He mentions Brendan Eich who was ousted from Mozilla for his anti-gay views. I have little sympathy for someone who feels marginalized by views they choose to hold and express when I, as a gay man, could be marginalized simply for who I am, something I did NOT choose. While most people may be able to just put their political opinions on the shelf, any time discussion turns towards family or after-work hobbies I have to make a conscious decision based on who I'm talking to and how it could affect the situation.

I can be professional and work on a temporary basis with people who hold anti-gay views, and I'm not going to go out of my way to attack them. I don't know much about how Eich ran Mozilla, I couldn't say if he deserved what happened, but I know that I would not consider a job at a company with anti-gay leadership.

There was no evidence Eich was anti-gay. It was discovered he had donated to Prop 8, the California initiative which restated the status quo, that marriage is between one man and one woman, and which passed by a majority of California voters. For that political donation, he was ostracized and effectively run out of his job in Silicon Valley.

San Francisco has always been one of the most liberal cities in the country, so it is no surprise to me that a liberal political bias is inherent in Silicon Valley companies. The issue arises when this bias is combined with the enormous power some of these young companies have in order to abuse those whose political views are not the same as theirs.

From your perspective, restricting marriage to a man and a woman isn't anti-gay. And that belief isn't inherently anti-gay in my view. But the real effect of enforcing laws surrounding that view includes: missing tax breaks, missing legal protections, not being able to visit your dying partner because you aren't next of kin. So the real world outcomes of the legal enforcement of that view are anti-gay and unfair.

At this moment, why would government give any tax breaks to gay couples if most of them (even in the states, where they are allowed) do not raise children (which, I believe, is the reason for those tax breaks in the first place)?

> At this moment, why would government give any tax breaks to gay couples if most of them (even in the states, where they are allowed) do not raise children (which, I believe, is the reason for those tax breaks in the first place)?

The tax breaks for raising children (e.g., deductions for dependents, child tax credit, etc.) aren't tied to marriage, they are tied to having legally-dependent children.

Insofar as there are tax breaks for marriage rather than having children, there's a long discussion possible about what the public policy rationale for them is, but the best explanation is probably incentive to the social stability of a stabilizing relationship and the reduced risk of dependency on public support programs that comes from a mutually supportive relationship (which, even if it fails, still often comes with legal support obligations.)

These are just as valid with childless, including same-sex, marriage as with any other marriage.

So we've just got from 'evil' "votes against same-sex marrige" that Mozilla CEO guy was fired for, to "cosiders tax breaks are for families to (eventually) get children" -> "votes against gay marriages because they don't get children even if though they can", which does not look evil at all.

I could probably summarize opinions of those voted against same-sex marriage in "marriage and any tax benefits coming from it are there to support people who will eventually raise children". I see, that gay people are not happy, because opposite-sex marriages still get some benefits, but some of them do not end up having kids.

In my opinion, to separate the bugs from the meatloafs, we should separate living together and having kids legally. And the first one should be available to any kinds of partners, but should not provide any benefits, and the second should give benefits, and be positively recognized in society as "family".

But allowing gay-marriages is in no way makes lives closer to that.

But marriage also imparts many other rights not directly related to children, and not all marriages can or will produce children, hetero or otherwise. This has always been true, so arguments relating to children as the reason for marriage are quite tenuous.

Ed: in this case brendan eich either made a mistake with his donation, or is anti gay rights.

See discussion below.

Perhaps then the discussion should be about why tax breaks are erroneously associated with marriage, which in many heterosexual unions doesn't produce children (should we ban marrying a post-menopausal woman?), than about why homosexual marriage shouldn't be allowed. Marriage has many other benefits that aren't directly related to bearing children.

I agree. We should instead disallow non-bearing children couples from being married, or remove tax benefits. IMHO, we could have made it all very clear, however, most people would not understand if government would try to redefine 'family' to require kids, because common understanding of family is a deeply conservative thing, and even most liberals would not feel that change good.

I would go even further, and would provide tax credits for anyone planning to have kids in, say, the next 5 years, and I would take money back after 5 years, if no kid is out.

This is entirely unrelated to marriage, so brendan eich should be spending his money on other lobbying efforts if that was his goal.

Do you really see no problem with telling others who they can and can't marry? I can't see myself supporting or working for a CEO that thinks it's okay to donate to Propositions that support this level of imposition on other peoples'lives. I guess the board of Firefox agreed.

Would someone who supported the Iraq war be similarly ostracised? Guam? Israel? Or maybe Palestine?

I have pretty strong views on privacy, maybe some tech CEOs that supported prism-like initiatives should also be ousted?

This issue is pure liberal, SJW-ist influence, no consistency behaviour exists in the rest of the political spectrum.

Red herring. Has that happened yet? Can we talk about it when it does?

Making the bullying of homosexuals (esp in the workplace) "not cool" is one of the proudest achievements of the "SJW's" you so derisively mention. The message is pretty consistent. Don't punch down.

P.S: "maybe some tech CEOs that supported prism-like initiatives should also be ousted", I would love it if that happens, unfortunately, supporting prism-like initiatives might make them more money. Board's voting against making money doesn't make sense. Maybe if we could create strong a loud dis-incentive against this, the board would react as we expect but then again Glenn Beck doesn't like this kind of corporate shaming.

> Making the bullying of homosexuals (esp in the workplace) "not cool"

We're not talking about that. We're talking about losing your job for (being found to) support[ing] prop 8.

> The message is pretty consistent. Don't punch down.

Unless you live in Palestine? No liberal ousting of pro-Israel CEOs.

Of course, the reason might be is that the issue is a complex one, there are many reasons to be pro-Israel other than wishing ill of Palestine/Palestinians. Why is that nuance not exist here? "Support prop 8? Must be homephobe then!".

If it's political, it should not be treated in this way. Any more than I should harass you for your political beliefs. SJWs belief their pet topics are different, special; That they get to behave in a different manner. I disagree.

I'd love to hear a reason for supporting Prop 8 that doesn't explicitly degrade homosexual relationships. I can't think of any and I would be uncomfortable working around Prop 8 supporters (esp if I was gay). What is this nuance you speak of? Why must all issues be treated the same? Some issues are more complex than others.

If I were uncomfortable with a co-workers religion, should they be fired?

I can't see this as any more than allowing punishment for having certain political beliefs...

> Why must all issues be treated the same? Some issues are more complex than others.

These issues are complex, they are just oversimplified to binary "with or against", "good or bad" by activists.

This is specifically not about religion or some kind of hatred for war-hawks. Both of which are choices and therefore more complex. You are still skirting the issue. Why would someone support Prop 8 without trying to enforce some level of heteronormativity on the people around them? Until, I see any way for someone to care about who else can or cannot get married without being bigoted, this issue remains pretty binary.

Deal with everything on a case-by-case basis, is my point.

> Why would someone support Prop 8 without trying to enforce some level of heteronormativity

This is an appeal to ignorance. Quite simply, you don't know.

I can't attest to Eich's personal views, but giving money to maintain a status quo that is discriminatory against gays is anti-gay.

> that is discriminatory

And supporting abortion is supporting murder. And so is eating meat, etc etc.

This is all political Framing & labelling.

If it's on the ballot, its a valid politics, and so should be off the table wrt things like getting people fired.

Sure, straight white cis men can say "Oh that's all just political" but for someone who's gay, black, transgender, or female these issues effect nearly every aspect of your life. Every situation is viewed through that lens. Things like casually mentioning something you did with your spouse last weekend might not be "political" to you, but it is to me.

You added glib-ness to my statement, but being "political" doesn't mean it's not important, it means it's up for debate. This kind of attitude shuts down debate, demands one true opinion only.

> Things like casually mentioning something you did with your spouse last weekend might not be "political" to you

How is it political for you?

If it is political for you, shouldn't you support the idea of being able to express political views without fear of repriosal?

you mean without fear of /government/ reprisal.

There is no freedom from criticism in this country, your fellow citizens are absolutely free to judge you, talk mean about you, and otherwise belittle your views.

If a public official arrests you for talking about your political beliefs, then and only then have your rights been infringed upon.

In this context getting fired for political affiliation.

> fellow citizens are absolutely free to judge you, talk mean about you, and otherwise belittle your views

Even if your view is being gay is, or is not, natural. There are certain protections against freely expressing certain opinions.

> If a public official arrests you for talking about your political beliefs, then and only then have your rights been infringed upon.

Does being fined by a court after losing a lawsuit count as government reprisal?

Does getting fired for voting for Obama, or Trump count as having my right infringed?

What about being active, or critical, of LGBT activities? Can I be fired for that, so long as I'm not arrested?

>In this context getting fired for political affiliation.

Was he fired from a position in the federal government?

Private businesses are free to fire whoever they like for almost any reason (cant fire someone for refusing to break the law, etc)

Everything past that is just you feeling hurt that people dont agree with your opinions. Introducing legislation controlling private businesses hiring and firing practices is easily one of the most anti-conservative things i can think of, yet here you are claiming to be conservative and yet complaining that the government is allowing companies too much freedom to decide who can and cannot be fired and for what reason.

>Does being fined by a court after losing a lawsuit count as government reprisal?

this is super vague; in court against the government? I would imagine a fine from the federal government represents some kind of reprisal, but not necessarily related in any way to consitutional rights. Losing a court case isnt 'speech', so im not sure i understand the reasoning behind this question.

>Does getting fired for voting for Obama, or Trump count as having my right infringed?

Only if you are employed by the government.

>What about being active, or critical, of LGBT activities? Can I be fired for that, so long as I'm not arrested?

again, you can be fired for (almost) any reason by any private entity. You could get fired because the manager thought you got a shitty haircut.

Have you never heard of at-will employment?

> Private businesses are free to fire whoever they like for almost any reason

At-will, american businesses in certain cities and states, under certain restrictions. I don't see any reason not to condemn it - just because in may not be explicitly illegal in some places.

If he were an active gay-rights supporter, and fired for that, would you refuse to talk of it since in many place this isn't illegal?

Also, I'm no expert, but I'm not sure if executives are usually at-will, I was under the impression it was often contracted.

> Everything past that is just you feeling hurt that people don't agree with your opinions

Feeling hurt =/= feeling at risk of being fired, a valid concern.

> one of the most anti-conservative things i can think of

Is it?

> yet here you are claiming to be conservative

No I'm not. Plus, voting prop 8, and the vague distinction of "being conservative" are different things. Whatever my personal beliefs, I dislike the idea of this guy being fired for his political activity, I don't think you need to agree with his beliefs to take that position. Ever heard "..but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?

> and yet complaining that the government is allowing companies too much freedom

I feel there would be uproar (in the valley) if the guy was fired for supporting prop 8. In truth I don't have so many complains on what the US government does, I don't live there; I do care about political ideologies that often get transmitted across the borders though.

> Losing a court case isnt 'speech'

Where does that distinction come in? Or the constitution. I never mentioned it. Freedoms and rights exist outside of the US constitution, in other countries for example.

supporting prop 8 -> supporting opposition to

I do believe in freedom. you should be able to screw anybody you want. You should be able to have any wedding ceremonies you want, provided all parties are willing participants.

When you want the government to force parties to be involved in those ceremonies against their beliefs? That's when I have a big, big, problem, and that's what is happening.

>against their beliefs

being discriminatory is literally against one of the core beliefs of christianity. what a fucking joke.

Yup. Brendan Eich earned his place on my twit filter. Failing a sincere mea culpa and probationary period, I will never, ever care what he has to say.

PS- JavaScript is also unforgivable.

Just curious, why do you consider someone against gay marriage to be anti-gay?

for the same reason someone against marijuana legalization is anti-marijuana

Thats the political stance directly opposed to support.

That sounds like a false equivalency to me. How is being against gay marriage being against gay people? As far as I'm aware, there were a certain amount of gay people who didn't want gay marriage either. Are they anti-gay?

are drug dealers who sell marijuana and are against legalization anti-marijuana?

the answer to both questions is yes - people can have conflicting ideologies.

Being against giving someone (or something) rights is politically equivalent to being against that thing.

If im a proponent of black people not having the right to vote, am i anti black or do i just think people shouldn't vote?

I don't think so. Is wanting to abolish marriage altogether being against straight people? Gay marriage != gay people. From what I've seen, the majority of people against gay marriage, religious people, aren't against gays per se, they just want to reserve the right of marriage for straight people. Eich didn't exactly vote to make homosexuality illegal.

>Is wanting to abolish marriage altogether being against straight people?

Actually youd have to say, getting rid of marriage for straight people.

And yes, if someone was saying we should get rid of marriage for straight people specifically, they are being anti-straight people; they are in favor of stripping rights away from a specific group of people against their interest.

>the majority of people against gay marriage, religious people, aren't against gays per se, they just want to reserve the right of marriage for straight people.

Right, and jim crow wasnt against blakc people per se - just that white people wanted to preserve their water fountains and deli counters.

I think we should abolish marriage as a legal construct and adopt civil unions for government purposes. Marriage is a religious concept, and I believe in the separation of church and state.

However, I don't think the path to get there is by denying rights to other people. It's clearly anit-gay to non-religious folks, but popular teachings of the bible (and the teachings of Jesus) prevent many people from seeing it.

One of the biggest forces against marijuana legalization is from people currently in the marijuana business in one way or another. I very much doubt they're anti-marijuana.

in the political realm they certainly are

Did he explicitly express these views?