Maybe that's why in Loving v. Virginia Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren said this:To say somehow that marriage is a right, that's another fallacy. Marriage is not a right, it's a privilege granted to you by the government.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.
Are we not being intolerant ourselves by not tolerating the intolerant?No tolerance for intolerance.
See I only ask because I can disagree with the lifestyle of people who smoke, for example, as something that is not a good thing, yet not want their death. I can support the anti-cancer associations, while living with those who promote cancer by smoking. I can actually be friends with that said person and still think and hold on dearly to the idea that their lifestyle is destructive. This does not make me an intolerant person, in fact - I am tolerating .
How is it that having a differing opinion from the masses likens us to those slavers or those who actively take part in violence towards the gay community. This is absurd, oppressive and very intolerant!
Again, marriage is not considered a right. Even if you take the government out of the equation, marriage was still not a right in most situations. In most family situations, the man could not marry the woman without permission from the family. Even to this day there is still a lot of tribes that have marriage rituals for the right to marry.That is where you are wrong. Marriage predates governmental control.
Having a right in this case is to be able to do something without limitations or restriction. I have a right to breathe without limitations or restrictions. Though we have a right to eat, in most cases we have limitations and restrictions.That is where you are wrong. Marriage predates governmental control.
What they are doing is bickering in-house, which shouldn't persuade you one way or the other as a consumer. Apple is far worse where ethics is concerned, I hope you are giving them equal consideration.what they are doing is unethical and I will no longer support Firefox.
I compare most debates that happen on the Internet to the children's section in Barnes & Noble. They generally have about the same level of intellectual rigor, but with twice the name calling and triple the irony.I compare this debate to the debate about "if you don't agree with Obama, your a racist."
No, he donated money to support legislation called proposition 8 that the majority of the people of California approved and voted into legislation to be overturned by the Supreme Court on a 5-4 vote. According to another poster a recent Gallup poll states that 47% of the population of the USA supports this position.Sorry guys, but he did this to himself. He donated money to keep a whole swath of people from having civil rights. If the group of people had been black or Jewish or women, no one would be advocating for his right to free speech that is free from people calling him out on his bigoted views.
He can say what he wants. My problem he was in a position to change policy that would have hurt people he did not agree with. I will say again. If you are basing your opinion on this issue on what your God says. I reject you pushing your religion on me. I don't give a damn what your God says.To all of those bitching, moaning and complaining about Mozilla on this man's opinion on Prop 8 you all seriously need to learn from history.
Most importantly learn from this quote:
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. - Voltaire
Now personally I think Prop 8 and all other pathetic BS like it is insulting to a very large % of the population. However while I disagree with this man's apparent opinion on this subject I am a firm believer in what I quoted above.. since it either applies to all or it applies to none.
Sad that so many others fail miserably at understanding that especially in the US when that is in essence your 1st amendment.
Now go hide your heads in shame for your total failure in this case.
Yes he did.. but that expression of his own personal POV does not give someone else the right to in essence punish him for that opinion regardless of how much they disagree. (Personally I disagree entirely with BS like Prop 8 and no I'm not homosexual.)Sorry guys, but he did this to himself. He donated money to keep a whole swath of people from having civil rights. If the group of people had been black or Jewish or women, no one would be advocating for his right to free speech that is free from people calling him out on his bigoted views.
He can indeed.. the same as you can and I can etc etc... and no he was not in a position to change policy in regards to prop 8 any more than anyone else of us "peons" per se.He can say what he wants. My problem he was in a position to change policy that would have hurt people he did not agree with. I will say again. If you are basing your opinion on this issue on what your God says. I reject you pushing your religion on me. I don't give a damn what your God says.
Well, it’s not very nice for me, a homosexual (please don’t call me gay), to use a product that is being guided and steered by a man ( Mr. Eeeek! Or is that the wrong spelling?) who might (I don’t know that he is) be ante homosexual. But then, there are also probably some homosexuals also working in Mozilla who I would like to support. In fact, Mozilla inc, is probably a mixed bag of nuts like most of human enterprises, so it seems silly to get worked up over one man’s view, and his right to hold it. This all sounds to me like a politically correct witch hunt whipped up into a froth of righteous indignation by twitter world, and we all know what idiocies political correctness can lead to. I haven’t got a clue what Ms Baker is gurning on about, perhaps there’s some sentences missing from this article that would explain but his removal, I suspect, is more to do with commercial considerations than moral concern. ‘OKCupid’ must have given themselves, for free, more publicity than they could ever afford. This whole affair looks like a pig fight in a sty from which all participants come out smelling of manure. I think it’s very contemporary and rather funny, though obviously the participants wont think so.
yes they most certainly are.. and we have the right to say that as well.. but we all must defend the others right to say such regardless of if we agree or not.. since it is either freedom of speech for all or for none. Anything less becomes "approved speech"Just like all the people who said and still say African American should not have rights. I don't care what people think. Telling a group of people they should have less rights because your God said so is wrong and stupid period.
But repetition ad infinitum is the only fashionable way to argue these days!Would you stop with the repeats. Saying it once is enough!
Translation: You have to tolerate my intolerance of you, otherwise you're the intolerant one, not me.This company is now hypocritical - proclaiming diversity of opinion but ONLY if you have the right views.