So if you are part of a group that hates gay people and actively pursue and agenda of treating those people as second class human beings you have a "political view".
But if you are part of a group that opposes the aforementioned group by not wanting to work for or with them and use their services you are a "mass-mob" on a "witch-hunt".
This has consistently been the way this issue has been twisted by a large part of a the tech community. It's offensive Tea-party level logic.
If really you want to have an honest discussion about the requirements for our leaders, you may want to consider framing it in more neutral terms.
I think many people are trying to make a distinction that is different from "this opinion is a political view, this opinion makes you part of a witch hunt".
The distinction being made isn't between the different views, but between the ways people express those views. Brendan Eich holds a political view, and what he did about it was to donate money to an organization in support of it. Other people hold a different political view, and what they did about it was to try to punish someone who had expressed the first political view.
And the argument goes that donating money to organizations is a form of political speech that should be protected, not just from the government but from citizens, because the effects of "people not being able to express their political views for fear of legal or social consequences" are kind of bad. So when people try to punish people for expressing political views, we should say to them, "no, this isn't how the game should be played".
This is a complicated issue, and my own opinions on it aren't fully fleshed out (though I lean towards defending Eich). But I think it's important that both sides understand what the other side is upset about.
> Other people hold a different political view, and what they did about it was to try to punish someone who had expressed the first political view.
No, no, see. Other people hold a different political view, and what they did about it was lobby to have a major organization run by someone who doesn't express that first political view.
I know of NOBODY who wanted to "punish" Eich for his actions. I know of PLENTY who wanted to have someone tolerant running the volunteer driven organization.
> I know of NOBODY who wanted to "punish" Eich for his actions. I know of PLENTY who wanted to have someone tolerant running the volunteer driven organization.
Well it was certainly felt by Mozilla employees:
>¹ Several calls to boycotts, several petitions asking for the resignation of our CEO, demonstrations, insults, death threats, ...
>² Death threats against Mozilla employees and contributors don't count as attacks on Mozilla in your book?
I haven't seen much better logic from the other part.
It's not just a political view, they're taking away our rights!
If restricting the privileges of marriage to a group of people makes those left out "second class human beings", then the correct answer is to abolish marriage.
No, seriously. If this is truly a civil rights issue, then marriage itself (or, rather, its sanctioning by the state, with all the attendant privileges for married people and corresponding burdens on the community) is an inherently discriminatory institution. Fiscal benefits? Extended insurance? Visitation rights? Why should these privileges be enjoyed solely by married people?
You can just get married if you want to enjoy those benefits!
Yes, and gay people always had the option to marry someone of the opposite sex (in fact, many of them did). How is that a solution? Why am I required to be in a romantic/sexual relationship before I am granted my full rights?
If I am unmarried, why can't I name my cousin as a dependent for health insurance? Why can't I have my best friend immigrate to the US to be with me, instead of a spouse I don't have? What if I plan to be celibate all my life, but have strong platonic relationships? What if I am a polygamist?
The disestablishment of marriage should be the obvious conclusion to anyone who is truly approaching the issue with a concern for equality. The fact that nobody even seems to have considered it shows that, as usual, equality is just a buzzword, and this was really about a group advancing their own specific interests (and as long as they got what they wanted for themselves, screw everyone else). Which is ok, that's how politics usually works. But then, please drop the sanctimony and stop acting like you have the moral high ground. I am still paying higher taxes and getting less benefits because I do not conform to a state-sanctioned model of relationship, and you are my oppressor.
The only witch hunts are the with counts against LGBT people. There are people who want to ban mention of LGBT topics, who want to imprison LGBT people, who think those people are wrong and immoral, and think it's right to best this people up and kill them.
If you want to see a witch hunt, look at how many people treat LGBT people.
Calm down a bit. For one you're incoherent, second what you wrote can be read in two different ways which is why you're getting a whole pile of downvotes. I understand what is at stake for you here so I'll write this comment instead of downvoting you, if you want to help your cause if you're getting riled up like this then you are actually doing it a disservice.
> * if you want to help your cause if you're getting riled up like this then you are actually doing it a disservice.*
This is a common statement, but historically groups without rights have had a lot of success with arguing and fighting and pushing back. If something (being nice) is demonstratidly not effective, why should I do it?
But if you are part of a group that opposes the aforementioned group by not wanting to work for or with them and use their services you are a "mass-mob" on a "witch-hunt".
This has consistently been the way this issue has been twisted by a large part of a the tech community. It's offensive Tea-party level logic.
If really you want to have an honest discussion about the requirements for our leaders, you may want to consider framing it in more neutral terms.