clear by now.
My point is there are degrees of badness. LGBT supporters look like bullies when they don't moderate their response to someone who disagrees with them.
Oh so the degree of badness of supporting institutional oppression (you know, systematically removing (violating) the rights of people based on their identity through laws, etc.) is less than that of telling a company to fire someone (which the company isn't even legally bound to do), got it. /s
This right here is why tech is so white/male/straight/etc. "Oh the other people should stop being bullies and just let themselves be oppressed, the people doing the oppression aren’t the bullies, those are just their opinions, we should just let them continue to oppress people."
Let's put it this way. The LGBT community has been oppressed for basically their whole life. So yea, when given the chance, they are going to try to oppress the people who are continuing to systematically oppress them, where do you think they learned that from. If he was willing to apologize, it probably would have been fine (since when has a gay guy apologizing for being gay gotten him his right to marry someone?), the bully here is Eich, he just got called on it this time.
Is he a bigot? "A bigot is someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust or hatred." I don't think he does that. He just wrongly thinks the state shouldnt recognize same sex marriage.
It was a ballot initiative in 2008. We have a constitution to prevent the will of the majority violating the rights of a minority. Its too bad it was up to voters. But he still has a right to take a side without fear of economic retribution.
Economic retribution from the government the first amendment does not protect your rights with respect to things like keeping a job. If you call your boss an asshole to his face on a regular basis, you are going to be fired.
Which is why we have laws (separate from the amendments) which ensure people can't be fired for their race/gender/etc. These laws have nothing to do with the first amendment because they don't involve the government.
Liberals would not like it if the Catholic Church used its members to lobby for a person to be fired for their stance on abortion. Don't use Firefox, fine. But actively lobbying to take away someone's livelihood is not a proportional response in this case.
I'm ignoring your partisan labelling/strawman/etc.
On the second point, that's why employers aren’t allowed to ask those questions (nor use them in their evaluation of employees). Those are the protection laws I mentioned above. Which don't protect executive members, as they run the company. Hence employees shouldn't, and can't, be fired for their political opinions (unless that's somehow part of their job).
Proportional response? Sure. Here is a guy who paid money to make it so people can't see their significant others when they are dying, so that they don't have the recognition of the government as being married, to institutionalize oppression, and the untold misery which comes with it. He didn't apologize, he still holds the same views now. Yes, people should lobby a company, any company, to remove someone who would inflict such misery on his fellows. Yes, people should lobby a company like mozilla which says its an avid supporter of freedom to remove someone who would not support equal freedoms for every single person. These companies are corporate citizens, and their opinions are shaped by their executive board, and we can tell them we won't do business with them because of their opinions.
Edit: If you read the above, the response to the question should be obvious. Is it a board member? Then sure, good luck with that though, considering they would loose business if they followed the complaints, but not loose any if they ignored them (yea hospitals don't really care about customer retention). If it's an employee, and that employee didn't do anything wrong (like say, perform an abortion when not asked to; or badger someone with their political view) then no.
It was trivial amount of money for an $83MM campaign. It may signal which side of the issue he was on. It does not inform us of what he is thinking or his motivations.
I don't know why this got downvoted. The "how can you be tolerant when you don't tolerate intolerance" thing needs to be made fun of relentlessly until it stops being a thing.
How do you know Eich is intolerant? Maybe he is just misguided on an issue that really shouldnt be up to him. No one said tolerate intolerance, but considering the response to Eich, some proportionality is needed.
Um, how could his actions not suggest intolerance? He contributed money to a campaign which essentially persecutes a minority. In what universe is that not bigoted? "He didn't mean it" is a ridiculously flimsy defense.
Maybe he thinks marriage should be between opposite sex for religious reasons but has no problem with civil unions that grants the same legal benefits. While not a progressive view, not the same as a Klansman.
@SolarNet You seem pretty absolute in determining who is a bigot, and do not recognize that there is a spectrum. Obviously one's religion does not justify bigotry. But it does distort one's world view and can explain why someone might support Prop 8 without being a person who hates and is disgusted by homosexuals. Education is the best response to this, not economic sanctions.
Using religion as an excuse for bigotry still means you're a bigot. Religions are personal things, and should only affect your life, not other people's.
