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.

and he donated to anti-minority groups

Which anti-minority group? For that matter... which minority? Virtually any group can be called 'a minority' compared to some others.

Do you believe in human rights, or are you a bigot?

That is a false choice. Different people have different views on what a human right is.

Many on the left say women should have unfettered access to abortion... are those who disagree bigots?

Many on the right think that individuals should have unfettered access to firearms... are those who disagree bigots?

If so... guess what that makes all of us?

Start with an ad hominem, then go to a non-sequitur . Wow.

It's ok if you are unwilling or unable to reply, though it's a shame you didn't even want to try to respond with anything more coherent than a bit of crying.

When your boss prohibits you from having a firearm in your own home, then you can cry about it.

So... the right to keep and bear arms only applies in the home? You may want to check with a number of courts who have said otherwise, repeatedly.

Again, I call 'chilling effect' for the banning of a legal object by my employer while on the job site... vs your beef of a future employer who may have acted in their own private capacity at an earlier time somehow disqualifying them for the job down the line and unrelated to the work.

While the initial presence of them took many off guard... it's been with us so long I'd wager most (who have been using them for that time) are more or less used to them and see the benefit.

I just can't see getting an Office365 subscription to use these applications.

While I don't think we'd get to see any #'s... I doubt that many will get an Office 365 subscription *just* to be able to use the iPad apps... instead being able to use the subscription on the iPad and a couple of desktop and laptops (up to 5 devices I think) is where the motivation to subscribe will comes in.

I would have thought "free for non-commercial use" would have worked well enough

So you want to rely on a DRM system which decides if you are using it for commercial purposes? Or just the honesty of users?

Neither sound like a good options when dealing with a product that is known for making good sums of money.

Assuming these people are still doing their jobs, asking the CEO to step down is not insubordination.

Depends on what the context of their job is.

While my job involves writing specs & code and a whole litany of other 'deliverables'... I am also a representative of the company both while on and off the clock, and am expected (and instructed) to act accordingly.

Advocating against the legitimate leadership of the organization, be it military or corporate is not generally a good way to represent the larger unit... especially when the folks at the top have disciplinary options that were part of the agreement when joining.

It could be argued

It could also be argued that you are a moron based on what you said... allow me to demonstrate.

that his public support for stripping rights from homosexuals

Which 'right' did he seek to 'strip' from homosexuals? The right to marry? Last I checked they already had that right... the same one that heterosexuals did.

The issue with the Prop 8 case was that the court overturned a previous prohibition (pre 'rights')... then some municipalities unilaterally granted the 'right' (see San Francisco for one).

Given that those marriages granted during the window when San Francisco (and other areas) were doing their own thing were grandfathered in under Prop 8... is one really 'stripped' of 'rights' that were gained illegitimately... even if you agree with the end result?

might have a chilling effect on any gay employees.

My employer prohibits me from even having an unloaded firearm in my car when it is parked on company property... do I not get to cry of chilling effects and receive similar support?

Wrong. It was overturned because Prop. 8 was clearly unconstitutional. Study civil rights law as I have and you'll understand.

Wrong... in so many ways.

If you actually read the ruling of Judge Vaughn Walker you'd realize that he was inventing much of his ruling out of whole cloth... in the end the reason Prop 8 was struck down actually has less to do with 'civil rights law' as you claim and more to do with standing.

Vaughn Walker struck down P8 yes, on flimsy grounds. The state of California then opted not to appeal... effectively guaranteeing it remained overturned as they were the only entity which could have defended it.

While it's true that there was an effort by individuals & groups to defend it on behalf of the voters who had passed it, they ultimately lost because they did not have standing in the case.

Like the outcome all you want, but fear the process.

Ug... posted the wrong reply above... instead I meant to ask/say...

Bigger question... where is the campaign to have President Obama step down as he was against same sex marriage when he ran for national office back in 2008 (and previously)... and only more recently 'evolved' on the issue.

Shouldn't a (former?) bigot like him be compelled to resign for his previous sins?

Ug... posted my reply to the wrong comment... now again to the right place...

The reason why the attacks are unidirectional is because gay marriage

I wasn't talking just about same sex marriage... why are you?

or the larger issue of gay rights

At last check... gay individuals had the same rights as straight ones... and while sometimes those rights may not line up with preferences (ie right to marry someone of the opposite sex where desire is to marry someone of the same sex), the right remains the same regardless... you purposely try to pain the issue as something more than its not.

is a human rights issue.

Again... you prove my point of intolerance from the left... and that one need only call something a 'human rights' or 'civil rights' issue until you make enough people agree through education & politics... or fear mongering and blacklisting.

Guess which you are supporting?

All you need to do is look back across history to figure out if the side that protects, or the side that attacks, human rights is the "right" side.

History tends to be written by the victors... yet up until just two years ago, the President of the United States claimed to be against same-sex marriage... does that mean up until then he should have been viewed as a homophobic and anti-gay bigot? No? Interesting the continued double standard... or do you think history will record it that way?

2 men or 2 women getting married has the same impact on your life as a black man marrying a white woman.

You assume I care about either, your point?

There is no reason to not allow that.

Again... do you have a point? It's been clear for some time which way the tide was going... yet the issue is less today about the 'right' to marry someone of the same sex, but of the compulsion to force others to recognize it... and no, I don't mean at the court house, but of even a florist or baker being able to say they do not agree with the union and cannot provide services for such an event.

The only justification people have for not supporting gay rights is because of their own prejudice.

Yet the prejudices of those who see prejudices everywhere are emboldened to lash out against anyone they deem as not being sufficiently supportive of the current cause celeb... as we see in this case here.

Intolerance of perceived intolerance is still bigotry... and if anything, those who are calling for the stepping down of Eich are proving the (lack) of quality of their characters as they cannot handle the idea of working for someone who may have once disagreed with them.

The reason why the attacks are unidirectional is because gay marriage

I wasn't talking just about same sex marriage... why are you?

or the larger issue of gay rights

At last check... gay individuals had the same rights as straight ones... and while sometimes those rights may not line up with preferences (ie right to marry someone of the opposite sex where desire is to marry someone of the same sex), the right remains the same regardless... you purposely try to pain the issue as something more than its not.

is a human rights issue.

Again... you prove my point of intolerance from the left... and that one need only call something a 'human rights' or 'civil rights' issue until you make enough people agree through education & politics... or fear mongering and blacklisting.

Guess which you are supporting?

All you need to do is look back across history to figure out if the side that protects, or the side that attacks, human rights is the "right" side.

History tends to be written by the victors... yet up until just two years ago, the President of the United States claimed to be against same-sex marriage... does that mean up until then he should have been viewed as a homophobic and anti-gay bigot? No? Interesting the continued double standard... or do you think history will record it that way?

2 men or 2 women getting married has the same impact on your life as a black man marrying a white woman.

You assume I care about either, your point?

There is no reason to not allow that.

Again... do you have a point? It's been clear for some time which way the tide was going... yet the issue is less today about the 'right' to marry someone of the same sex, but of the compulsion to force others to recognize it... and no, I don't mean at the court house, but of even a florist or baker being able to say they do not agree with the union and cannot provide services for such an event.

The only justification people have for not supporting gay rights is because of their own prejudice.

Yet the prejudices of those who see prejudices everywhere are emboldened to lash out against anyone they deem as not being sufficiently supportive of the current cause celeb... as we see in this case here.

Intolerance of perceived intolerance is still bigotry... and if anything, those who are calling for the stepping down of Eich are proving the (lack) of quality of their characters as they cannot handle the idea of working for someone who may have once disagreed with them.