I do believe he can think what he wants. He can vote the way he wants and he can donate money to what he wants. What he DOESN'T get is a life absent from scrutiny and consequence for his beliefs. We are all held to account eventually for what we believe in.

He has had no rights trampled upon. He thought a thing, and other people find that thing offensive. As a result, they decided that they didn't want to associate themselves with something that he was involved in. Eventually, the company that employed him decided that the number of people making a free choice based on information that is true was detrimental to their direction and bottom line.

If anything, this is a remarkable example of how our system works well. The government didn't need to intercede. Nobody was hurt. People made their opinions known and all they had to do was turn their back on a particular product. I'm not sure where all the outrage is coming from. This is how capitalism was supposed to go. This may be the least corrupt example of how capitalism works that I've ever seen in my life.

Well, in point of fact, it's likely you don't believe in democracy either. I'm not aware of a true functioning democracy in the world today. (That doesn't mean one doesn't exist; merely that I'm not aware of it.)

The USA is a republic. Canada is a constitutional monarchy. These things are forms of representative government, but they're not democracy per se. We have a vote, but we don't vote on every bill; those things filter through a proxy.

And the reason these things filter through a proxy is precisely to avoid tyranny of the majority. Majority opinions can be dangerous, and we've seen that time and time again through history. The subjugation of minorities isn't something that's hard to find in the history of any western democracy.

I don't believe in firing people for having opinions, as such. He donated money to a cause that sought to remove rights from people. It doesn't matter the group of people that was aimed at, I find such an action deplorable and wrong as a matter of justice. At the centre of our law is the equal treatment of all people. I really just can't abide anyone that swims against that tide.

It is not 'intolerant' to hold people account for their beliefs that some people deserve more rights than others. I don't give a free pass to racists, and I won't give a free pass to him.

The birthrate for gay couples is exactly the same as the birthrate for my marriage, which is zero. It's not a relevant complaint.

Marriage is about a lot more than children, now. It's about stable communities and social structures. I think we could do without government approval for our personal relationships (we can make wills, living wills, etc.), but as long as the government thinks that it's in the business of approving who we spend our lives with, it cannot discriminate against any group of people.

I'd argue that heterosexuals haven't had the best track record of giving back into the system, either. Dysfunctional marriages abound, and at this point, the vast majority of them are obviously hetero.

I'm not convinced you know what the benefits of marriage are, in any case. What do you think straight couples are giving to society (other than procreation, which does not list among its requirements a marriage license) that gay couples aren't?

Unlike him, I haven't contributed to any organisations that seek to remove anyone's rights, and certainly not HIS rights.

I don't have to support him or any company that he's the head of. He can have his opinions, but I'm not obligated to think Mozilla is wonderful no matter what.

There's a big difference between holding an opinion and trying to have your opinion written into law. I'm sure there are homophobes and bigots working at the company that I'm at. (In fact, I practically guarantee it.)

I don't think that people that hold those views should be in positions of authority. It gives the impression--rightly or wrongly--that the company tacitly supports his beliefs.

How many non-CEOs have you seen fired from their jobs because they've done something publicly embarrassing to the company that they work for? I don't see how a CEO should be above that. He's a lightning-rod for criticism (criticism that I think he deserves) and it's a distraction to the goals of Mozilla. Additionally, the LGBT people that work there are reportedly uncomfortable with someone like that heading the company, and I think it should be understandable why. His donation indicates that he thinks those people are second-class citizens--that they don't deserve the same full spectrum of rights that he does.

This is no different from someone donating to anti-civil-rights measures leading a company. I don't see why it's such a stretch to hold racists and homophobes to account for their opinions and actions. They're untenable positions and I won't support them.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that he's humanity's greatest monster, or that he's sub-human. I just don't think you should be able to walk around with abhorrent views like that and expect everyone to still venerate you as a great person.

All right, what if he tried to have legislation passed that restricted the rights of blacks to vote?

There's a difference between having an opinion and trying to have it written into law. It's substantial. It's the same reason we don't elect people that hold views like that.

Wait, so you think couples that are sterile or very old shouldn't be allowed to marry either?

If you disagree with that statement, you're actually just an asshole, you're not a libertarian. Marriage is a social construct that has very little to do with raising children in this day and age. I'm married, and we have no plans to have children ever. I don't see what that has to do with anything.

I agree that the government should have no say in who I have a relationship with, but as long as they do, they're obligated to apply their rules fairly across all groups of people, regardless of their skin colour, ethnicity, orientation, gender, etc.

Oh Christ. Free Speech is fine. The government interfered with nothing. Just because he's allowed to say shit doesn't mean the world has to like it. He's an asshole if he thinks that a certain class of people deserve fewer rights than other people, and I wouldn't be any less condemning of his statements if he'd donated similar money to campaigns to remove rights from blacks, or asians, or any other minority group.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you, as I recall. https://www.afer.org/blog/14-s...

Whether this is philosophically true or not, it's true in the context of the US legal system. I think it's a fundamental human right to associate with and make a family with whomever you please. If the government provides benefits, privileges and rights associated with marriage, it's a right to receive those, regardless of who you chose to marry.

How can he file a defamation lawsuit? The thing that OKCupid said WASN'T A LIE.

Defamation requires a FALSE statement. He donated the money. It's HIS FAULT that he's a homophobe that wants to deny other people's rights. He didn't apologise for past behaviour, or seek to remedy it.

His opinion is his own, but he tried to have his opinion written into law, which isn't okay with me when it runs contrary to fundamental human rights. You can't deny a segment of the population rights and privileges just because they were born a certain way.

He can't win shit. He has no business feeling angry at anyone other than himself.

It's not a meaningful equivalence because you're making the mistake of believing that marrying people of the opposite sex is what straight people want to do. It just so happens that the people that they WANT to marry are of the opposite sex. LGBT people want to be afforded the same right to CHOOSE their own partner, not just marry any random other-sex person.

My problem with Eich isn't that he has an opinion, but that he's trying to have his opinion made law. He doesn't have to believe in equal marriage--that is, he doesn't have to get one if he doesn't want one--but to have people's rights taken away because he thinks it's icky isn't okay. By donating money to an organisation that was trying to make what is perhaps a deeply held religious belief into law, he's crossed the line between having an opinion and explicitly wanting to deny people rights.

Well, first of all, that he doesn't have the power of the state to investigate or imprison you.

OKC didn't ask for anyone to hound or harass Eich. Moreover, they didn't say anything that was untrue--that's what libel laws are for, and Eich isn't denying anything.

As a political subject, this one is important. He contributed money to a campaign that seeks to limit the rights--constitutionally protected rights--of other people. If he'd just said that he doesn't believe in equal marriage but made no contribution, I feel like the story would be different. It's one thing to express an opinion, and another thing entirely to have your opinion written into law.

It really is that last aspect that's most troubling. Given the chance, Eich would have an entire class of people legally barred from having equal rights and privileges based entirely on how they're born. The fact that it's a religious opinion doesn't make any difference--people arguing to maintain slavery and segregation also held those beliefs with biblical backing.

While I agree with these questions, the fact of the matter is that the government does have jurisdiction over it at the moment, and as long as they have jurisdiction, it is incumbent upon them to not discriminate against people when applying their own rules.

Given that two people of opposite genders can be married, it's an unreasonable abrogation of human rights to deny these same privileges to an entire class of people.

I think the government should get out of the marriage business too, but as long as they're in it, they need to do it fairly.

You do do that, whether you're conscious of it or not. We all do. You've decided that the things that these people do isn't bad enough to warrant you not using their products, and that's fine.

I don't buy anything from Walmart. I find their business practices and the way they pay and treat employees unfair.

I don't buy meat from supermarkets. I don't know where they're getting the meat and how ethically it was raised. I prefer small shops that deal directly with farms.

I don't use Firefox because I've never liked Firefox. But this isn't making me any more likely to head back to them, even if their product magically got better overnight.

We all make decisions, and this is just more information that we can use to make decisions with. It's amazing the vitriol I'm seeing here considering that all OKC has done is factually inform people of a situation and make a recommendation that they're under no obligation or compulsion to follow.

They're not forcing anyone to do anything other than pay some attention.

Isn't the idea of capitalism based entirely around people being able to make INFORMED decisions? Now the people using OKC and Firefox are more informed, both about OKC and Firefox.

Acceptance of equal marriage is something that should flow naturally out of justice, not tolerance. This is no more a matter of 'tolerance' than accepting black people as 5/5 human than 3/5 human. LGBT people are PEOPLE. This is a matter of justice.

They've taken no action against Eich and they haven't asked anyone to take specific action against him or his rights. He's not being discriminated against, he's being outed as someone that holds views are fundamentally unjust. I'd feel exactly the same if the issue were about any minority group. If he were a member of a white power organisation, or if he'd said that he thinks all Irish people should be shipped back across the pond, it wouldn't matter. It's an abhorrent view, and people have the right to know.

People can do with that information what they will. It's nice that OKC is willing to stick up for a minority community.