|
CEOs in a nutshellquote:I prefer not to talk about my beliefs.
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 05:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 13:59 |
|
|
cruft posted:I find it pretty They made it clear in their message that if the CEO and other anti-gay people had gotten their way, "roughly 8% of the relationships we've worked so hard to bring about would be illegal." They also said the time they devoted over the years their site's been around, they devoted to love. All love. It gave me a new-found respect for OKCupid, and was nice to see in general!
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 05:55
|
|
that a company in the love biz led this one. (Big Love?)
|
SedanChair posted:CEOs in a nutshell He just likes to pay other people to promote his beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 10:06
|
|
|
It is pretty satisfying that not only has Prop 8 been struck down, but its supporters are getting some degree of comeuppance for their despicable beliefs and hateful actions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 13:40
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:CEOs in a nutshell Hasn't he heard? Donations are speech.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 14:03
|
|
|
ColdPie posted:It is pretty satisfying that not only has Prop 8 been struck down, but its supporters are getting some degree of comeuppance for their despicable beliefs and hateful actions. A cousin of mine said something to that effect, and I said, "If you really view this as an extension of your faith, then you should welcome the persecution and opportunity for financial martyrdom. Or did you think Jesus would drop suitcases of cash out of the sky onto your head for pushing this agenda?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
The federal court in Cincinnati will strike down Ohio's ban on recognizing gay marriages performed outside the state. Ruling will be issued April 14th, announcement was made early to give the state time to prepare a request for a stay and an appeal. Ohio won't be forced to issues licenses to gay couples, but will be required to recognize marriages performed outside the state.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
The Macaroni posted:That was one of the things supporters of Prop 8 whined about. "These mean gays and their allies are boycotting my business because I support Real Marriage! Why?!" That was also an issue in Washington, when the anti-gay initiatives were going around a few years ago and people didn't want the names of the signers released. My opinion is that you should only vote for something if you're proud enough of that vote to exclaim it in public. That's why I liked the caucuses. The community aspect of voting lost with mail in ballots.  Necessary though, since election days were never made paid federal holidays for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:CEOs in a nutshell Hey and I totes agree his personal beliefs mean nothing when it comes to running a business. Of course giving a good chunk of money to legal fights against equal rights, that's a totally different thing. I'm pretty sure the gay mind reading rays aren't ready yet so it seems to me these guys would be safe if they just stopped, ya know, spending money to make me less of a citizen than them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
effectual posted:That was also an issue in Washington, when the anti-gay initiatives were going around a few years ago and people didn't want the names of the signers released. My opinion is that you should only vote for something if you're proud enough of that vote to exclaim it in public. That's why I liked the caucuses. The community aspect of voting lost with mail in ballots. That's pretty stupid, the secret ballot is actually really important. Progress on social issues tends to die if you let the majority shame people for voting morally-correct but unpopular stances. Now, signing petitions or donating money to campaigns is a different ballgame. That's an issue of freedom of speech, and you shouldn't be speaking if you're not willing to put your name behind your words.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:That's pretty stupid, the secret ballot is actually really important. Progress on social issues tends to die if you let the majority shame people for voting morally-correct but unpopular stances. Right and the issue was over disclosing who signed petitions to get Prop 8 onto the ballot and all, which should be totally open and free information. No one campaigned to reveal voting records except apparently that guy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Right and the issue was over disclosing who signed petitions to get Prop 8 onto the ballot and all, which should be totally open and free information. No one campaigned to reveal voting records except apparently that guy. "Signing petitions and donating money is speech and should be disclosed" was one of the two main thrusts of my fairly short post, thanks for reading. The guy I was responding to specifically thinks that all votes should be public. effectual posted:My opinion is that you should only vote for something if you're proud enough of that vote to exclaim it in public. That's why I liked the caucuses. The community aspect of voting lost with mail in ballots. Support breaks down into hard support ("willing to exclaim it/become activist") and soft support ("I'll vote for it if it comes up") and the latter is usually far greater than the former. If you allow that kind of public shaming, you're going to lose a bunch of the soft support and that's going to retard progress on any issue that isn't settled (like gay marriage post-2012). We have a hard enough time getting people to vote as it is, we don't need to drive participation down even more with moral majority bullshit. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Apr 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
I know it's not exactly legal news about gay marriage, but I like how Honey Maid basically told One Million Moms to get bent, in a sweet and friendly way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
Michigan has asked the Sixth Circuit to proceed directly to an en banc hearing in DeBoer v. Snyder, rather than an initial three-judge panel. Lyle Denniston posted on SCOTUSblog:quote:State officials in Michigan, seeking to move onto an even-faster track a test case on same-sex marriage, on Friday asked the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to put that question before the full, en banc court without waiting for different three-judge panels to rule. All four states within the Sixth Circuit’s geographic area now have appeals on that issue pending at the appeals court, the new petition noted. The Sixth Circuit covers Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee, with a total population of over 32 million people. A positive result would bring equal marriage up to 48% of the US population. Meanwhile, Kitchen v. Herbert (Utah) is due to be heard before the Tenth Circuit (Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming) starting on April 10. We don't know when the Sixth Circuit oral argument will happen: the current schedule is for all briefs to be submitted by the end of June.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
Pfirti86 posted:I know it's not exactly legal news about gay marriage, but I like how Honey Maid basically told One Million Moms to get bent, in a sweet and friendly way. All those dead trees  (PS: It's ironic how the people who are pro-"Family Values" are increasingly becoming more "Anti-Family" as that word starts to take on a larger meaning.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
Morter posted:All those dead trees Well, it's like, Pro-Family, but not those  "families".Somewhat like some also distinguish between good deserving hard-working Beneficiaries of government aid and those "beneficiaries" urban people, moochers and werfare bums. In other words, the only moral family is my family.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
Morter posted:All those dead trees Serious question: were there people who thought the "family values" thing was ever about anything other than hatred? This doesn't strike me as ironic at all. They're acting exactly like they always have in my eyes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
cruft posted:Serious question: were there people who thought the "family values" thing was ever about anything other than hatred? In my experience "traditional values" usually translates to "anything other than this model of society and family is wrong because reasons". It's a buzz phrase people use when they're trying to sound noble, when they're really just being reactionary.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 08:09
|
|
|
Morter posted:All those dead trees This issue beyond all others is the absolute pinnacle of FY,GM politics.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 08:24
|
|
|
By the way, the actual text of that Mississippi law:quote:3(a) State action or an action by any person based on state action shall not burden a person's right to exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless it is demonstrated that applying the burden to that person's exercise of religion in that particular instance is both of the following: So, by all means, get pissed that the legislature of that state felt the need to pass a worthless law just to demonstrate how much they hate your kind, but this isn't anywhere near an Arizona-level outrage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 09:03
|
|
|
I noticed the Mozilla guy also said this in the cnet interview:quote:What message do you want to send to those who are asking for your resignation or for you to recant your earlier opposition to gay marriage? Think Machiavelli. If the enemy city surrenders, you should show restraint, not burn it to the ground. But if it refuses to surrender and will fight to the bitter end, you should start cranking the catapults and begin flinging plague-sickened corpses over the walls and have no mercy. Tatum Girlparts posted:Hey and I totes agree his personal beliefs mean nothing when it comes to running a business. BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 11:05 on Apr 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 09:03
|
|
|
I'll be concerned when the CEO of Intel is run out of town by bloggers and internet petitions. The Mozilla stuff was an internal action. Three board members (two former CEOs) resigned before the public trouble started.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 10:57
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:I'll be concerned when the CEO of Intel is run out of town by bloggers and internet petitions. The Mozilla stuff was an internal action. Three board members (two former CEOs) resigned before the public trouble started.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 11:09
|
|
|
AlexG posted:Michigan has asked the Sixth Circuit to proceed directly to an en banc hearing in DeBoer v. Snyder, rather than an initial three-judge panel. Lyle Denniston posted on SCOTUSblog: What is the benefit for Michigan in asking for an en banc hearing? In other words, why are they really asking for this?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 12:39
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:That's fair. And like I said, I don't really care that much. Being involved in a political campaign is also different than just having views. The Duck Dynasty fiasco was an example of the latter. It's pure culture war that is too much like "war on christmas" for my likes. I dunno about this. I'd figure dropping a CEO for being a member of the League of the South or giving money to the Klan would be acceptable, correct? At some point, you have to start crushing the losers of the culture wars, or else they'll just redouble their efforts and you'll be fighting the same fights over your rights in ten or twenty years. Now is as good a time as any. If this jackass gets stuck having to work a real job rather than being an executive, so much the better since it deprives regressive positions of money and also shows the people that still hold those positions that they need to at best go underground and shut up in public and really should just give up and go with the rest of society.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 13:19
|
|
|
njbeachbum posted:What is the benefit for Michigan in asking for an en banc hearing? In other words, why are they really asking for this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Sixth_Circuit The 6th Circuit is stacked with Bush nominees (10R-5D with 1 vacancy, with 8 GWB appointments). If they get a 3-judge panel, there's a remote chance that they may end up with a majority of D appointees on the panel. Asking for an en banc review both skips a step that's going to get it's result appealed anyways, and gives them a better chance of getting the result they want.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 13:26
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:I noticed the Mozilla guy also said this in the cnet interview: You couldn't tell me a name, short of like, whoever's in charge of GOProud that I care less about the opinion of than Andrew Sullivan. We forgive the lawmakers (on either side) who come around on gay marriage because their coming around means they stop actively fighting our rights and start actively endorsing them. That's a major, important, shift. I don't care what views Obama 'evolved' from because as of now he's the first sitting president in history to say 'yo gay people should probably have equal rights' and that's a major thing. Unless you got a photo of him stringing one of us up, his past 'sins' have been out weighed. The Mozilla guy, at the very best, just knows to hide how much he hates us, considering when someone straight asked him 'hey man would you give a grand to another anti-gay law if it was an option today?' instead of saying the smart thing of 'nah I made a mistake before' he did a lovely 'well I don't answer hypothetical' which totally boiled down to 'yes'. That's pretty majorly different than a lawmaker going from opposing us to fighting for us.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 15:03
|
|
|
The 4th circuit's set to hear Bostic beginning May 13, with a ruling expected by the end of Summer, potentially overturning bans in VA, WV, SC, and NC.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:The 4th circuit's set to hear Bostic beginning May 13, with a ruling expected by the end of Summer, potentially overturning bans in VA, WV, SC, and NC. Oh man, the NC tears are going to be exceptional if it gets overturned. I was living out of state when it passed, but I'll hopefully be here when it gets canned.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 16:59
|
|
|
CommanderApaul posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Sixth_Circuit Ah, and here I thought they just didn't want to tie up the courts more than they have to. No no, they're trying to game the system. Of course.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
Didn't the Mozilla guy also say something like he couldn't disavow his anti-gay personal campaigns because he wanted to make anti-gay marriage people in Indonesia feel included in Mozilla?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Didn't the Mozilla guy also say something like he couldn't disavow his anti-gay personal campaigns because he wanted to make anti-gay marriage people in Indonesia feel included in Mozilla? Yup. We gotta make sure bigots don't get their feelings hurt. Actual people who suffer from violence and discrimination, they get to HTFU about it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
Icon Of Sin posted:Oh man, the NC tears are going to be exceptional if it gets overturned. I was living out of state when it passed, but I'll hopefully be here when it gets canned. If they keep to the expected schedule it'll definitely add an interesting wrinkle to the Senate race considering Tillis was state House Speaker when the bill was pushed through.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:The 4th circuit's set to hear Bostic beginning May 13, with a ruling expected by the end of Summer, potentially overturning bans in VA, WV, SC, and NC. Ah, good ol' rocket docket. Its likely that this or the 10th Circuit case out of Utah is the headliner case for an eventual SCOTUS cert on this issue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
Regardless of appointees, I think it's a safe bet that the bans will be overturned in all jurisdictions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
Time for an update on everyone's favorite "I'm totally not a Nazi, even though I collaborate with literal Nazis!" flavor of bigot, Brian Brown! Speaking of which, on that point: "What do you mean I look, walk, and quack like a duck?" Onto the loving point, they have launched their ever-so predictable boycott of Mozilla. quote:"When Brendon Eich made his modest contribution to support Proposition 8, Barack Obama was on the ballot as a candidate who said he believed marriage was the union of one man and one woman. Now Eich has been the target of a vicious character attack by gay activists who have forced him out of the company he has helped lead for years. This is a McCarthyesque witch hunt that makes the term 'thought police' seem modest. We urge all consumers to remove Mozilla's Firefox web browser from their computers as a sign of protest. This attack to deny Mr. Eich his livelihood for supporting true marriage is a continuation of the shameful pattern we have consistently seen from gay activists. It basically says to all those in America and around the world who believe in a view of marriage that is consistent with the teachings of their faith that they are all bigots and haters and there is no place for them in civil society. This is the totalitarian worldview we will all be under if marriage ultimately is redefined in the law." Nominee for the "Most loving Related" award 2014: NOM launched a boycott of Starbucks after they issued a message of support for marriage equality in Washington State. Shitlord Tony Perkins declared the boycott cost Starbucks $10B in stock value. quote:It didn’t take long for Starbucks to lose bucks over marriage. Hello, I’m Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council in Washington. In January, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz said endorsing same-sex marriage would be good for business. Boy was he wrong! Siding with radical homosexuals has its price in this country. And in Starbucks case, the cost is about ten billion dollars. That’s how much the coffee giant’s lost in stock value since the campaign to Dump Starbucks got underway. In the last eight months, the company's missed sales projections and watched stocks dive from $61 to $48, for a loss of more than $10.2 billion. How many companies will fall for the lie that endorsing same-sex marriage will help business? J.C. Penney’s tried it. Target’s tried it. Now Starbucks. And every time, there’s a reason to believe that alienating millions of customers will directly affect a company’s bottom line. On the flip side, look at Chick-fil-A. They found out that supporting traditional values pays just as many cultural dividends as financial ones. Darth Brown and the Galactic Empire are trying to say they're oh-so concerned about evil homofascist savages destroying the life of Brendon Eich, but bragged about $10 billion in stock losses that may have devastated the investment portfolios of god knows how many retirees, families, and pension funds. So what if thousands of those who also oppose SSM saw had their eggs in their nest go to poo poo, and if a dive in stock meant a massive layoff of Starbucks' minimum wage employees? Just a means to the end of putting those faggots in their place! In the biggest shock-twist ever; you ready for this? The boycott had little to no impact on Starbucks' stocks, but the volatility of the restaurant sector at that time did. In early 2012, when the boycott began, Starbucks traded at $43. Closing today at $71.55. A %66 increase. Which is why I'm sure a lot of companies are going out of their way to get NOM to boycott them. But wait, it gets Not long after the boycott began in America, Brian Brownshirt announced that NOM had purchased ads in Arabic and other languages, to promote in countries where homosexuality is against the law, punishable by prison sentences, and some where it's punishable by death. His intent was clear, to whip up anti-gay sentiment and violence in countries where our brothers and sisters live trembling in fear inside the closet at best. Perhaps he hoped he could get staffers slaughtered a madman overseas. THAT would help keep the faggots down, huh? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Prf6iiUHw18 Since it can't be said enough: Joe My God posted:REMINDER: When major national Christian groups with millions of followers call for boycotts, that is a righteous use of the free market in order to preserve morality, marriage, family, and the American way. But if a gay keyboard activist tweets a call for a boycott, THAT is homofascist intimidation, intolerance, bullying, a stifling of religious liberty, and an attempt to deny the freedom of speech. And don't you forget it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:Yeah but an important thing to point out is that the guy did stop. Then the donation came up four years later and got him sacked. Andrew Sullivan made the point that there are a lot of Democratic Party lawmakers who actually endorsed and voted on anti-gay legislation back in the day and were never pressured into saying they're sorry. I happen to agree with that. We've just forgotten about it because it's politically convenient for us, and it is, but it smells like a double standard. I don't agree with this. The Democrats had never championed equality for all at the start. Even now they had never made equality as their main totem pole and every one of their member should go in that direction. Only in recent years when the tide is turning they decided to try to ride the wave. The people who voted for Democrats are also not entirely pro-equality. So the situation is different when a bigot became head of a company who had been how progressive and pro-equality they are. The Mozilla CEO douchebag is even worse than politicians. The politicians at least claimed their opinion is based on religious teachings. What about this guy? He didn't even mention religion being part of his belief, so why is he against equality? Either he's savvy enough to not disclose being deeply religious since it would have made him look like a dinosaur in a tech company but not savvy enough to lie and say he made a mistake and feel sorry about it, or he just really, really don't like gays. Either way, he's a scumbag.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
Surely this article deserves some prize for hypocrisy: Media Matters wrote an article about a conservative anti-LGBT site=literally the Spanish Inquisition.  First Things is largely staffed by conservative Catholics who fetishize medieval Christendom
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 14:59
|
|
|
You remember that Elane Photography thing in New Mexico where she refused to do pictures for a gay couple? The Supreme Court turned down the appeal, so the NM Supreme Court ruling that she violated the state's anti-discrimination law stands. Hope that puts to rest stuff like that and the bakery cases as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 13:59 |
|
|
Well, Elane only appealed on speech grounds, not religious freedom grounds. It's still possible for a sufficiently broad Hobby Lobby to gut anti-discrimination laws. EDIT: also a denial of cert of a state Supreme Court case isn't precedent anymore, although obviously it stands for NM.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 19:30
|
|
