Referendums pass based on who shows up to vote, not based on some random poll. Many of the places that have established "gay marriage" have done so by the vote of judges in courts. Many of them have been small states, especially in the North East. In California and Texas (not small states) voters endorsed the traditional definition of marriage.
One of the problems with the polls showing support for "gay marriage" is that it is one of those charged issues that people may not be candid about their actual views. As a result the polls show more support than there actually is. You're correct that support for it is stronger among younger age cohorts (although I believe 75% is a little high), but it isn't clear that support will be maintained as people age and progress through the stages of life.
One of the key trends in politics is the movement by individual voters towards no party affiliation. Tech companies are starting to court both Democrats and Republicans. Even Silicon Valley is more open to Republicans than in the past which is somewhat remarkable given its proximity to one of the centers of fringe politics in America. The nearly unfettered ability of progressive Democrats in California to push through their policies should eventually cure a useful percentage of tech workers there of their current affiliation.
If you want to cross the Rubicon you should understand that it will go both ways, including against policies you favor. It would be just as easy to fire those engineers and replace them. There are plenty of skilled engineers looking for jobs.
Thirty four states have passed laws or constitutional amendments by referendum that define marriage between a man and a woman, maintaining the traditional definition. I doubt that the technical community is uniform in its opinion about this across the country.
The Declaration of Independence is a fine document, but it isn't the Constitution, and it is the Constitution that constitutes the foundation of government. Sadly the Constitution as adopted allowed for slavery. If it hadn't it would not have passed at the time since various colonies had slavery as an institution bequeathed to them by their European founders. However the spirit of the Declaration of Independence won out in the end.
He was promoted from inside the company, and they feel that he shouldn't have been.
If he was promoted from inside the company it was because of his job performance. His detractors oppose him because of something he did that wasn't work related, on his own time.
Oh, and if you don't want your political contributions to become a big deal in the workplace, I have a couple recommendations:... The policies of a new CEO are assumed, with reason, to be the intended policies of the company.
That is BS. The political contribution he made were personal, unrelated to the company. Nobody could reasonably confuse the two - his personal contributions and what the company policy was. If he had Mozilla make contributions as a corporate entity that is a different question.
A few thousand dollars publicly and visibly donated to a very controversial, discriminatory cause? Well, that's going to grab some attention. It still won't make headlines though, unless people have reason to believe you're in a position to discriminate against others going forward. See #1...
In other words, people should only contribute to the causes that you personally approve of. Besides that, company officers aren't government officials.
If you really want that to stick that could be bad news for a lot of companies. Apple, for example, has a gay CEO. Should Apple then be boycotted?
They are conducting a media campaign to have the CEO removed one way or another. If they were just trying to convince him they would send an email. They are trying to inflame the public against him and bring political pressure, perhaps to influence the board of directors to remove him.
In the case of slavery you are removing the right of the slave owners and giving new rights to the slave so it isn't that simple. Also, slavery actually isn't a question of skin color but of legal status. There were white slaves, and sentencing one to slavery was an available legal punishment in the judicial system in various places in the US.
Gay people already literally did have the same rights as other people, and they aren't happy about that. They want something different.
Saves didn't have a right to be free under the written law, so there was no infringement. The rules, laws, and customs governing sex and family have many repercussions in society, including what is taught in schools, and how government prioritizes various rights. Your claim is false.
It's pretty obvious. In the future, people opposed to gay rights today are going to be seen similarly to those who fought against civil rights in the 60s.
You didn't mention which "60s" you're referring to, the 1860s or the 1960s. I have little doubt you're thinking of the 1960s, but the future is an uncertain thing. They may be seen like the people in the 1850s and 1860s that opposed the right of other Americans to own slaves, a right reflected in the Constitution itself, opposing a right that was popular in some areas but ultimately a bad idea. When you're referring to "prejudice," make sure to consider your own.
That conduct was not connected to his job. But if you want to start penalizing private political activity not connected to the job, that can cut the other way too. ACLU members? Fired. GLAAD members? Fired. Get the drift? Are you sure you want to go there?
Russia is upset about US + EU's reaction to them taking over the Crimea, and this is mainly just another form of counter-sanction propaganda. China is backing Russia over Crimea. (Because they have a similar idea for some Japanese owned islands as well as other territory.)
It's a bigger problem than just that. There are multiple systems for mapping various foreign names into English, and many variant spellings. Then there are what you could refer to as a "fully qualified name" that may not map well into the first-middle-last convention in many places in European languages. In some areas the full name could include things like tribe and/or clan, geographic designations, additional honorifics, and other possibilities. The same person could use multiple names depending on what was selected from the full name.
This is apparently news to you, but there are national security incidents and problems besides the events of 9/11/2001.
But if you want to play that game, both Nixon and Reagan were in office twice as long as Carter and had the same number of "9/11"s. And the whole Afghanistan thing got its start under Carter, not to mention problems with Iran. So actually Carter does have a meaningful role in our current issues.
Carter condemning the surveillance, and calling the Snowden disclosures good for Americans, helps expose the "national security" lie.
No, it is just another example of the continued decline of a once mediocre president and a great former president. He has continually embarrassed himself for years now, and this is just one more example. And he wasn't that great on National Security when he was POTUS.
Slashdot Mirror
Politics, you fail it.
Referendums pass based on who shows up to vote, not based on some random poll. Many of the places that have established "gay marriage" have done so by the vote of judges in courts. Many of them have been small states, especially in the North East. In California and Texas (not small states) voters endorsed the traditional definition of marriage.
One of the problems with the polls showing support for "gay marriage" is that it is one of those charged issues that people may not be candid about their actual views. As a result the polls show more support than there actually is. You're correct that support for it is stronger among younger age cohorts (although I believe 75% is a little high), but it isn't clear that support will be maintained as people age and progress through the stages of life.
One of the key trends in politics is the movement by individual voters towards no party affiliation. Tech companies are starting to court both Democrats and Republicans. Even Silicon Valley is more open to Republicans than in the past which is somewhat remarkable given its proximity to one of the centers of fringe politics in America. The nearly unfettered ability of progressive Democrats in California to push through their policies should eventually cure a useful percentage of tech workers there of their current affiliation.
If you want to cross the Rubicon you should understand that it will go both ways, including against policies you favor. It would be just as easy to fire those engineers and replace them. There are plenty of skilled engineers looking for jobs.
I think it's just North Korea getting back at us for all The Onion stories they have fallen for.
I think you mean, "... it's just North Korea getting back at us for all the Onion stories they have implemented as policy."
Not if the policy isn't in full effect, no.
Thirty four states have passed laws or constitutional amendments by referendum that define marriage between a man and a woman, maintaining the traditional definition. I doubt that the technical community is uniform in its opinion about this across the country.
I have two reactions to your post.
1. Poe's law
2. A quote from David Burge @iowahawkblog:
" "Government" is just a word for things we do together.
"Corporation" is just a word for things we do together voluntarily."
The Declaration of Independence is a fine document, but it isn't the Constitution, and it is the Constitution that constitutes the foundation of government. Sadly the Constitution as adopted allowed for slavery. If it hadn't it would not have passed at the time since various colonies had slavery as an institution bequeathed to them by their European founders. However the spirit of the Declaration of Independence won out in the end.
He was promoted from inside the company, and they feel that he shouldn't have been.
If he was promoted from inside the company it was because of his job performance. His detractors oppose him because of something he did that wasn't work related, on his own time.
Oh, and if you don't want your political contributions to become a big deal in the workplace, I have a couple recommendations: ... The policies of a new CEO are assumed, with reason, to be the intended policies of the company.
That is BS. The political contribution he made were personal, unrelated to the company. Nobody could reasonably confuse the two - his personal contributions and what the company policy was. If he had Mozilla make contributions as a corporate entity that is a different question.
A few thousand dollars publicly and visibly donated to a very controversial, discriminatory cause? Well, that's going to grab some attention. It still won't make headlines though, unless people have reason to believe you're in a position to discriminate against others going forward. See #1...
In other words, people should only contribute to the causes that you personally approve of. Besides that, company officers aren't government officials.
If you really want that to stick that could be bad news for a lot of companies. Apple, for example, has a gay CEO. Should Apple then be boycotted?
No, the employee is conducting a media campaign against the CEO for something he did in his personal time unrelated to his job as CEO.
I assume you think turnabout is fair play then.
They are conducting a media campaign to have the CEO removed one way or another. If they were just trying to convince him they would send an email. They are trying to inflame the public against him and bring political pressure, perhaps to influence the board of directors to remove him.
In the case of slavery you are removing the right of the slave owners and giving new rights to the slave so it isn't that simple. Also, slavery actually isn't a question of skin color but of legal status. There were white slaves, and sentencing one to slavery was an available legal punishment in the judicial system in various places in the US.
Gay people already literally did have the same rights as other people, and they aren't happy about that. They want something different.
Saves didn't have a right to be free under the written law, so there was no infringement. The rules, laws, and customs governing sex and family have many repercussions in society, including what is taught in schools, and how government prioritizes various rights. Your claim is false.
Do you have any examples of Mozilla's "highly intrusive" policies? Company by company might be fair, but not everyone everywhere without proof.
It's pretty obvious. In the future, people opposed to gay rights today are going to be seen similarly to those who fought against civil rights in the 60s.
You didn't mention which "60s" you're referring to, the 1860s or the 1960s. I have little doubt you're thinking of the 1960s, but the future is an uncertain thing. They may be seen like the people in the 1850s and 1860s that opposed the right of other Americans to own slaves, a right reflected in the Constitution itself, opposing a right that was popular in some areas but ultimately a bad idea. When you're referring to "prejudice," make sure to consider your own.
That conduct was not connected to his job. But if you want to start penalizing private political activity not connected to the job, that can cut the other way too. ACLU members? Fired. GLAAD members? Fired. Get the drift? Are you sure you want to go there?
Snowden is making more messes.
It doesn't matter much either way. Russians mastered a technology known as "fire" long ago.
Russia is upset about US + EU's reaction to them taking over the Crimea, and this is mainly just another form of counter-sanction propaganda.
China is backing Russia over Crimea. (Because they have a similar idea for some Japanese owned islands as well as other territory.)
FTFY.
Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean we aren't out to get them.
Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get us. Crimea was only the first, and unlikely to be the last.
I think it is also a bit early to have much sympathy for the new would-be overlords.
It's a bigger problem than just that. There are multiple systems for mapping various foreign names into English, and many variant spellings. Then there are what you could refer to as a "fully qualified name" that may not map well into the first-middle-last convention in many places in European languages. In some areas the full name could include things like tribe and/or clan, geographic designations, additional honorifics, and other possibilities. The same person could use multiple names depending on what was selected from the full name.
This is apparently news to you, but there are national security incidents and problems besides the events of 9/11/2001.
But if you want to play that game, both Nixon and Reagan were in office twice as long as Carter and had the same number of "9/11"s. And the whole Afghanistan thing got its start under Carter, not to mention problems with Iran. So actually Carter does have a meaningful role in our current issues.
Carter condemning the surveillance, and calling the Snowden disclosures good for Americans, helps expose the "national security" lie.
No, it is just another example of the continued decline of a once mediocre president and a great former president. He has continually embarrassed himself for years now, and this is just one more example. And he wasn't that great on National Security when he was POTUS.
That was fascinating. Thanks for posting it.
I like your thinking on that!
The stipulated period was since the Vietnam War. Do you have any of those?