This is stupid. Progressiveness and open-mindedness go BOTH WAYS. You have to be tolerant of people with different perspectives, or you can't call yourself progressive.
I don't personally agree with the stance Eich took politically, but making him step down as CEO of a company he is more than fully qualified to run? Because you don't agree with his views on gay marriage? Are you kidding me? Ludicrous.
I'm frankly surprised that more people don't share your point of view. I am personally for gay rights and gay marriage and the such but I a can also respect that people will have different views about the matter and that I don't assume that I am right and anyone with different views from mine is morally corrupt or evil, etc. That's intolerant.
Ah yes, the old "if you're truly tolerant you will even tolerate intolerance and hate" argument, a perennial favorite among bigots and those looking to distinguish themselves by their courageous adherence to "logic" in the face of social norms, but who have never been the target of intolerance themselves.
That perspective fails to address the issue of whether LGBT individuals are entitled to equal rights under the law, regardless of what name is used (e.g., "marriage", "civil union", whatever).
Not to say that the name doesn't matter ("marriage" vs. "civil union"--separate but equal?), but there's definitely more going on here than just a semantic disagreement.
This wasn't like donating to a politician who you agree with one on issue, who happens to have other views that you might not. He donated to a campaign with a singular goal, opposing equal rights for gay people. Hatred isn't a word I would use, but it does suggest a level of disrespect and arrogance toward the other side.
Jonathan Rauch makes almost exactly this argument you are trying to dismiss out of hand, and as a writer who's been openly gay since 1991, I think he has probably been the target of not a little intolerance.
Finding isolated in-group proponents of beliefs typically despised by that group is never hard (in fact, I'd argue that such proponents occur regularly but with low probability), so I don't find this argument compelling.
Also, the fact remains that the argument imo, no matter who is making it, is an exercise in word play and sophistry.
Obviously you're free to disagree with arguments like Rauch's, but calling his writing "word play and sophistry" just shows that you haven't actually examined it.
> So Progressives only preach them when it works in their favor.
Yes, it certainly seemed like "open-mindedness" and "tolerance" were some of the watchwords from progressives a decade back when supporting gay marriage was political poison. It's a pity the same standards aren't upheld when the tables have turned.
There's a difference between tolerating the viewpoint and tolerating the person. While a person may have archaic and bigoted views, forcing them to change only makes them more steadfast in their opinions. The reason there's been such a shift public perception of LGBT people these past few years is because more people are coming out and proving they're decent, normal people. Pressuring conservatives to quit their job for one political view only reinforces their opinion of X group trying to destroy Y tradition, and if this turns into a trend, I can imagine more organizations similar to Westboro Baptist Church sprouting up.
In situations like this, "killing them with kindness" really is the answer.
Jim Crow and freedom of speech are two different things.
I personally am ALL FOR equality independent of race, religion, or sexual orientation. I don't care what you do with your life.
I do believe people should be equal, and laws against that should be abolished, but that's my opinion. That's why we have voting and elected officials.
More importantly, democracy is also about being allowed to place dollars and votes in what YOU believe in independent of the current "accepted norms". It's not WRONG for someone to vote against equality, that's their right .... at least in this country.
Marriage equality is law in California. So yes, we should be tolerant of those that opposed it and lost. That battle is over here. And there's absolutely no indication that Eich evidenced anti-gay bias at Mozilla, in policy or attitude. (I am not one to stand on it, but there is a difference between being opposed to same-sex marriage as a single issue and being anti-gay.) By all accounts, he has gracefully accepted the result and moved forward. What benefit is there to be had by asking more of him?
"He said that his beliefs would not change the way he managed the company or how employees were treated at Mozilla. “I’m supporting all of the same benefits we’ve always supported across L.G.B.T. equality,” he said."
Do you even know that you are playing meaningless word games, of the form, "This statement is a lie" or "atheism is a religion"? You really think that "In order to be tolerant, you have to tolerate intolerance!" is a good argument, and not just self-referential verbal nonsense?
He wasn't saying "I hate gay people." He was saying "the institution of marriage shouldn't include gay people." That isn't cool, fine, but it's NOT the blanket 'hatred' and 'intolerance' everyone here is so adamant about.
Those terms are being tossed around too freely here.
If this really was his personal decision, then he would have written the press release, and the chairwoman would have issued a press release expressing support.
He might have thought that it was strategically better for him personally to step down instead of actually being fire, but no one believes that this was just his personal decision. He was forced out under duress.
I don't personally agree with the stance Eich took politically, but making him step down as CEO of a company he is more than fully qualified to run? Because you don't agree with his views on gay marriage? Are you kidding me? Ludicrous.
This is a huge step backward.