Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby setzer777 » Mon Apr 07, 2014 3:11 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:So yes, you and I are now enemies by your and Belial's definition. But I'd like to believe that you and I can work together despite our differences. That you and I can continue discussing things, regardless of irrelevant political affiliations.


Of course someone could discuss things with you and try to avoid contributing to your personal income, a percentage of which goes towards causes they find objectionable or even detrimental to their own well being.

I mean seriously, would it really bug you if someone suggested a boycott of a company because their CEO donated to Planned Parenthood? If it's okay to fund ad campaigns to pass laws restricting behavior, why isn't it okay to try to persuade people to use competitor's products in an attempt to make expressing certain viewpoints less profitable?

Would it be that bad if as a result of this people tried to persuade users of OkCupid to switch to Plenty of Fish? It all seems like a reasonable and peaceful method of trying to bring your viewpoint to a prominent position in society.
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Ormurinn » Mon Apr 07, 2014 3:14 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:@Orm: I'm not sure how to explain it more plainly. Do you acknowledge that homosexual rights are presently lower than heterosexual rights?


No. Certainly not in the U.K. The only things homosexuals can't do in the U.K (give blood and organs) are justified on public health grounds.

In the U.S? I suppose it varies state by state. I've made it quite clear that I don't consider there to be a "right" to get married though. Marriage is a legal privelige granted by the state.

If a state has civil partnerships but not gay marriage, and the two are functionally identical, and the homolobby is still grievance mongering? Then they're shitheads.
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Belial » Mon Apr 07, 2014 3:19 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:Based on our discussions in the past, you guys are supportive of various political opinions I find very unsavory. I do believe I disagree with Belial on basically every single political topic to date. I do remind you, I'm a Roman Catholic, and I can draw upon any number of hot topics where your political viewpoints "oppress" me. I'll avoid mentioning them by name, so that we can remain on topic here however... but use your imagination and take your pick at any political viewpoint you want.

And as a Roman Catholic, that means that you guys ought to consider me your enemy. (Yes, I financially support the Church. Just this past weekend I made my weekly donation).

So yes, you and I are now enemies by your and Belial's definition. Or perhaps, "I'm officially Belial's enemy by his definition". But I'd like to believe that you and I can work together despite our differences. That you and I can continue discussing things, regardless of IMO irrelevant political affiliations.


You don't understand how supporting an organization and belief system that is directly and currently harming people who I know and care about might result in me finding it hard to work with you? Or maybe not wanting to associate with you?
Yeah, what he said. But KnightExemplar, please read what I said: it's not your direct support of causes I find abhorrent that I'm taking issue with. Those just ensure, as izawwlgood said, that I will never support you monetarily.

The bit I'm taking issue with is exactly what I said: your insistence that marginalized peoples are morally obligated to contribute materially to the cause of their own marginalization. That, in fact, refusal to materially support the people who are working to oppress you is a worse sin than the actual act of trying to oppress you. That's what I'm taking issue with, and that message is what's making me, frankly, angry.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Apr 07, 2014 3:21 pm UTC

So, the problem here Orm, I feel, is that you're fairly wildly misinformed, and your bigotry is forming the basis of opinions instead of the facts you pretend to lean on.
Ormurinn wrote:No. Certainly not in the U.K. The only things homosexuals can't do in the U.K (give blood and organs) are justified on public health grounds.
Oh, because only gay people get STDs?
Ormurinn wrote:In the U.S? I suppose it varies state by state. I've made it quite clear that I don't consider there to be a "right" to get married though. Marriage is a legal privelige granted by the state.
Ok, so... follow the logic here; if marriage is a legal privilege granted by the state... shouldn't... work with me here... everyone... almost there... have... access... to... it...?

Wouldn't... wait for it... denying it to a minority be an example of... what's the thing... Oh, right; inequality.

Ormurinn wrote:If a state has civil partnerships but not gay marriage, and the two are functionally identical, and the homolobby is still grievance mongering? Then they're shitheads.
You seem to be under the false impression that allowing homosexuals to marry means that ALL the Churchs will suddenly be forced to perform the ceremonies. You also seem to be under the impression that civil partnership is identical to marriage. If it was identical, praytell, why are Churches fighting so hard to deny marriage?
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Zcorp
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 3:14 am UTC

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Zcorp » Mon Apr 07, 2014 3:25 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:And frankly, I'm one to believe that an Open Internet where everyone can share their thoughts is a good idea.

No one is killing the Open Internet, well not entirely true. Besides Congress, the ISPs and the NSA no one is killing the Open Internet (well China and NC but they never really had it anyway).

The difference between me and Belial always comes back to the same thing however. He always seems more adamant and more pleased about spilt blood. It was like this with almost every topic we get into a heated discussion about.
Nah, the biggest difference seems to be that he actually has some consistency in his beliefs.

you now wrote:I don't believe in "friends" and "enemies". I believe that people are people who don't deserved to be marginalized for their viewpoints. Otherwise, people are people. You work together when you agree, you work against each other when you disagree.


you 4 months ago wrote:The US has enemies, and we cannot afford to give rights to our enemies. For our allies, we can create treaties and afford them the same rights (or even more... in some cases).




*Sigh*. Its been a philosophical difference that has divided us on every single issue that I've ever debated on this forum. I don't think we're gonna get anywhere on this one. Its as if when people "Sin" against your philosophy, they deserve to be thrown out of society. Its not a viewpoint that I agree with.

You just believe they should be observed forever and blown up.

Removing the CEO for actively causing harm, and his removal which won't have a noticeable impact on the open internet is bad. Removing intelligence gathering programs that undermine all of the work we should be doing to make the world a safer place and could more than anything destroy the open internet is also bad. Got it.

"enemies" don't exist and they shouldn't be marginalized, except that enemies do exist and we cannot afford them any rights. Got it.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Apr 07, 2014 3:32 pm UTC

Listen, I understand the Chick-fil-a boycott, and I fully recognize the right to boycott. In fact, I don't think I even look down upon anyone who refuses to eat at Chick-fil-a. Its a pretty clear cut case in that situation.

But I think what pisses me off about this, is that Brendan Eich was the leader of a non-profit company that never really asked for your money. Mozilla Firefox itself barely has a revenue stream, and their support over the Open Internet is ever more important now that various corporate interests are closing the internet down. We lost Network Neutrality just a few months ago, Apple is building walled gardens, and privacy issues are abound all over the place. The non-support over Mozilla Firefox on this issue needs to be balanced against the other political decisions that the Mozilla Foundation have been making.

I personally consider that to be overall, a net-positive. Positive in that using Firefox probably doesn't contribute to Brendan Eich's payroll very much, and yet gives support to the Open Web where it is needed the most. (IE: the only fully open non-corporate Web Browser needs to have the most users, so that Web Standards are owned by the general netizens).
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Belial » Mon Apr 07, 2014 3:40 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:I personally consider that to be overall, a net-positive. Positive in that using Firefox probably doesn't contribute to Brendan Eich's payroll very much, and yet gives support to the Open Web where it is needed the most. (IE: the only fully open non-corporate Web Browser needs to have the most users, so that Web Standards are owned by the general netizens).


I am pretty sure if no one used Firefox, the CEO of firefox wouldn't have a payroll because firefox wouldn't exist. Luckily, we never have to find out, because Eich stepped down, meaning that Mozilla made an entirely wise decision and whatever fears you have about how lack of support for Mozilla will singlehandedly end the open internet forever are no longer founded: there is no reason to continue any sort of boycott. In fact, I'm skeptical of the idea that, in the infinitesimal period of time between OKCupid's awareness raising stunt and Eich's resignation, any kind of boycott even got properly started.

Mozilla is safe. Any hand-wringing you do over the issue is over Eich in particular, not the nonprofit he formerly headed.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Heisenberg » Mon Apr 07, 2014 3:57 pm UTC

Belial wrote:If you're a member of the KKK, I'm going to assume that being a black employee under your "leadership" is going to be a pretty terrible experience. I don't see this as fundamentally different.

This is a vastly different situation than a CEO who supports racism. You can't call a meeting and count how many gays are in the room. While it's possible to implement systems in a company which discriminate against homosexuals, it's simply not possible to discriminate against homosexuals as directly or as unconsciously as against black people.

If Eich did discriminate against his employees then his firing was reasonable. But I haven't seen any evidence that he allowed his beliefs to influence anything other than his politics. And it's not right to take the company he built from him simply because his political beliefs became public.

But by all means boycott those you don't agree with. I don't really subscribe to that, and I would buy stuff from all of you even though I disagree with you. In fact, I would probably buy stuff for you because I find dialogue is both more interesting and more productive than ostracization.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Belial » Mon Apr 07, 2014 4:02 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:
Belial wrote:If you're a member of the KKK, I'm going to assume that being a black employee under your "leadership" is going to be a pretty terrible experience. I don't see this as fundamentally different.

This is a vastly different situation than a CEO who supports racism. You can't call a meeting and count how many gays are in the room.


Ahh, the old "we won't oppress you if you just stay in the closet" chestnut. How I've missed you.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
PolakoVoador
Posts: 1028
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 11:11 pm UTC
Location: Brazil

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby PolakoVoador » Mon Apr 07, 2014 4:05 pm UTC

@Orm He was the CEO, he stepped down, he was not fired. Perhaps he was forced to step down by the board members. I believe that, if this was the case, he was forced to step down not because of what his beliefs are, but because his past actions supporting segregation were tearing a gigantic hole in the "openess" image Mozilla prides itself all the time.

Yeah, he is a legendary programmer, probably a visionary either. But what's all his talk about equality and openess worth, if he keeps throwing money at political movements which seek specifically to hinder equality? He unambiguously stated a message: "I find some people more equal than others. Only the equal ones can have some rights, the rest can have fun being marginalized".

Do you really find wrong that lots of people DON'T want to give Eich their money? That they choose not to finance ideas which will bring harm to themselves and others?

EDIT:
Izawwlgood wrote:So, the problem here Orm, I feel, is that you're fairly wildly misinformed, and your bigotry is forming the basis of opinions instead of the facts you pretend to lean on.
Ormurinn wrote:No. Certainly not in the U.K. The only things homosexuals can't do in the U.K (give blood and organs) are justified on public health grounds.
Oh, because only gay people get STDs?
Ormurinn wrote:In the U.S? I suppose it varies state by state. I've made it quite clear that I don't consider there to be a "right" to get married though. Marriage is a legal privelige granted by the state.
Ok, so... follow the logic here; if marriage is a legal privilege granted by the state... shouldn't... work with me here... everyone... almost there... have... access... to... it...?

Wouldn't... wait for it... denying it to a minority be an example of... what's the thing... Oh, right; inequality.

Ormurinn wrote:If a state has civil partnerships but not gay marriage, and the two are functionally identical, and the homolobby is still grievance mongering? Then they're shitheads.
You seem to be under the false impression that allowing homosexuals to marry means that ALL the Churchs will suddenly be forced to perform the ceremonies. You also seem to be under the impression that civil partnership is identical to marriage. If it was identical, praytell, why are Churches fighting so hard to deny marriage?


Izawwlgood already answered about the "privilege" bit, but it reminded me of what you (Ormurinn) said earlier in the thread, about marriage being part of the English culture, and how the English culture is now in danger. If your culture needs to marginalize people to continue its existence, it is a very crappy culture that I would not like to be part of, and I would not be sad over its ending.
Last edited by PolakoVoador on Mon Apr 07, 2014 4:18 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Apr 07, 2014 4:09 pm UTC

I'd like to point out that his blog and subsequent statements about all this do not in any way shape or form distance himself from his decision to support opponents of Prop8. There hasn't been an iota of 'I felt this way in 2008, but have changed and now feel differently'. He's on record saying he wants to promote inclusiveness, and to work with LGBT communities, but until he says "I now support marriage equality" I think his message is fairly clear.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4585
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby LaserGuy » Mon Apr 07, 2014 4:18 pm UTC

Ormurinn wrote:If a state has civil partnerships but not gay marriage, and the two are functionally identical, and the homolobby is still grievance mongering? Then they're shitheads.


Would you be okay if, in that case, the state just eliminated the legal concept of marriage and transformed all current and future marriages into civil partnerships?

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Azrael » Mon Apr 07, 2014 4:19 pm UTC

Ormurinn wrote:If a state has civil partnerships but not gay marriage, and the two are functionally identical, and the homolobby is still grievance mongering? Then they're shitheads.


You can't claim to be unbiased in your thinking when you:

a) Use the phrase "homolobby". It's like "teabagger". It's a loaded beyond measure and you lose all credibility when using it.

b) Ignore, or fail to internalize, the historical flaws behind "separate but equal" when trying to make rational arguments.

You are, with every sentence, harkening back to the bigoted arguments from America's civil rights era in the 60's. If anyone's acting like a shithead here, it's you.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby leady » Mon Apr 07, 2014 4:26 pm UTC

Oh, because only gay people get STDs?


Different discussion really on the statistical risks. This isn't in place for known stds, but because novel stds appear rapidly in certain groups first and no one wants another tranfusion scenario like in the 80s. Yes this is clearly discriminatory to mitigate against a small public health risk. Intravenious drug users are restricted too. Both are effectively managed on the honour system though so if you really want to give blood you just need to lie a little :) Strangely NI are currently having this discussion on the bbc...

Ok, so... follow the logic here; if marriage is a legal privilege granted by the state... shouldn't... work with me here... everyone... almost there... have... access... to... it...?

Wouldn't... wait for it... denying it to a minority be an example of... what's the thing... Oh, right; inequality.


There are many many positive legal rights that aren't offered to others separated on all manner of trivialities and this was in the UK at least purely a naming convention. Sure you can argue that the label carries a level of social normality to it, but when the term "partner" is almost ubiquitous in its usage in the UK its got to be pretty darn small at this point.

You seem to be under the false impression that allowing homosexuals to marry means that ALL the Churchs will suddenly be forced to perform the ceremonies. You also seem to be under the impression that civil partnership is identical to marriage. If it was identical, praytell, why are Churches fighting so hard to deny marriage?


I think its more that religous organisations are under the belief that the word marriage has relgious connetations and a religous definition that supercedes the secular variant as well as the fear above (which given wider UK laws was not a trivial concern - and I suspect will happen in time. Progressive slippery slopes always seem slippy). I guess in practice its very difficult to separate the two variants because the modern secular state grew out of a system where the two where effectively one.

My solution would have been to let the religous keep their word and make all state registrations civil partnerships :) Or better still abolish state boilerplated marriage contracts all together.

User avatar
WibblyWobbly
Can't Get No
Posts: 506
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:03 pm UTC

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby WibblyWobbly » Mon Apr 07, 2014 4:33 pm UTC

Belial wrote:In fact, I'm skeptical of the idea that, in the infinitesimal period of time between OKCupid's awareness raising stunt and Eich's resignation, any kind of boycott even got properly started.

I think this needs to be emphasized. I'm all in favor of boycotts; it's how consumers who don't have a boardroom vote have their voices heard nonetheless, and it works in exactly the way business is supposed to work. Don't like a product? Don't buy it. Don't like a salesman? Don't buy his product. Don't like a corporate CEO because he contributed to a campaign that would have restricted human rights? Don't contribute to his corporation. Corporations exist to make money, and if enough people decide that they'd rather do without the product than give your corporation money for Reason X, that corporation either has to listen or face the end of their business. Chick-Fil-A was boycotted; apparently the boycott did not have sufficient momentum in the places where CFA operates, because not only is CFA not dead, they're thriving. Half the locations and still more revenue than KFC. If society has changed enough that a sufficient portion of Mozilla's market would rather do without their products than support a CEO who doesn't support their views on human rights, Mozilla's bottom line suffers, and they make a change.

My question is: why are the people decrying Eich's ouster not more outraged at the fact that Mozilla didn't even go a fortnight before deciding that he was doing more harm to them than good? They could not have possibly felt the actual sting of boycotts; do real, large-scale boycotts come together and do enough actual damage to a corporation in the span of a week and a half that the CEO must be tossed? Mozilla either knew about this contribution (news of it actually came out in 2012, long before Eich was selected as CEO) and didn't think it was such a big deal, or they were willfully ignorant. Either way, they were asleep at the wheel when they made this choice, and they reacted by pushing him out the door before they had any real idea what the effect of his presence would mean. So, either Mozilla was oblivious, or they didn't think it would be such a big deal and then made a knee-jerk reaction to the threat of boycotts.

Personally, I think this is an instance of corporate pressure done right. You cannot compare the position of CEO of a corporation to any other employee in the business. Or, if you can, you're doing so disingenuously. The CEO is absolutely the public face of the company and has to exhibit the qualities the shareholders or stakeholders want him or her to exemplify, in a way that no other person in the company has to be. I would absolutely be of the same position if the reverse had happened; if Hobby Lobby found out their new CEO had once donated to Planned Parenthood, and their shareholders or owners or stakeholders or whatnot decided that this was so completely against their company holiness that they couldn't abide it, and if their good, wholesome Christian customers started large-scale boycotts that caused their business to tank, I'd expect them to pull the plug on that CEO. I wouldn't support their company (and I don't now, as it is and as is my choice), but that's the decision they have to make.

Mozilla didn't wait to figure out how bad this was going to get. They pulled the plug on Eich before they could find out. If you want to blame anybody, blame them.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7604
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Zamfir » Mon Apr 07, 2014 4:34 pm UTC


@Azrael: calling posters shithead is over the line. If that's the contribution you want to make to this thread, then please stay out of the thread.

@Ormurinn: you might not be explicitly insulting other posters, but you're getting far too close for comfort. Consider this a warning.

@ Everybody: whatever you wanted to post next, add two measures of politeness on top of it. For flavour. If the thread stays like this, it will be locked.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Apr 07, 2014 4:37 pm UTC

Never mind that many 'camp straight' people can be the victim of homophobia as well.

User avatar
PolakoVoador
Posts: 1028
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 11:11 pm UTC
Location: Brazil

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby PolakoVoador » Mon Apr 07, 2014 4:39 pm UTC

leady wrote:
Oh, because only gay people get STDs?


Different discussion really on the statistical risks. This isn't in place for known stds, but because novel stds appear rapidly in certain groups first and no one wants another tranfusion scenario like in the 80s. Yes this is clearly discriminatory to mitigate against a small public health risk. Intravenious drug users are restricted too. Both are effectively managed on the honour system though so if you really want to give blood you just need to lie a little :) Strangely NI are currently having this discussion on the bbc...


Would you care to post a reference to this? I'm not being sarcastic here, I really want to see if there's such a serious study showing that homossexuals are a group of risk. Intravenious drug users are restricted because needle sharing spreads STDs like hell. Wouldn't it be right if, say, Christians be restricted? They are forbidden from using condoms after all...

And please don't dismiss what the "you just need to lie a little" means. When society puts barriers on everything you want/need to do, you can be sure every little thing counts to make you feel like a subcitizen.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Azrael » Mon Apr 07, 2014 4:41 pm UTC

WibblyWobbly wrote:Mozilla didn't wait to figure out how bad this was going to get. They pulled the plug on Eich before they could find out. If you want to blame anybody, blame them.

I agree that boycotts -- and even the threat thereof -- are a good thing. I don't find much fault in the short fuse either. When my toaster starts to smoke, I unplug it pretty quickly, rather than waiting a bit, hoping my fire extinguisher works and that the damage won't be too bad.

Zcorp
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 3:14 am UTC

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Zcorp » Mon Apr 07, 2014 4:55 pm UTC

PolakoVoador wrote:Would you care to post a reference to this? I'm not being sarcastic here, I really want to see if there's such a serious study showing that homossexuals are a group of risk.

Someone else might be able to provide you the studies, I can't at the moment but anal penetration has a fairly significantly greater chance of spreading some diseases than vaginal penetration. Which indirectly can put homosexual men at more risk.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7604
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Zamfir » Mon Apr 07, 2014 5:18 pm UTC

Off topic, on HIV prevalence:
Spoiler:
According to Dutch statistics, 'men who have sex with men' account for about half of known cases of HIV, and 70% of new cases. The new cases are especially relevant, because apparently HIV tests are not reliable in the early period.


In absolute numbers, there are about 20.000 registered people with HIV in the Netherlands (population 17 million). Newly diagnosed cases are yearly about 800. Obviously, there is an unknown but likely significant number of undiagnosed cases.

I don't have reliable numbers on the percentages of people who identify as 'men having sex with men'.

Among STD tests, 1.5 percent of the MSM group tests positive on HIV, down from about 4% at the peak in the early nineties. This is mostly due to an increase in tests, but the number of positive tests has also fallen. Rates among STD tests for non-MSM males are in the 0.1% range. Note that STD tests are not a representative sample of the populations.

That's all I could find quickly.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Apr 07, 2014 5:20 pm UTC

For the interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSM_blood_ ... ontroversy

There seems to be a pretty significant push in the medical community to ease or outright lift the ban. It's certainly not based on anything of merit, other than the notion that gay people can also get HIV and anal sex is more likely to transmit HIV than vaginal sex. It just, you know, ignores that plenty of gay men are in monogamous relationships, or practice safe sex.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Belial » Mon Apr 07, 2014 5:22 pm UTC

And that straight people also have butts
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby morriswalters » Mon Apr 07, 2014 5:24 pm UTC

Belial wrote:
morriswalters wrote:Then don't. But for the third time now you have asserted that support of prop 8 makes you a homophobe. Then how many homophobes exist in California? And how many do you think you work and transact business with?


Yes, I am aware that I unavoidably do business with homophobes on a regular basis. Also racists, misogynists, transphobes, and all other manner of terrible people. Much of it for the simple reason that most of them don't wear signs that say "I am terrible, give me your money".

What does that have to do with my decision to withhold my custom when I become aware of a specific person's terribleness? To choose to give that custom instead to someone who isn't terrible?

Put more succinctly: just what the hell is your point?

How marvelously naive. And ridiculously laughable. Your lifestyle is a product of suffering for all those people you don't see. From the people working under adverse conditions to mine the minerals in your smart phone, to the exorbitant waste of food from having eateries on every corner, and fully stocked supermarkets who throw away food because they stock more than you can buy.


"Because a lot of things are bad, choosing to make some things better is wrong. You should just keep letting everything be awful or I'll call you naive".

My point is that like most "culture warriors" your close minded and not open to the fact that there are shades of grey.( as well as the color pink) You sound suspiciously like any number of other "culture warriors". Everybody is wrong but you. Nobody could ever have a different point of view that didn't make them a "homophobe" or whatever pejorative your using this week. You've just labeled seven million Californians, with a name that doesn't even have clear meaning. People are more than a one dimensional image. And they deserve to be treated as such, even if they don't agree with you. Gays certainly don't like it when it is done to them. You have one data point and base your barrage on that one instant of a mans life.

You are quite right, a lot of things are bad. This fight is the easy one. You can label, disparage, and otherwise make yourself sound like all the people you must hate. Today is bandwagon day. Climb on. Drag them "homophobes" into your better world. And at least in my limited reading the Gay community is not looking at this with unanimity. It doesn't have to be won this way.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Apr 07, 2014 5:27 pm UTC

What's the condom use by orientation? I think that would be a big factor in the HIV rates.

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Ormurinn » Mon Apr 07, 2014 5:31 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:
Ormurinn wrote:If a state has civil partnerships but not gay marriage, and the two are functionally identical, and the homolobby is still grievance mongering? Then they're shitheads.


You can't claim to be unbiased in your thinking when you:

a) Use the phrase "homolobby". It's like "teabagger". It's a loaded beyond measure and you lose all credibility when using it.

b) Ignore, or fail to internalize, the historical flaws behind "separate but equal" when trying to make rational arguments.

You are, with every sentence, harkening back to the bigoted arguments from America's civil rights era in the 60's. If anyone's acting like a shithead here, it's you.


I used homolobby as an abbreviation for "pro-homosexual lobbyists". I wasn't aware it was an established term.

In response to your second point, the problem with separate but equal is that its trivial to ignore the latter when dealing with physical amenities. That's not the case with a legal instrument - where the differances (or lack thereof) are spelled out in black and white. Your comparison is disingenuous.

LaserGuy wrote:
Ormurinn wrote:If a state has civil partnerships but not gay marriage, and the two are functionally identical, and the homolobby is still grievance mongering? Then they're shitheads.


Would you be okay if, in that case, the state just eliminated the legal concept of marriage and transformed all current and future marriages into civil partnerships?


Wouldn't be a problem at all, though a lot of laws would have to be rewritten to include the new terminology. There would have to be a legal statement that organisations cannot be forced to officiate weddings they disagree with, and businesses can choose not to serve the same.

Izawwlgood wrote:So, the problem here Orm, I feel, is that you're fairly wildly misinformed, and your bigotry is forming the basis of opinions instead of the facts you pretend to lean on.
Ormurinn wrote:No. Certainly not in the U.K. The only things homosexuals can't do in the U.K (give blood and organs) are justified on public health grounds.
Oh, because only gay people get STDs?
Ormurinn wrote:In the U.S? I suppose it varies state by state. I've made it quite clear that I don't consider there to be a "right" to get married though. Marriage is a legal privelige granted by the state.
Ok, so... follow the logic here; if marriage is a legal privilege granted by the state... shouldn't... work with me here... everyone... almost there... have... access... to... it...?

Wouldn't... wait for it... denying it to a minority be an example of... what's the thing... Oh, right; inequality.

Ormurinn wrote:If a state has civil partnerships but not gay marriage, and the two are functionally identical, and the homolobby is still grievance mongering? Then they're shitheads.
You seem to be under the false impression that allowing homosexuals to marry means that ALL the Churchs will suddenly be forced to perform the ceremonies. You also seem to be under the impression that civil partnership is identical to marriage. If it was identical, praytell, why are Churches fighting so hard to deny marriage?


1. Is covered elsewhere in thread.

2. Shit, I never realised I was being oppressed by not being allowed to grant Letters Patent! I can't hold land in alloidial title either! Woe is me, I can't declare myself a Corporation Sole.

Seriously, this objection is ridiculous. All the things above would have far more impact on my life than the arbitrary collection of letters on my partnership document.

3. It is in the U.K, and from a quick perusal it seems to be broadly identical to marriage in other countries too. As for why churches are opposed? Well, in the U.K its for fear they'll be legally forced to blaspheme. There's also the issue that creating a new legal status isn't as big an effect on culture as appropriating an old one. You could ask someone who actually belongs to a church for a better explanation.
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Belial » Mon Apr 07, 2014 5:35 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:My point is that like most "culture warriors" your close minded and not open to the fact that there are shades of grey.( as well as the color pink) You sound suspiciously like any number of other "culture warriors". Everybody is wrong but you. Nobody could ever have a different point of view that didn't make them a "homophobe" or whatever pejorative your using this week. You've just labeled seven million Californians, with a name that doesn't even have clear meaning. People are more than a one dimensional image. And they deserve to be treated as such, even if they don't agree with you. Gays certainly don't like it when it is done to them. You have one data point and base your barrage on that one instant of a mans life.

You are quite right, a lot of things are bad. This fight is the easy one. You can label, disparage, and otherwise make yourself sound like all the people you must hate. Today is bandwagon day. Climb on. Drag them "homophobes" into your better world. And at least in my limited reading the Gay community is not looking at this with unanimity. It doesn't have to be won this way.


I have no idea what most of this even means. Please become more coherent.

As near as I can tell, you're trying to say that the existence of multiple forms of badness in the world, and differing choices as to how to approach them, means that we shouldn't cast stones as to how people choose to prioritize what they fix.

I agree! In fact, I even agree that as far as LGBTQ rights go, marriage is not even the most important fight to be had. If you said "marriage is not a priority for me, I'd rather we focused effort on the homeless LGBTQ youth problem" I'd be like "Morriswalter, you have good ideas let's hang out".

Where I disagree, however, is where you extend this to people who are actively making it worse. Voting to remove (or bar) rights from another group of people based on their sexual orientation isn't a choice between making one thing better or making another (subjectively more important) thing better. It's a choice to actively make the world more oppressive and shitty, ie worse. Throwing up your hands and saying "I dunno man it's all shades of grey" doesn't change that.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Apr 07, 2014 5:36 pm UTC

Ormurinn wrote:Seriously, this objection is ridiculous. All the things above would have far more impact on my life than the arbitrary collection of letters on my partnership document.
Then why are you fighting so hard to prevent gay people from having it, or rather, so in favor of supporting people who oppose it?

Must not be that arbitrary.

Ormurinn wrote:There's also the issue that creating a new legal status isn't as big an effect on culture as appropriating an old one.
Then marriage must be pretty damned important. Shit, if only it was equally available.

You're still mincing this notion that churches will be forced to marry sinful gay people who are flaunting their evil ways while fornicating at the alter. I'm not sure why you keep insisting this; gay people aren't interested in getting married in Churches that don't welcome them, just like I wouldn't ask a Rabbi to provide me with a Catholic wedding. What is being pushed for (and I'm not surprised but a bit annoyed that this needs to be explained to you) is that Churches that DO want to promote equality and be inclusive of gays SHOULD be able to marry them legally in the eyes of the state.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

aoeu
Posts: 325
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 4:58 pm UTC

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby aoeu » Mon Apr 07, 2014 5:37 pm UTC

setzer777 wrote:
aoeu wrote:
setzer777 wrote:
aoeu wrote:
Zcorp wrote:Right...you believe that I should be able to support Nazis, the KKK, and Child Rapists but because I'm a good programmer no one should refuse to work with me or stop purchasing what I'm selling.


On the contrary that is a well-accepted principle of democracy. It's also funny how you name niche groups, when B.E. was actually on the side of the majority.


It's a well-accepted principle of democracy that boycotts are wrong?

Over here (as well as a few US states) political activism is protected under employment law. And yes, the whole point of being a nation of laws is suppressing citizens' tribal instincts and substituting them with an actually efficient rule.


Right, that's an argument that Mozilla shouldn't have fired him. But unless you compel people to spend their money on a specific product, they can boycott anything they want. It's not a well-accepted principle of democracy that people shouldn't refrain from purchasing or using certain products on the basis of whatever feelings they have about the company.


I don't think you got the implications of this train of thought. Prop 8 was an even split. What do you think that means for Silicon Valley companies? There is roughly equal strength in numbers on both sides. Any boycott is going to be laughably ineffective at anything but ruining (more likely just slightly annoying the PR department of) a particular company, since the employees will just switch companies. The numbers would have to be quite a bit more skewed for it to go any other way.

It's a waste of everyone's energy. You ought to leave the politics to the politics.

User avatar
PolakoVoador
Posts: 1028
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 11:11 pm UTC
Location: Brazil

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby PolakoVoador » Mon Apr 07, 2014 5:37 pm UTC

Zcorp wrote:
PolakoVoador wrote:Would you care to post a reference to this? I'm not being sarcastic here, I really want to see if there's such a serious study showing that homossexuals are a group of risk.

Someone else might be able to provide you the studies, I can't at the moment but anal penetration has a fairly significantly greater chance of spreading some diseases than vaginal penetration. Which indirectly can put homosexual men at more risk.


Zamfir wrote:Off topic, on HIV prevalence:
Spoiler:
According to Dutch statistics, 'men who have sex with men' account for about half of known cases of HIV, and 70% of new cases. The new cases are especially relevant, because apparently HIV tests are not reliable in the early period.


In absolute numbers, there are about 20.000 registered people with HIV in the Netherlands (population 17 million). Newly diagnosed cases are yearly about 800. Obviously, there is an unknown but likely significant number of undiagnosed cases.

I don't have reliable numbers on the percentages of people who identify as 'men having sex with men'.

Among STD tests, 1.5 percent of the MSM group tests positive on HIV, down from about 4% at the peak in the early nineties. This is mostly due to an increase in tests, but the number of positive tests has also fallen. Rates among STD tests for non-MSM males are in the 0.1% range. Note that STD tests are not a representative sample of the populations.

That's all I could find quickly.


Spoilered for OT:
Spoiler:
If anal sex *is* a risk factor, it should be restricted also for hetero couples who practice anal sex, and I've never heard of a place which asks this question before accepting or denying your blood donation. I might be wrong obviously, so any counter example is welcome.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Apr 07, 2014 5:40 pm UTC

PolakoVoador wrote:If anal sex *is* a risk factor, it should be restricted also for hetero couples who practice anal sex, and I've never heard of a place which asks this question before accepting or denying your blood donation. I might be wrong obviously, so any counter example is welcome.
Nope, usually the question is simply "Have you had anal sex with a man?". If you answer yes, you cannot donate blood for life in the states.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby setzer777 » Mon Apr 07, 2014 5:46 pm UTC

aoeu wrote:I don't think you got the implications of this train of thought. Prop 8 was an even split. What do you think that means for Silicon Valley companies? There is roughly equal strength in numbers on both sides. Any boycott is going to be laughably ineffective at anything but ruining (more likely just slightly annoying the PR department of) a particular company, since the employees will just switch companies. The numbers would have to be quite a bit more skewed for it to go any other way.

It's a waste of everyone's energy. You ought to leave the politics to the politics.


The only thing I was implying was that boycotts (with whatever motivation) in no way go against the principles or spirit of Democracy. They are a simple extension of a free market.
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Apr 07, 2014 5:47 pm UTC

The reason the churches are so violently opposed to secular gay marriage is not a fear of being forced to marry gay people in church, but the fear that they will lose their congregations. The more out of touch the church appears to be, the harder it becomes to recruit members and keep the children in the faith. Would you ever join a church that still believed that the sun revolved around the Earth, or would you laugh in their face? Science and society marches ever onward.

So they either have to embrace science and civil rights, such as when Mormons discovered that black people do in fact have souls, or try to prevent society from leaving them behind. That or disappear. And they prefer society stays static because the more the church changes it's doctrine the less credible they appear.

User avatar
Yablo
Posts: 636
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:57 am UTC
Location: Juneau, Alaska

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Yablo » Mon Apr 07, 2014 5:51 pm UTC

I really want to support Eich, and I really want to say that I don't think he should have been pressured in this way. I really want to because I'm all for speaking your mind and sticking to your ideals, and because I feel like special interest groups like the LGBT, ACLU, PETA, etc ... often believe that no "decent human-being" would dare challenge them, and that mentality can lead to a sort of bullying.

The actual fact of the matter however is that I can't support him without being hypocritical. When I feel a business or organization has wronged me or holds a view far enough away from what I find acceptable, I absolutely do refuse to give them my money and support. I do discourage friends and family to avoid them, and if it comes up in random conversation, I tend to voice my dissatisfaction. If the CEO of a company made it apparent that his beliefs were different enough from mine, I may even be outraged enough to take action.

He should absolutely be allowed to believe what he chooses, and he should be allowed to voice that belief from anywhere but the CEO's chair. A large part of me wants to support him, but this is a case where an open mind and a little thought forces me to accept the opposite. Yay, philosophy.
If you like Call of Cthulhu and modern government conspiracy, check out my Delta Green thread.
Please feel free to ask questions or leave comments.

User avatar
WibblyWobbly
Can't Get No
Posts: 506
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:03 pm UTC

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby WibblyWobbly » Mon Apr 07, 2014 5:53 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:
WibblyWobbly wrote:Mozilla didn't wait to figure out how bad this was going to get. They pulled the plug on Eich before they could find out. If you want to blame anybody, blame them.

I agree that boycotts -- and even the threat thereof -- are a good thing. I don't find much fault in the short fuse either. When my toaster starts to smoke, I unplug it pretty quickly, rather than waiting a bit, hoping my fire extinguisher works and that the damage won't be too bad.

True enough. I'm just saying that not every boycott or protest or threat thereof is really something to worry about. Some are very vocal without having much actual power (WBC). If your motivation is ideological, by all means, get him out that much faster. If your motivation is economic, sometimes it's worthwhile to see if all that smoke is actually fueled by much of a fire.

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Ormurinn » Mon Apr 07, 2014 6:04 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
PolakoVoador wrote:If anal sex *is* a risk factor, it should be restricted also for hetero couples who practice anal sex, and I've never heard of a place which asks this question before accepting or denying your blood donation. I might be wrong obviously, so any counter example is welcome.
Nope, usually the question is simply "Have you had anal sex with a man?". If you answer yes, you cannot donate blood for life in the states.


Because "In 2010, MSM accounted for 63% of estimated new HIV infections in the United States and 78% of infections among all newly infected men. From 2008 to 2010, new HIV infections increased 22% among young (aged 13-24) MSM and 12% among MSM overall."
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/index.html

And new infections don't show up on the test for a while.

How many people are you willing to give a death sentence to in order that gay men can get a warm fuzzy feeling? Cause that's what it boils down to.

Izawwlgood wrote:
Ormurinn wrote:Seriously, this objection is ridiculous. All the things above would have far more impact on my life than the arbitrary collection of letters on my partnership document.
Then why are you fighting so hard to prevent gay people from having it, or rather, so in favor of supporting people who oppose it?

Must not be that arbitrary.

Ormurinn wrote:There's also the issue that creating a new legal status isn't as big an effect on culture as appropriating an old one.
Then marriage must be pretty damned important. Shit, if only it was equally available.

You're still mincing this notion that churches will be forced to marry sinful gay people who are flaunting their evil ways while fornicating at the alter. I'm not sure why you keep insisting this; gay people aren't interested in getting married in Churches that don't welcome them, just like I wouldn't ask a Rabbi to provide me with a Catholic wedding. What is being pushed for (and I'm not surprised but a bit annoyed that this needs to be explained to you) is that Churches that DO want to promote equality and be inclusive of gays SHOULD be able to marry them legally in the eyes of the state.


You're wrong.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mike-ju ... 8.htmlhtml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religio ... t-out.html

The Peter Tatchell Foundation is also campaigning to have the CofE's legal bar on marrying homosexuals lifted. This bar was put there at the church's request to make it harder for the ECHR to coerce them into marrying homosexuals.

Then of course there's the non- church entities being coerced;
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01 ... il-rights/
http://www.examiner.com/article/christi ... y-weddings

And forward guidance from the ECHR confirms refusing to serve a gay wedding is illegal;
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... urch-right
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Apr 07, 2014 6:08 pm UTC

aoeu wrote:
setzer777 wrote:
aoeu wrote:
setzer777 wrote:
aoeu wrote:
Zcorp wrote:Right...you believe that I should be able to support Nazis, the KKK, and Child Rapists but because I'm a good programmer no one should refuse to work with me or stop purchasing what I'm selling.


On the contrary that is a well-accepted principle of democracy. It's also funny how you name niche groups, when B.E. was actually on the side of the majority.


It's a well-accepted principle of democracy that boycotts are wrong?

Over here (as well as a few US states) political activism is protected under employment law. And yes, the whole point of being a nation of laws is suppressing citizens' tribal instincts and substituting them with an actually efficient rule.


Right, that's an argument that Mozilla shouldn't have fired him. But unless you compel people to spend their money on a specific product, they can boycott anything they want. It's not a well-accepted principle of democracy that people shouldn't refrain from purchasing or using certain products on the basis of whatever feelings they have about the company.


I don't think you got the implications of this train of thought. Prop 8 was an even split. What do you think that means for Silicon Valley companies? There is roughly equal strength in numbers on both sides. Any boycott is going to be laughably ineffective at anything but ruining (more likely just slightly annoying the PR department of) a particular company, since the employees will just switch companies. The numbers would have to be quite a bit more skewed for it to go any other way.

It's a waste of everyone's energy. You ought to leave the politics to the politics.
Wait, are you seriously suggesting that because Prop 8 was a pretty even split at the state level, it must be an even split through each individual tech company? I've just gone through about two pages worth of this thread and may have missed something, but where are you getting that information from?

In fact, I thought I remembered reading that a *minority* of Silicon Valley funding went to support 8 rather than oppose it, meaning that bigots would be rather limited in their choice of welcoming new employers, should a bigoted company close as the result of a boycott.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Apr 07, 2014 6:17 pm UTC

Ormurinn wrote:Because "In 2010, MSM accounted for 63% of estimated new HIV infections in the United States and 78% of infections among all newly infected men. From 2008 to 2010, new HIV infections increased 22% among young (aged 13-24) MSM and 12% among MSM overall."
...
How many people are you willing to give a death sentence to in order that gay men can get a warm fuzzy feeling? Cause that's what it boils down to.
Since I guess you don't understand how numbers work, can you perhaps do me the good service of looking up how many gay men there were in the United States in 2010, and then as a follow up, ask yourself how approximately 11,000 cases of HIV transmission means that they all should be barred from donating blood? Because, since you seem to care about the people so much, pray tell how the United States surplus of blood is going?

Ormurinn wrote:You're wrong [links].

You've provided one fringe case on topic, which truthfully, I've not heard about and don't know enough about, and two examples of business owners denying service to someone based on their sexual orientation.

To the former, I'll have to read a bit more and see what's going on.
To the latter, yes, I absolutely support and am in favor of the notion that just because you are a private business owner you cannot discriminate against customers or employees. I'm not sure what you think those links are indicating, but to me, they're examples of bigotry being fought by the law, and equal rights moving forward as bigots don't get their way.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Ormurinn » Mon Apr 07, 2014 6:27 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
Ormurinn wrote:You're wrong [links].

You've provided one fringe case on topic, which truthfully, I've not heard about and don't know enough about, and two examples of business owners denying service to someone based on their sexual orientation.

To the former, I'll have to read a bit more and see what's going on.
To the latter, yes, I absolutely support and am in favor of the notion that just because you are a private business owner you cannot discriminate against customers or employees. I'm not sure what you think those links are indicating, but to me, they're examples of bigotry being fought by the law, and equal rights moving forward as bigots don't get their way.


So, just to be absolutely clear, I should be able to make a Jewish bakery bake me a totenkopf cake for April 20th?

They weren't discriminating on sexual orientation, they were refusing to participate in an event that offended them. The bakery had baked cakes for the couple before - they just couldn't in good conscience participate in a gay wedding.
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4585
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby LaserGuy » Mon Apr 07, 2014 6:33 pm UTC

Ormurinn wrote:So, just to be absolutely clear, I should be able to make a Jewish bakery bake me a totenkopf cake for April 20th?


If the bakery sells totenkopf cakes and is open for business April 20, then yes, absolutely.

Ormurinn wrote:They weren't discriminating on sexual orientation, they were refusing to participate in an event that offended them.


These two statements are functionally equivalent.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: iamspen and 18 guests