I see you're pushing this nonsensical argument over and over again.

Correctly, and your intolerance of it demonstrates the need for people to educate you.

It's not bigotry. It's a boycott against what is tantamount to hypocrisy.

You really need to look up the definitions of the words you are using.

From bigotry & bigot respectively:

1: the state of mind of a bigot

2: acts or beliefs characteristic of a bigot

Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

In addition to your not knowing the meaning of the word 'bigotry'... you clearly also do not understand the definition of the word hypocrisy, allow me to assist again:

HYPOCRISY

1: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion

2: an act or instance of hypocrisy

Unless Brendan Eich went out and got married to someone of the same sex... I'm quite unclear as to how he meets that description.

But then... this is the hypocrisy we usually see from the left who will scream: "____ is bad!!!" ... except for when they do it. in this case, ____ == blacklisting.

Until you can address the above two points, I'm not going to waste more time replying to someone who clearly does not have their head on straight.

He wasn't fired, he chose to resign as it was in the best interests of Mozilla.

I'm confused then... when an executive asks for the resignation of someone under their umbrella... is that person being fired or not?

While on paper they 'resigned'... it's quite clear they were forced either:

1. Decide to spend more time with their family and reflecting on life and leave now with their 'dignity' intact, or
2. Be escorted by security out of the building immediately.

You are really going to claim there is a difference other than the ability to say "No" to the question "Were you fired from your previous job?" ?

If you vote for the modern republican party in the united states(at the national level), you are actively engaged in using your limited power to harm others, and there's not really any excuse I've heard for the behavior.

Such intolerance!

Call me crazy... but it was a whole slew of people voting for Democrats back in 2008 which caused me to lose my very high quality health insurance policy thanks to their unilateral passage of the so called 'Affordable Care Act'

Now then... which party is seeking to harm me again?

Opposing views to basic human rights? Yeah, it is really chilling to attack those.

I take it you feel the same way about laws which seek to diminish the second amendment which in part codifies the basic human right of self-defense?

Denying rights isn't worse? Wow.

Do you really want to play that game?

His $1000 donation did not deny anyone anything, it did however assist an organization which could be seen to try to 'deny rights'... that group and it's side lost.

Instead, we have a group of sour winners lashing out against not only those who lost, but the (previous) supporters of those who lost, even seeking to deny them the rights.

Based on the previous decisions of the Mozilla board, based on his work history, Eich had every right to be CEO of the foundation... a right that he has now been stripped of based on this mob mentality.

Would you call it "just an opposing view" if it were something else?

Unlike same sex marriage proponents who call it a 'right' that they are being 'denied'... they do not face criminal prosecution for them living their lives within the current system.

I however am in a community that has politicians from time to time trying to crack down on, even criminalizing previously legal activity or objects which centuries of legal precedent has codified as an explicit right that shall not be infringed.

So while I am a much bigger target for much more hostile politicians... yes, I call it 'just an opposing view' and work to defeat them at the ballot box every 2-4 years as well as in-between.

What if he had said, "blacks don't deserve the right to vote"?

When?

*If* he'd said it in the 1840's... that'd be a pretty common view and chances are I wouldn't care much... but then there would also be the issue of how I would know he said it.

*If* he said that last week... I'd put him in the same category I do the KKK, Democrat party and NAMBLA... groups I am not going to do any business with... but not waste my time to advertise that fact, figuring they will do a good enough job of it themselves.

...Keep your political views well hidden

How well hidden is enough?

Clearly donations are out as the pro-Prop 8 donor list was leaked/stolen which is part of the reason for this bigotry of differing opinions.

Even filling in the oval on the ballot could come back and haunt you depending on how your ballot is treated and if it can be linked to you (here in Washington State, it's a trivial matter)).

you plan to head up an organisation that is sensitive as to how it is perceived by a cross-section of society.

I don't know about you, I don't know which groups I might be heading in 6 years, or 60 for that matter... best to just stop voting, donating money or having opinions that someone somewhere might find offensive... unless that too is considered offensive.

Didn't you get the memo? Your right to protest or have a contradictory view is only protected if it is accepted by a big enough mob or those in power.

Disagree? The IRS will be auditing you shortly...

its not wrong to be intolerant of intolerance.

Then at least acknowledge that the boycott push was an act of active and outright bigotry when Eich had (past tense) done something that some might see as intolerant, the response to him was far far worse than anything he'd done... and worse sets a chilling prescient for future attacks on those who dare to hold an opposing view.

I am aware that 2012 R2 is a distinct SKU from 2012 and that unlike 8.1 it is not available through the built in store.

That doesn't automatically mean that there is a cost to upgrade.

Software assurance, volume licensing, many options exist to get the next version effectively for 'free'... it just depends on how the original version was acquired, and a surprising number of server licenses are not licensed as one offs, but instead of something larger.

Of course the other side of the coin is the question of "do I really need R2"? And the answer for many is surprisingly no, even though there is quite a bit of goodness inside. Heck, I've a server running 2012 which I've not yet seen reason to upgrade yet as for the time being, it is doing exactly what it was built to do, host a good # of VMs.

What about all us fools who installed server 2012, and can't upgrade to 2012 R2 without paying another 1400 bucks?

What makes you think you can't upgrade to 2012 R2 without paying $1400?

Well until the Supreme Court says employers can shove their religious beliefs onto their employees.

Somehow I doubt SCOTUS saying that Hobby Lobby paying for 16 different birth control drugs but not having to pay for 4 others will constitute shoving 'their religious beliefs onto their employees'.

Holding opinion != advocating opinion

If the (now) CEO had simply held his opinion that he was opposed to same sex marriage... no one at Mozilla or elsewhere would know... but because he dared to put his money where his quiet mouth was... he is to be damned!

So too goes for those employees who think that he is unfit to serve... those who stay silent are ok... but those who speak out in opposition to him publically are to be damned!

First, there has been no decision on that case, only arguments. As to whether contraception is a civil rights issue, it sounds like that depends which gender you are.

At the SCOTUS level yes... but the lower court rulings do make for interesting reading (if you are into that sort of thing ((which I am)) as they tend to be part of what a final ruling is based on (yes, in part).

Based on how you phrased that, it is obvious where your own personal bias lies.

So you read from my statement that I don't think the federal government has any role in compelling an employer to provide much of anything to their employees other than wages & benefits that have been negotiated between the employer and employee? Wow, I didn't think I was being that transparent.

So, allow me to point out that no, the government is not currently compelling employers to pay for medication. The corporation has the choice to not provide insurance for their employees, and instead pay the fine.

You are attempting to split hairs. The penalty/tax is there to compel more and more businesses to provide coverage (and said medication), and over time will likely go up to compel more employers to pick the cheaper of the two options.

The justices noted that this is their choice, and that in fact the fine is less than the cost of insurance.

Today, one also highlighted that if an employer can be compelled today to provide certain (what the employer deems to be) abortion inducing drugs, what stops the government from also compelling outright abortion coverage?

You've called them "private individuals", but that is not correct. The owners of the company have no requirement to provide insurance. The actual company as a legal entity does.

Again you try to split hairs... lemme guess, you are also one of the 'corporations are not people' type?

The company on it's own is little more than an empty legal entity or person... only through it's owners giving it direction does it have any meaning or substantive form be it selling potatoes or hobby supplies. When mandates come in against this legal person, it is the natural persons who are ultimately responsible for ensuring that things happen on behalf of the legal person.

If we carry your logic further, it is not a person pulling the trigger of the gun... nor even the gun that kills someone, but instead the full blame must be put on the bullet and the bullet alone... and despite the direct causal actions of the previous entities, it was only the bullet that actually did the deed.

One of the justices rightly asked the question of how the religion of a company can be determined.

The same way a culture within a company can be determined... via it's creation & enforcement.

They also pointed to the case of an Amish farmer suing the government because he did not want to pay social security taxes for his employees, because paying taxes violated his religious beliefs. He did not win that case. Religious beliefs do not trump everything else.

Funny... did I or anyone else say they do?

No? Interesting strawman you have there.

I can start a religion that believes that black people should be eradicated from the planet, but that does not give me the right to murder people.

Again, strawman, do you have a point?

A person who owns a corporation is free to believe that contraception is a sin, but that does not make them exempt from providing insurance to their employees or paying a fine.

Says you.

That's the way it is.

As you said, there has been no final ruling in this case yet... so the actual outcome remains to be seen... but then from your wording of all of this it's clear which side you come down on.

If they have a problem with that, then there are several countries where religion and law are the same, they can move there. In my country, religion is not law.

So you are ok with what amounts to religious discrimination against employers... quite clearly... but what about discrimination against employees?

The EEOC has quite a bit to say on the subject: http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types...

See no, in the United States, despite the mythical 'separation between church and state', we respect religion and do give accommodations to those of faith in many cases and circumstances under the law... but clearly not in all ways, shapes and forms.

And note... the above is not being written by some bible thumping, 3x a week church goer... but instead a guy who was raised Catholic, left the church and faith (in general) ages ago and is a good ole agnostic/atheist who unlike militant ones like yourself, works hard to live a 'live and let live' sort of life without compelling other people to live the way I think they should.

Birth control being a civil right isn't even remotely the issue.

Even the ACLU disagrees with you.