Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Or they have principles?

[Leafsnail]

Ok, so any company that appoint someone that ever gave to a anti-gay political campaign is worthy of boycott?

Sure.  Realistically that wouldn't be achievable right now (it only worked in this case because of the relatively liberal tech industry and their customers), but it would be great if opposition to gay marriage became that socially unacceptable.

Again, compare to anti-miscegenation laws.  If someone donated to a cause supporting those you can bet they'd receive a huge backlash.

[Frumple]

Plenty of people boycott a company for considerably more trivial things *shrugs*

The only one who gets to decide if a company is "worthy" of boycott is the person deciding to no longer do business/interact with them. I've seen local level shit because a business hired someone distantly related to someone other people didn't like.

[Loud Whispers]

Plenty of people boycott a company for considerably more trivial things *shrugs*

Cadburys sold out. Cadburys never again.

[Cheeetar]

Except surely all a boycott says is "We are uncomfortable supporting this man's life by using or supporting products which directly and significantly benefit him through our usage, so we are no longer using or supporting the use of those products".

Here's the thing I think you're not getting, at least about my problem with this. This wasn't a boycott. Companies specifically inserted code to refuse to let other people use the product and enjoy their services.

People not only said 'I don't like this guy and what he does, so I'm not going to use his product... but I'm going to take active measure to prevent other people from using his product too.

Uh... you do know that people with Firefox could still use the site, right? It just displayed a message about it. Not exactly a denial of service.

[misko27]

My Opinion: Reality ensues.

People are allowed to boycott for whatever arbitrary reason they please. People, right now, can boycott Google because they think it is run by the Jewish Bankers. Everyone in the world could do this at once, and there is nothing the government would be in it's rights to do to stop it. You saw an employee with red hair, which you hate? Boycott if you want. There is no fairness to this, and literally no way of stopping it. Ultimately you must accept that bias exists and there is nothing you can even claim as legitimate complaint beyond a lecture at society in general for producing the opinion.

Now, two: Mozilla is entirely within it's rights to respond to the boycott, reasonable or not, by dismissing a chief executive. Now, mind, Corporations can get boycotts in any direction: they can boycotted for or against any issue, even something as arbitrary as having a redheaded employee, and they realize this. It is their right to respond to this as they see fit; in the case of a boycott because of a redhead, they will likely feel they are in the right and keep him. This dynamic is altered by the right of an employee to work without discrimination (such as the poor redhead); but vocally expressed political views are already precariously close to the line, even more so in the case of a public image clause in the job. Being a CEO, or many other head and/or public position, pushes over altogether; you cannot disassociate who you are and what you believe in from what you do. You are a public image first and foremost, and your right to speak your mind is now limited by reality; put another way, if you are failing at your job because of your views (or your history mind, reality is that that doesn't change anything), your boss can and will fire you.

[Tack]

Things

[Arx]

Ooh, while we're on this inflammatory subject:

I work as a disability carer, and this little gem came up:
A client (full assistance) found out that his carer was gay. The client was a religious fundamentalist, and asked if he could have a different carer. This was discrimination, the client got in big trouble.
Right or Wrong?

If he was a devout Thai monk with a female carer and he asked for a change because of his beliefs, would you have done the same thing?
If yes, then it may be discrimination but it isn't as bad as it could be.
If no, then it is... pretty bad. (You kicked up a fuss over his religion being discriminatory but you wouldn't have cared if it was a different religion and a different type of discrimination).

[Graknorke]

The employee who was in charge of the company yes

What is a board of directors.

My Opinion: Reality ensues.

Just because people can do something doesn't make it a bad thing.

[Putnam]

The employee who was in charge of the company yes

What is a board of directors.

The employee who is in charge of carrying out the decisions of the company yes

seriously, it's like the difference between legislative bodies and head of government

[Sheb]

No one denied they shouldn't have a right to boycott. Of course people can boycott for whatever reasons they want. But just like freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences, freedom to boycott is not freedom from criticism. People have a right to pressure Firefox into getting rid of their CEO, we have a right to criticize their boycotts.

Also, given the anti-gay position of almost every single GOP candidate, do you think anyone that ever gave to the GOP should be kicked out of office?

[MorleyDev]

Well politicians we already have a system for that: You don't vote for them.

Really, the discussion is just going to go in circles depending on whether you feel being a leading figurehead in a company who holds views and takes action on those views that many are viewing as violations of civil rights in this centuries equivalent of race segregation in the 20th century is enough for people to be uncomfortable enough to justify a boycott of that company.

Some people will, some people won't, and after 13 pages I doubt we'll make much more progress than that.

[BlindKitty]

Well, I'm currently looking for a browser to replace my old Opera 16, which is no longer supported. I don't want to use anything Google-based as long as I can help it, so I was leaning towards Firefox. Right now I'm sure of one thing - no more Firefox for me. I might even resort to using Chrome, if desperate, but I will surely never use a browser by company that gives in for gay propaganda. I can see that some most of you would think exactly other way 'round; that's all fine and dandy. If a company declares itself on one or another side of some world-view conflict, it should be expected that it will receive support from one side and boycott from the other. But there are two things I would like to notice here:
1. Yes, business is all about money, with no moral implications whatsoever. Of course, people can boycott immoral business, thus making it earn less money and turn more moral...  To earn more censored money. If you want your own company to follow some guidelines, that's OK. If you want companies that make stuff you buy follow the same guidelines - hard luck. Don't buy their stuff if you don't like them, but there is no inherent reason for business to follow any sort of moral guidelines.
2. I think that person should be allowed to do whatever they want. I don't understand so-called anti-discrimination laws, that lead to crazy results. If a business owner doesn't want to hire black people, or Polish people, or women, or whoever else, nobody should force him to do that. But you can stop buying there, if you don't like it. That's simple and effective way to make everybody happy, because if somebody is unacceptable to other people, he will be driven out of business. Why make government intervene*?

*Mind you, government itself might need some form of such laws (see: slave states). It's just that I don't really see the difference between prosecuting racists and members of a race. Let live and let live, and hang the criminals.

[kaenneth]

2. I think that person should be allowed to do whatever they want. I don't understand so-called anti-discrimination laws, that lead to crazy results. If a business owner doesn't want to hire black people, or Polish people, or women, or whoever else, nobody should force him to do that. But you can stop buying there, if you don't like it. That's simple and effective way to make everybody happy, because if somebody is unacceptable to other people, he will be driven out of business. Why make government intervene*?

*Mind you, government itself might need some form of such laws (see: slave states). It's just that I don't really see the difference between prosecuting racists and members of a race. Let live and let live, and hang the criminals.

Because so many businesses are effectively extensions of the government; like all the communications monopolies Cable/Telephone/TV Stations; companies that do business with the government (janitorial/printing/construction contractors, etc); or businesses that the govt. and those companies depend on indirectly, such as restaurants their employees eat at.

[Sergarr]

Well, I'm currently looking for a browser to replace my old Opera 16, which is no longer supported. I don't want to use anything Google-based as long as I can help it, so I was leaning towards Firefox. Right now I'm sure of one thing - no more Firefox for me. I might even resort to using Chrome, if desperate, but I will surely never use a browser by company that gives in for gay propaganda. I can see that some most of you would think exactly other way 'round; that's all fine and dandy. If a company declares itself on one or another side of some world-view conflict, it should be expected that it will receive support from one side and boycott from the other. But there are two things I would like to notice here:
1. Yes, business is all about money, with no moral implications whatsoever. Of course, people can boycott immoral business, thus making it earn less money and turn more moral...  To earn more censored money. If you want your own company to follow some guidelines, that's OK. If you want companies that make stuff you buy follow the same guidelines - hard luck. Don't buy their stuff if you don't like them, but there is no inherent reason for business to follow any sort of moral guidelines.
2. I think that person should be allowed to do whatever they want. I don't understand so-called anti-discrimination laws, that lead to crazy results. If a business owner doesn't want to hire black people, or Polish people, or women, or whoever else, nobody should force him to do that. But you can stop buying there, if you don't like it. That's simple and effective way to make everybody happy, because if somebody is unacceptable to other people, he will be driven out of business. Why make government intervene*?

*Mind you, government itself might need some form of such laws (see: slave states). It's just that I don't really see the difference between prosecuting racists and members of a race. Let live and let live, and hang the criminals.

I don't think a program can be anti-gay.