I agree totally with knowitsfalse. Obama was against it too at that time. But this guy gets ousted. Forced out, right? Sad that freedom of speech is dead. Feel sorry for all men and women who can not tolerate another's views different from your own.

I am a teacher and we certainly DO NOT teach that all must agree with their teacher's view or the Governor's view or the President's view. Here so many seem to think that type of 'teaching' is the way it should go. Listen to yourselves!!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/05/2014 10:32AM by honestone.

Those of your opinion must stop saying that "freedom of speech is dead". This case actually shows that freedom of speech is alive. Mr. Eich is speaking freely, as are the protestors that seem responsible for his being ousted, as are the reporters telling us the story, as are we talking about it. This is definitely not a case of curtailed free speech. Remember, no where in the constitution does it say we are free from the consequences of our speech.

But I do see the concern your view is trying to articulate. Andrew Sullivan is expressing (freely) the same view:

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/04/04/brandon-eich-and-hillary-clinton/

Will the LGBT community support Hillary Clinton in 2016 should she choose to run? If so, is that hypocrisy? It's a good question. Let's keep in mind that Hillary recanted while Eich did not.

Personally, I'm conflicted. The Soviet-style *thought purity* we see in politics disturbs me terribly. But on the other hand, I see collective protest against corporations as one of the last ways we as individuals can effectively 'have our say.'

This lying about Democratic records in 2008 is disgusting. No major Democratic leader supported Prop 8. It was a campaign based on antigay hate.

There is a huge difference between not supporting gay marriage and campaigning to ban it.

Here is more evidence that Democrats fought against Prop 8. Don't give me this crap that the Clintons are on the same level as this hater.

http://blogs.dailynews.com/outinhollywood/2008/10/31/bill-clintons-no-on-prop-8-mes/

axeldc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This lying about Democratic records in 2008 is
> disgusting.


Just to be clear, I did not lie about the Democratic record. I'm not sure if you were addressing that to me personally.

My concern, besides pointing out the canard about free speech being dead, is much broader. Here's Andrew Sullivan's question:


"But it’s worth considering some consistency here. If it is unconscionable to support a company whose CEO once donated to the cause against marriage equality, why is it not unconscionable to support a candidate who opposed marriage equality as recently as 2008, and who was an integral part of an administration that embraced the Defense Of Marriage Act, signed into law by Bill Clinton? How do you weigh the relative impact of a president strongly backing DOMA – even running ads touting his support for it in the South – and an executive who spent $1000 for an anti-marriage equality Proposition?"


I share in Sullivan's concern when he concludes:

"Human beings are complicated and flawed – gays as well as straights; and a liberal civil society does not attempt to impose on all of them a single moral code, or consign large numbers of them to the “bigot” category because they may be laggards in a civil rights cause. That way lies madness. And the end of a liberal and tolerant society. If you can forgive the Clintons, you should be able to forgive Eich. And have a little magnanimity and restraint before you snatch moral defeat from the jaws of political victory."


If the LGBT community goes after Eich for not being ideologically pure enough, based upon a $1000 donation six or so years ago, who is next, and for what? I ask that question fully believing in the act of organizing and putting pressure on politicians and corporations. So, as I said, I'm conflicted.

No matter our views on this matter, for or against or something else, we should not pretend that there isn't a slippery slope looming rather largely here.

Human

I know of no person who takes Andrew Sullivan seriously.

He is a pawn of the conservative, straight old-guard.

sonoma Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I know of no person who takes Andrew Sullivan
> seriously.
>
> He is a pawn of the conservative, straight
> old-guard.


Perhaps you could address what he said rather than Andrew Sullivan as a person?

No one asked you what you thought of Andrew Sullivan as a person, nor is it relevant.

Obama never supported Prop 8.

I don't know how else to explain that to you or Sullivan.

Obama opposed Prop 8 in 2008.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Obama-opposes-proposed-ban-on-gay-marriage-3278328.php

Stop lying about Obama's record.

Honestone: Actually, YOU get the facts right.

http://huff.to/9NsFOf

In 1996 when asked about gay marriage, state legislator, Barack Obama said

"I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages." There was no use of the phrase "civil unions". [Outlines purchased Windy City Times in 2000 and merged companies.]"

That's in 1996. As to why he's "evolving" about it later? Why make the election about a social issue when the economy was in the gutter?

Seriously, don't be so comfortable being ignorant (and proud of it from the looks of your post).



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/05/2014 11:17AM by newcomer.

Oh please you obviously do not recall his statements in his run for president. Look it up.

Freedom of speech is not the same thing as freedom from consequence. Not a single person is taking this person's right to speak or to express himself.

Besides, don't consumers have the right to express themselves as well?

Also, freedom of speech only applies when the government attempts to stifle speech, not when people stop using a product.

you took the words right out of my mouth!

Are the planets aligned or something? it is not often that we agree. :)

I was thinking that when I typed my response lol. See, even snb and I can get along!

Same game, different story. Chick-fil-a, duck dynasty, have we learned nothing yet?

These people all had the freedom of speech to say what they wanted and believe what they wanted, but that does not mean there won't be consequences for their actions. How hard is that to understand?

It shouldn't be hard to understand, but for some reason it is.

At the same time, consumers have the ability to express themselves as well. They do it with their wallet. Nobody's freedom of speech is being stifled here.

It isn't hard to understand and the people spoke about Chick Fil A and Duck Dynasty didn't they?

Obama stated a personal belief that gay marriage is wrong, but he did not support passing laws to prohibit it. This is an ideal in a free society. A personal belief governed the person, not the rest of society. Obama's position allowed for people to live in opposition to his personal belief. Again, something that needs to happen in a free society.

rendan Eich actively fought against my right to marry. He tried to force his personal beliefs on me, something that should not happen in a free society.

In a secular society, we need to there needs to be a compelling need to take away the rights of others, not just a personal opinion. Obama got it right.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/05/2014 11:51AM by MJ.

How scary is it that Honestone is a teacher, yet doesn't even understand Freedom of Speech.

With teachers like these...

I was thinking the same thing. Honestone should have kept that little tidbit private

And you said nothing of my comment about tolerance. Typical from someone who appears to just want to bash someone rather than ask about my teaching and how I promote tolerance. Got a raving review from my Democrat administrators, I might add, for this yr. Yes, the evals are done for us postprobationary teachers.

How do I know they are Dems...one is on the city council as well.
And Tupperware that was quite a snarky and rather strange remark. Keep the tidbit that I am a teacher, private. Are you not one who likes teachers? Guess you had to think of something to say.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/05/2014 01:03PM by honestone.

I don't tolerate bigots.

Neither do I!!!

Then why have you spent this thread defending a bigot from having to pay the price for his ACTIONS?

And your administrators obviously did not ask you to define Freedom of Speech.

I'm really not trying to bash you. Maybe I misunderstood. I read your OP again. So you agree with knowsitsfalse, but in the classroom you don't teach that. If that is true then I commend you. You are keeping your personal views out of your public life/job. So why is it so hard for you to realize that by the firefox guy giving money to an anti-gay group is really not separating his own beliefs from representing an entire company? Summer summed it up well. The game changes when you go from stating your opinion, to giving money to further a cause. You are entitled to your own beliefs. Everyone is, but like everyone else has said, there are consequences too. If you give money to a hate group and then wonder why you're hated....I applaud you for keeping things separated if that's what you're really doing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/05/2014 01:11PM by Tupperwhere.

This has nothing to do with free speech. What this has to do with is the anonymous online unthinking bullying mob, with a generous sprinkling of hyperbole. One well known celebrity blogger was glad that gay employees of Mozilla no longer had to work in a hateful environment. This, despite Mozilla having offered benefits to same sex partners for a very long time.

I take it that some people on this board, as TBMs, would have campaigned and spoken out against gay rights at some point. I really hope you never lose your job and get threatened due to your "hateful" past.

Don't worry your little bigotry-addled mind. Chances that you'll ever be asked to be CEO of a major US Corporation are, I'm guessing, ZERO.

Mormons are racist, sexist, and homophobic, because the doctrine that they uphold is racist, sexist and homophobic. If Mormons and exmormons have to pay for their actions at some point in the future, it's their own fault. No one forced them to believe and support bigotry.

Thanks for proving my point exactly. You've decided to make assumptions and then go on the attack making false accusations. You don't know if I'm a man or a woman, gay or straight, an exmo, a TBM or a nevermo. You also don't know my employment status but have decided that I'm unemployable at board level.

That's exactly how internet bullying works. I'm now labelled a bigot. Oh dear, how sad, never mind. :)

When I am the CEO of a company, I will take your post to heart. I don't have a social responsibility as a lowly employee but I expect my bosses to