Yes he is ENTITLED to his personal opinion. But he also represents as the CEO a company. So any opinion he is entitled to, can be reflected to the company he represents.
OkCupid.com was claiming that: "If individuals like Mr. Eich had their way, then roughly 8% of the relationships we’ve worked so hard to bring about would be illegal." I'm just pointing out that Prop 8. was about the legal recognition of marriages, not about the legality of homosexuality. I don't know if Mr. Eich would like to make homosexuality illegal.
Back in the days black people were not regarded as people but as property. Woman were regarded as sub-people, between adult and child (no legal rights, no voting rights, can't get a job, etc.). Our morality is evolving, and so are the laws. Being homosexual is not regarded as a medical condition anymore, but as a natural state. To limit marriage as a "man-woman" thing, it's the same as to limit marriage to "white-white", i.e. same race, because you cannot chose to be born heterosexual or homosexual. So Prop 8. is discriminating people who are born the way they are born.
1) The purposes of marriage and acceptance of that was for Progeny. Gay people cannot procreate (adoption, artificial and out of wedlock sexual relations not withstanding)
So cannot some heterosexual partners. You didn't know before of infertility or either the man or the woman? By your definition, couples should sign a binding statement to have children if they want to marry and if they not produce children after x years, they are divorced by the state.
2) Benefits that were granted by government was to allow for Families (biologically impossible with gays) to have societal support for raising children and wealth (asset) transfers to the children.
So you are not allowing gay couples to have a family and rise children? See, that is what it makes bigotry. Homosexual couples should have the same rights as any other human beings. Either the government should stay out of family planing altogether, or you have to grant every couple the same rights, regardless of their race or of their sexual orientation.
Polygamy or other plural marriages
Polygamy have other problems. There are many cases of polygamy where woman are subjugated and reduced to sex-slaves, please see the history of Mormons. Also a married couple can have multiple partners, if the married couple agrees to that kind of life. There is no law that a married couple must divorce. Just agree who is the main representative of the family, marry each other, and then you can have as many other partners as you want.
But homosexual families do not do any harm to anyone, it is just a discrimination on their sexual orientation. It's just same as if California would pass a law that would recognize only white-white marriages and not mixed race marriages.
I'm asserting? Ok, lets discriminate black people or woman again. I think anyone with a common knowledge of history should know that enough is enough now.
Your believes do not grant you a free card to discriminate people who do not share your believe. Christians can have their (in my opinion) idiotic "axioms" (like you call it), they do not have a right to pass laws that would discriminate people. You can argue what you like, Prop 8. was about discrimination, plain and simple.
It was not just his opinion. Eich donated good money for a law that would discriminate a minority. Even if Eich did not donated, but just wrote in some private blog "gay people should be discriminated by the state of California", that makes him a bigot and a not acceptable behaviour in a civilized democratic country. To call out on him is the minimum what people should do.
Sure, he have his right to voice his opinion. But people have also their right to call out on him for his bigotry. Sounds like you just like that Eich can voice his bigotry, but if people voice their disapproval of him, you write that it is intolerant.
Not April's day joke. But a little bit misrepresentation. Prop 8. was about recognition of marriage by the state of California, it was not about whether or not same-sex marriage is legal or illegal. I wouldn't go so far as to say that Eich wants gay-couples to be outlawed.
Hello there, Mozilla Firefox user. Pardon this interruption of your OkCupid experience.
Mozilla’s new CEO, Brendan Eich, is an opponent of equal rights for gay couples. We would therefore prefer that our users not use Mozilla software to access OkCupid.
Politics is normally not the business of a website, and we all know there’s a lot more wrong with the world than misguided CEOs. So you might wonder why we’re asserting ourselves today. This is why: we’ve devoted the last ten years to bringing people—all people—together. If individuals like Mr. Eich had their way, then roughly 8% of the relationships we’ve worked so hard to bring about would be illegal. Equality for gay relationships is personally important to many of us here at OkCupid. But it’s professionally important to the entire company. OkCupid is for creating love. Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure.
If you want to keep using Firefox, the link at the bottom will take you through to the site.
However, we urge you to consider different software for accessing OkCupid:
> German view of what the corporate and social hierarchy should be
Even _if_ I agree with you, you still need to show why it's bad.
> it is screwing over its workers, and German obedience and submission of authority has German workers comply.
At least Germany is not bankrupt like Italy, Spain, Portugal, the USA, and so on. And at least Germany is not enacting laws to weaken unions like it was done in the USA. Or at least the CEOs of Germany are not screw the workers like the American CEOs do. The average ratio wages of America CEOs to their workers is 354:1, compared with Germany 147:1 [1]
I agree. I compared him to a bigot, not to Hitler. But I don't think a bigot is fit to represent Mozilla as the CEO, and some of the employees of Mozilla agree and asking him to step down. He can surely still work at Mozilla, he is just unfit to represent it.
I disagree. Workers councils and unions give workers a voice in a company that they usually would not have. Without unions, and work protection laws, workers would be just like slaves to the owners of the company. And don't get me the "free market will solve it". The employer is always in a position of power of their employees, by the simple fact that there are many more workers available then companies. And with the rise of globalization, a company is free to just move to other countries. That is why we have import tax and trade agreements.
If you want to live in a country that treats their workers like in England in the industrial revolution in the 18th to 19th century, please go to China. But even there people now had enough and starting strikes.
I agree fully. I was just commenting on the current news and that some people here on Slashdot take offense that the employees of Mozilla have asked Eich to step down.
It's really funny how people can twist and construct straw man arguments. Eich supported a law that is designed to discriminate a minority. Your example is the exact opposite of the facts. It is not the users of Firefox that want to discriminate, it was Eich who supported a discrimination law.
It does not matter if it was anonymous or not. Eich knew the law about donations and that he must disclose his employer. By choosing to donate nonetheless he actively involved Mozilla in a controversial issue. If the Prop 8. was so important to Eich, then he could have chosen to leave Mozilla first and then donate, thus not involving Mozilla at all.
If you actively support laws that will discriminate a minority based on your religious believes, then, yes, in my opinion, you are a bad person. Now, don't get me wrong, I know that the majority of Christians and Jews do not support the discrimination of gay couples, but obviously Brendan Eich did. And that is the only issue here: that Eich supported a law that is designed to discriminate a minority.
Here is Prop 8. "Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." That discriminates any marriage that is between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman by the state of California. Yes there are same-sex marriage in California, as the California Council of Churches states: “By allowing the religious views of some faith communities to be imposed on all faith communities, our religious liberty has been severely eroded,” [1] Even the church itself is calling Prop 8. bigotry "Rev. Schlosser affirmed, “As faith leaders, we know that bigotry, exclusion and discrimination are not faith-based family values. We are committed to standing together for equality for all Californians, no matter how long it takes." [1]
You could rephrase it to: "Sec. x.x. Only marriage between a white man and a white woman is valid or recognized in California." Would you still be Ok with that?
I think you are misinformed. The workers voted down the UAW union at VW and not the works council. For some strange reason you need a union in the USA to form a works council (see National Labor Relations Act. My guess is the Act was enacted to strengthen unions in America, but is backfiring now because for some reason the VW workers does not want to join a union.
Also I don't understand why you think a works council is a result of "Germany's fascist and totalitarian history". Forms of a works council were introduced in 1900, by liberal owners of companies. Then the Weimar Constitution (1919) codified the works council. Under Nazi Germany works council were forbidden, and were introduced as law again in 1952.
And it's also not unique to Germany. In 1994 the EU passed the Directive (94/45/EC) on the establishment of a European Works Council (EWC). See European Works Councils. "The EWC Directive applies to companies with at least 1,000 employees within the EU and at least 150 employees in each of at least two Member States." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...
http://www.reuters.com/article... "Frank Fischer, chief executive of VW Chattanooga and manager of the plant, emphasized on Friday night that while the workers voted against the UAW they did not vote down the idea of a works council. "Throughout this process, we found great enthusiasm for the idea of an American-style works council both inside and outside our plant, " Fischer said. "Our goal continues to be to determine the best method for establishing a works council in accordance with the requirements of U. S. labor law. "
http://www.autonews.com/articl... "Now that Volkswagen workers here have turned away the UAW, labor leaders within VW are going back to the drawing board to achieve their broader goal: setting up a works council to give workers a say in corporate decisions. "
> Running this guy out of town on a rail for his political beliefs is not going to bring that world closer. Quite the opposite.
Yes, I agree. But nobody is doing that (at least not me). Calling out on him for what laws he supports will bring the world closer to a world where minorities are not discriminated anymore.
> As a customer, I can decide who I do business with. As an employee, I can decide to quit and work for someone else. And as customer or employee, I can announce my intentions. But the final decision of who is CEO rests with the owners of Mozilla Corp.
Yes, I agree. But the employees can also write their opinions about the new CEO and write about their concerns that somebody, in their opinion, is a bad choice for representing their company.
PS: I'm from Europe and maybe we differ from the social customs, but in Europe the employees have a voice in their companies, too. It's not like (maybe, I have the impression) in the USA where only the shareholders or the owners have any say in a company.
If I have to chose between a "better web" and a world where gays are not prosecuted and are not discriminated any more, then I chose the latter, thank you very much.
> So basically, because this guy doesnt enthusiastically cheer for and support gays at every opportunity, he deserves the boot?
No, because he donated to a law that would remove or prohibit benefits, right and privileges to couples only because they were born homosexual. He actively wants to discriminate a minority because of his personal believes.
> Their crocodile tears on twitter do not impress, either, as they are acting like he victimized them just by taking the job at Mozilla. Thats bullshit.
No, Mozilla employees just don't want to see Mozilla, a brand that they helped to create, be associated with someone who actively wants to discriminate a minority. They are worried that a bigot like Brendan Eich is associated with Mozilla.
Strange reactions here on Slashdot. Some "insightful" comments here were about freedom of believe, freedom of speech, intolerance, separation of work and personal believes. Let me first explain that same-sex marriage have absolutely nothing to do with religion. The point of the debate of same-sex marriage are not some pagan rituals from aeons ago, long assimilated by the Christian church, that involves a priest and some blessings. The point of same-sex marriage is the recognition of a partnership of two people by the government on the state and the federal level. In the USA there are currently 1,138 statutory provisions[1] in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. That are 1,138 benefits, right and privileges that gay couples currently cannot benefit from, because they were born like they were born!
Nobody is talking to force the church or any priest to marry same sex couples. It is only about the recognition of the union between two people so they can enjoy the same benefits, right and privileges that heterosexual couples enjoy!
Brendan Eich have all right to exercise his freedom of speech and freedom of believes by his donation to Prop 8. But you have also give the same right to the employees of Mozilla who opposes his bigotry. The definition of a bigot is someone who "strongly and unfairly dislikes other people or ideas" [2]. Nobody except Brendan Eich can know if he have this feelings against gay couples, but his actions are very clearly the actions of a bigot. How can somebody who does not strongly and unfairly dislikes same sex couples to marry donates for a law that would prohibit same sex couples to marry? (keep in mind that by marrying I mean that the state recognizes the union)
How would you feel if tomorrow a Prop 9. would be introduced that would prohibit inter-racial marriage? And if Brendan Eich would donate from his private bank account to Prop 9? Would you still be comfortable that he represents Mozilla as the new CEO? There is no difference here. Two people are forbidden to form a union only because they were born like they were born.
Again, Brendan Eich have all his rights of freedom of speech. But he represents as the CEO Mozilla, and his actions, also his private actions, are tied to Mozilla.
> Just because an individual may not support gay marriage does not mean they also hate gay people.
"I not hate black people, but black people should drink from a special sink, or should use a different entrance to bars". That is state and federal law what we are talking about, not some personal opinions. If marriage would be just a religious ceremony, then there would be no debate about gay marriage. But we are talking about the legal status of marriage, that have legal aspects, like tax breaks, property rights, etc. And laws against gay marriage are not about the religious ceremony, it's about the state and federal acknowledgement of a civil status. You are bear some people of some state and federal privileges because they are born like they are born.
> Leave marriage between individuals to the churches.
Yes, I wish. Tell that to the government. There are in the USA about 1,138 statutory provisions[1] in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. Please let your government know that you would like to abolish all of them.
Eich's respond in 2012 is not very convincing. Just replace "gay people should not allow to marry" with "black people should not allow to marry", or "Asian people should not allow to marry". The issue of gay marriage have nothing to do with religion or personal opinions. It is an issue because married couples have certain advantages under the law, like tax breaks, property rights, etc. And to support a bill that will disallow certain state granted advantages to some people only on the reason that those people are born like they are born is bigotry. Eich should apologize to support such a bill.
1. New Folder Already fixed, the dialog shows now "New Folder 1", "New Folder 2", etc 2. New Text File Fixed, see 1. 3. Rename Dialog Not fixed, behaves the same way as in the video. 4. Copy file Fixed, it says now "Paste one file" 5. Dialog Not fixed, behaves the same way as in the video. 6. Trash/delete dialog I disagree. Show the user all options in the menu, that is a good thing. But was fixed anyway. Now Shift+Menu will show "Delete". Without Shift it shows "Move to trash". Bad change. 7. Open and Edit Trashed file Fixed. 8. Trash moving/error Not fixed. 9. Trash Create new File/Folder/Rename File Not fixed.
Replace "same organism" with a common ancestor. Because to say that all live evolved from the same organism is just absurd, and is not supported by evidence. But otherwise I agree.
I don't think you know Ken Ham believes. Please watch the debate of Nye and Ham on Youtube, for example. Ham believes in the literal meaning of the creation myth. He believes that god created everything literally in 6 days and he believes that everything else in the bible is literally true, like a 6000 years old earth, Noah's flood, etc. That is absolute toxic to science and progress. If you want to see more: Ken Ham brainwashes children https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
What you present here is a deist position, that some god created the universe, but is hidden from us since then. Even a deistic position is bad for science, because that is show-stopper to the scientific investigation of where did our universe come from. If it was something supernatural, then it is by definition outside of science. IMHO a deistic position is just a god-of-the-gaps argument.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes he is ENTITLED to his personal opinion. But he also represents as the CEO a company. So any opinion he is entitled to, can be reflected to the company he represents.
OkCupid.com was claiming that: "If individuals like Mr. Eich had their way, then roughly 8% of the relationships we’ve worked so hard to bring about would be illegal." I'm just pointing out that Prop 8. was about the legal recognition of marriages, not about the legality of homosexuality. I don't know if Mr. Eich would like to make homosexuality illegal.
Back in the days black people were not regarded as people but as property. Woman were regarded as sub-people, between adult and child (no legal rights, no voting rights, can't get a job, etc.). Our morality is evolving, and so are the laws. Being homosexual is not regarded as a medical condition anymore, but as a natural state. To limit marriage as a "man-woman" thing, it's the same as to limit marriage to "white-white", i.e. same race, because you cannot chose to be born heterosexual or homosexual. So Prop 8. is discriminating people who are born the way they are born.
1) The purposes of marriage and acceptance of that was for Progeny. Gay people cannot procreate (adoption, artificial and out of wedlock sexual relations not withstanding)
So cannot some heterosexual partners. You didn't know before of infertility or either the man or the woman? By your definition, couples should sign a binding statement to have children if they want to marry and if they not produce children after x years, they are divorced by the state.
2) Benefits that were granted by government was to allow for Families (biologically impossible with gays) to have societal support for raising children and wealth (asset) transfers to the children.
So you are not allowing gay couples to have a family and rise children? See, that is what it makes bigotry. Homosexual couples should have the same rights as any other human beings. Either the government should stay out of family planing altogether, or you have to grant every couple the same rights, regardless of their race or of their sexual orientation.
Polygamy or other plural marriages
Polygamy have other problems. There are many cases of polygamy where woman are subjugated and reduced to sex-slaves, please see the history of Mormons. Also a married couple can have multiple partners, if the married couple agrees to that kind of life. There is no law that a married couple must divorce. Just agree who is the main representative of the family, marry each other, and then you can have as many other partners as you want.
But homosexual families do not do any harm to anyone, it is just a discrimination on their sexual orientation. It's just same as if California would pass a law that would recognize only white-white marriages and not mixed race marriages.
I agree, it is. I was just pointing out the facts. Nobody should distort facts.
I'm asserting? Ok, lets discriminate black people or woman again. I think anyone with a common knowledge of history should know that enough is enough now.
Your believes do not grant you a free card to discriminate people who do not share your believe. Christians can have their (in my opinion) idiotic "axioms" (like you call it), they do not have a right to pass laws that would discriminate people. You can argue what you like, Prop 8. was about discrimination, plain and simple.
It was not just his opinion. Eich donated good money for a law that would discriminate a minority. Even if Eich did not donated, but just wrote in some private blog "gay people should be discriminated by the state of California", that makes him a bigot and a not acceptable behaviour in a civilized democratic country. To call out on him is the minimum what people should do.
Sure, he have his right to voice his opinion. But people have also their right to call out on him for his bigotry. Sounds like you just like that Eich can voice his bigotry, but if people voice their disapproval of him, you write that it is intolerant.
Not April's day joke. But a little bit misrepresentation. Prop 8. was about recognition of marriage by the state of California, it was not about whether or not same-sex marriage is legal or illegal. I wouldn't go so far as to say that Eich wants gay-couples to be outlawed.
From https://www.okcupid.com/
Hello there, Mozilla Firefox user. Pardon this interruption of your OkCupid experience.
Mozilla’s new CEO, Brendan Eich, is an opponent of equal rights for gay couples. We would therefore prefer that our users not use Mozilla software to access OkCupid.
Politics is normally not the business of a website, and we all know there’s a lot more wrong with the world than misguided CEOs. So you might wonder why we’re asserting ourselves today. This is why: we’ve devoted the last ten years to bringing people—all people—together. If individuals like Mr. Eich had their way, then roughly 8% of the relationships we’ve worked so hard to bring about would be illegal. Equality for gay relationships is personally important to many of us here at OkCupid. But it’s professionally important to the entire company. OkCupid is for creating love. Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure.
If you want to keep using Firefox, the link at the bottom will take you through to the site.
However, we urge you to consider different software for accessing OkCupid:
Google Chrome Internet Exploder Opera
> German view of what the corporate and social hierarchy should be
Even _if_ I agree with you, you still need to show why it's bad.
> it is screwing over its workers, and German obedience and submission of authority has German workers comply.
At least Germany is not bankrupt like Italy, Spain, Portugal, the USA, and so on. And at least Germany is not enacting laws to weaken unions like it was done in the USA. Or at least the CEOs of Germany are not screw the workers like the American CEOs do. The average ratio wages of America CEOs to their workers is 354:1, compared with Germany 147:1 [1]
[1] http://www.aflcio.org/Corporat...
I agree. I compared him to a bigot, not to Hitler. But I don't think a bigot is fit to represent Mozilla as the CEO, and some of the employees of Mozilla agree and asking him to step down. He can surely still work at Mozilla, he is just unfit to represent it.
I disagree. Workers councils and unions give workers a voice in a company that they usually would not have. Without unions, and work protection laws, workers would be just like slaves to the owners of the company. And don't get me the "free market will solve it". The employer is always in a position of power of their employees, by the simple fact that there are many more workers available then companies. And with the rise of globalization, a company is free to just move to other countries. That is why we have import tax and trade agreements.
If you want to live in a country that treats their workers like in England in the industrial revolution in the 18th to 19th century, please go to China. But even there people now had enough and starting strikes.
I agree fully. I was just commenting on the current news and that some people here on Slashdot take offense that the employees of Mozilla have asked Eich to step down.
It's really funny how people can twist and construct straw man arguments. Eich supported a law that is designed to discriminate a minority. Your example is the exact opposite of the facts. It is not the users of Firefox that want to discriminate, it was Eich who supported a discrimination law.
It does not matter if it was anonymous or not. Eich knew the law about donations and that he must disclose his employer. By choosing to donate nonetheless he actively involved Mozilla in a controversial issue. If the Prop 8. was so important to Eich, then he could have chosen to leave Mozilla first and then donate, thus not involving Mozilla at all.
If you actively support laws that will discriminate a minority based on your religious believes, then, yes, in my opinion, you are a bad person. Now, don't get me wrong, I know that the majority of Christians and Jews do not support the discrimination of gay couples, but obviously Brendan Eich did. And that is the only issue here: that Eich supported a law that is designed to discriminate a minority.
Here is Prop 8.
"Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
That discriminates any marriage that is between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman by the state of California. Yes there are same-sex marriage in California, as the California Council of Churches states: “By allowing the religious views of some faith communities to be imposed on all faith communities, our religious liberty has been severely eroded,” [1]
Even the church itself is calling Prop 8. bigotry
"Rev. Schlosser affirmed, “As faith leaders, we know that bigotry, exclusion and discrimination are not faith-based family values. We are committed to standing together for equality for all Californians, no matter how long it takes." [1]
[1] http://www.webcitation.org/que...
You could rephrase it to:
"Sec. x.x. Only marriage between a white man and a white woman is valid or recognized in California."
Would you still be Ok with that?
I think you are misinformed. The workers voted down the UAW union at VW and not the works council. For some strange reason you need a union in the USA to form a works council (see National Labor Relations Act. My guess is the Act was enacted to strengthen unions in America, but is backfiring now because for some reason the VW workers does not want to join a union.
Also I don't understand why you think a works council is a result of "Germany's fascist and totalitarian history". Forms of a works council were introduced in 1900, by liberal owners of companies. Then the Weimar Constitution (1919) codified the works council. Under Nazi Germany works council were forbidden, and were introduced as law again in 1952.
And it's also not unique to Germany. In 1994 the EU passed the Directive (94/45/EC) on the establishment of a European Works Council (EWC). See European Works Councils. "The EWC Directive applies to companies with at least 1,000 employees within the EU and at least 150 employees in each of at least two Member States." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...
http://www.reuters.com/article...
"Frank Fischer, chief executive of VW Chattanooga and manager of the plant, emphasized on Friday night that while the workers voted against the UAW they did not vote down the idea of a works council. "Throughout this process, we found great enthusiasm for the idea of an American-style works council both inside and outside our plant, " Fischer said. "Our goal continues to be to determine the best method for establishing a works council in accordance with the requirements of U. S. labor law. "
http://www.autonews.com/articl...
"Now that Volkswagen workers here have turned away the UAW, labor leaders within VW are going back to the drawing board to achieve their broader goal: setting up a works council to give workers a say in corporate decisions. "
> Running this guy out of town on a rail for his political beliefs is not going to bring that world closer. Quite the opposite.
Yes, I agree. But nobody is doing that (at least not me). Calling out on him for what laws he supports will bring the world closer to a world where minorities are not discriminated anymore.
> As a customer, I can decide who I do business with. As an employee, I can decide to quit and work for someone else. And as customer or employee, I can announce my intentions. But the final decision of who is CEO rests with the owners of Mozilla Corp.
Yes, I agree. But the employees can also write their opinions about the new CEO and write about their concerns that somebody, in their opinion, is a bad choice for representing their company.
PS: I'm from Europe and maybe we differ from the social customs, but in Europe the employees have a voice in their companies, too. It's not like (maybe, I have the impression) in the USA where only the shareholders or the owners have any say in a company.
If I have to chose between a "better web" and a world where gays are not prosecuted and are not discriminated any more, then I chose the latter, thank you very much.
> So basically, because this guy doesnt enthusiastically cheer for and support gays at every opportunity, he deserves the boot?
No, because he donated to a law that would remove or prohibit benefits, right and privileges to couples only because they were born homosexual. He actively wants to discriminate a minority because of his personal believes.
> Their crocodile tears on twitter do not impress, either, as they are acting like he victimized them just by taking the job at Mozilla. Thats bullshit.
No, Mozilla employees just don't want to see Mozilla, a brand that they helped to create, be associated with someone who actively wants to discriminate a minority. They are worried that a bigot like Brendan Eich is associated with Mozilla.
Strange reactions here on Slashdot. Some "insightful" comments here were about freedom of believe, freedom of speech, intolerance, separation of work and personal believes. Let me first explain that same-sex marriage have absolutely nothing to do with religion. The point of the debate of same-sex marriage are not some pagan rituals from aeons ago, long assimilated by the Christian church, that involves a priest and some blessings. The point of same-sex marriage is the recognition of a partnership of two people by the government on the state and the federal level. In the USA there are currently 1,138 statutory provisions[1] in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. That are 1,138 benefits, right and privileges that gay couples currently cannot benefit from, because they were born like they were born!
Nobody is talking to force the church or any priest to marry same sex couples. It is only about the recognition of the union between two people so they can enjoy the same benefits, right and privileges that heterosexual couples enjoy!
Brendan Eich have all right to exercise his freedom of speech and freedom of believes by his donation to Prop 8. But you have also give the same right to the employees of Mozilla who opposes his bigotry. The definition of a bigot is someone who "strongly and unfairly dislikes other people or ideas" [2]. Nobody except Brendan Eich can know if he have this feelings against gay couples, but his actions are very clearly the actions of a bigot. How can somebody who does not strongly and unfairly dislikes same sex couples to marry donates for a law that would prohibit same sex couples to marry? (keep in mind that by marrying I mean that the state recognizes the union)
How would you feel if tomorrow a Prop 9. would be introduced that would prohibit inter-racial marriage? And if Brendan Eich would donate from his private bank account to Prop 9? Would you still be comfortable that he represents Mozilla as the new CEO? There is no difference here. Two people are forbidden to form a union only because they were born like they were born.
Again, Brendan Eich have all his rights of freedom of speech. But he represents as the CEO Mozilla, and his actions, also his private actions, are tied to Mozilla.
[1] http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d...
[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
> Just because an individual may not support gay marriage does not mean they also hate gay people.
"I not hate black people, but black people should drink from a special sink, or should use a different entrance to bars". That is state and federal law what we are talking about, not some personal opinions. If marriage would be just a religious ceremony, then there would be no debate about gay marriage. But we are talking about the legal status of marriage, that have legal aspects, like tax breaks, property rights, etc. And laws against gay marriage are not about the religious ceremony, it's about the state and federal acknowledgement of a civil status. You are bear some people of some state and federal privileges because they are born like they are born.
> Leave marriage between individuals to the churches.
Yes, I wish. Tell that to the government. There are in the USA about 1,138 statutory provisions[1] in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. Please let your government know that you would like to abolish all of them.
[1] http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d...
Eich's respond in 2012 is not very convincing. Just replace "gay people should not allow to marry" with "black people should not allow to marry", or "Asian people should not allow to marry". The issue of gay marriage have nothing to do with religion or personal opinions. It is an issue because married couples have certain advantages under the law, like tax breaks, property rights, etc. And to support a bill that will disallow certain state granted advantages to some people only on the reason that those people are born like they are born is bigotry. Eich should apologize to support such a bill.
1. New Folder
Already fixed, the dialog shows now "New Folder 1", "New Folder 2", etc
2. New Text File
Fixed, see 1.
3. Rename Dialog
Not fixed, behaves the same way as in the video.
4. Copy file
Fixed, it says now "Paste one file"
5. Dialog
Not fixed, behaves the same way as in the video.
6. Trash/delete dialog
I disagree. Show the user all options in the menu, that is a good thing. But was fixed anyway. Now Shift+Menu will show "Delete". Without Shift it shows "Move to trash". Bad change.
7. Open and Edit Trashed file
Fixed.
8. Trash moving/error
Not fixed.
9. Trash Create new File/Folder/Rename File
Not fixed.
Replace "same organism" with a common ancestor. Because to say that all live evolved from the same organism is just absurd, and is not supported by evidence. But otherwise I agree.
I don't think you know Ken Ham believes. Please watch the debate of Nye and Ham on Youtube, for example. Ham believes in the literal meaning of the creation myth. He believes that god created everything literally in 6 days and he believes that everything else in the bible is literally true, like a 6000 years old earth, Noah's flood, etc. That is absolute toxic to science and progress. If you want to see more: Ken Ham brainwashes children https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
What you present here is a deist position, that some god created the universe, but is hidden from us since then. Even a deistic position is bad for science, because that is show-stopper to the scientific investigation of where did our universe come from. If it was something supernatural, then it is by definition outside of science. IMHO a deistic position is just a god-of-the-gaps argument.