Reader comments · Writer at lesbian dating app Dattch blasts OKCupid for campaign against anti-gay marriage Firefox CEO · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Writer at lesbian dating app Dattch blasts OKCupid for campaign against anti-gay marriage Firefox CEO

  • Lawerence Collins

    Moulder’s an delusional idiot! Would she have felt the same way to those opposed to the women’s right to vote?! Beyond frustrating! Makes me wonder if the right wing is buying off these frauds.

  • gutaitas

    Mr Eich has every right to fund anti-equality causes. The LGBT community has every right to boycott an organisation run by someone who funds causes against their rights. The board of Mozilla have every right to get rid of a CEO that has become a liability to the company. It’s called cause and effect. Mr Eich is being taught that everything has its consequences. If you’re going to be a bigot, you better take on the consequences of that.

    • rcdcr

      Does he? Does he have a right’ to use his money to harm people?

      He has ‘a right’ to do this?

      Where is that right enumerated?

      • Gherbs

        It’s called donating to a political campaign? That’s his right. Same as people who donate to campaigns concerning gun rights, potentially harmful campaign happen and people contribute to them despite the number of gun related deaths there are every years.

        • There is no statement in the US constitution recognizing marriage as being between a man and a woman, unlike the statement in the constitution guaranteeing the right to bear arms.

          Secondly, it’s not democracy for one religious group to campaign to remove the rights of another group of people when those rights do not impact their lives.

          Would you also support the notion that a Taliban religious lobbying group has a right to remove womens rights to vote, to drive or to wear short skirts?

        • Bill

          You’re not really addressing the basic question.

          Does a man have a right to donate money in order to harm another human being? Where is this right enumerated in the Constitution?

      • gutaitas

        I thought it was clear to everyone that I used “he has the right to…” as meaning “he is legally free to…”, and not as “he is entitled to…”.

  • Cal

    You are wrong, dear. Your analogies about hunting and adultery are ridiculous as they do not amount to an attack on a minority.

    • Dave SA

      If he had paid towards a campaign gunning for annulment of interracial marriages (which actually happened in South Africa) then he would never have gotten the job in the first place – good riddance. The time for debate on this subject has passed – equality should now be an undeniable right.

      • Sister Mary Clarence

        I think you hit the nail on the head – Mozilla should have thought a little more carefully about who they were handing the CEO job to, and steered well clear of anyone who had attracted an avalanche of negative media attention.

        Of course Mr Eich isn’t blind, deaf and dumb and as a prospective CEO would be reasonably expected to be business savvy as well.

        However this leave both Mozilla and their former CEO looking like a bunch of idiots.

        There must have been extensive debate about this appointment prior to it taking place. It shows the most mind blowing stupidity to think that elevating a high profile supporter of marriage inequality to the very top of a company that has until now scorer highly on its ethical values is just plain derelict.

  • @Mike-uk2011

    How ridiculous. This isn’t about his personal views. This is about a bigoted activist. He *actively* sought to have the rights of same-sex couples denied by pouring money into funding anti-gay laws.

  • TampaZeke

    If this poor woman can’t see the difference between having an opinion and giving money to one of the most hateful, slanderous campaigns in American history aimed specifically at denying civil rights to a law abiding minority then she’s a willful fool. And it’s just insulting that she would compare supporting a campaign to deny rights to people to the personal and private matter of hunting or cheating on a spouse. Neither of her examples demonstrates a person imposing their opinion upon others through law.

  • bobbleobble

    Another one who seems to think that freedom only goes one way.

    Her analogies about employers and employees don’t work since we’re not talking about employers and employees. We’re talking about the freedom of customers to choose who to patronise with their custom. If a customer objects to a CEO going hunting then the customer has every right not to shop with that CEO’s company. Unless she thinks that people should be forced to shop with certain companies?

    It’s starting to get incredibly annoying.

    • bobbleobble

      I’ve just reread what she wrote and I’m even more frustrated. She has completely misrepresented or misunderstood what went on. ARGH!

      • Gherbs

        Are you blind? She’s not talking about the public choosing to not use mozilla, she’s obviously talking about his contribution being used as a publicity stunt. The employee thing is clearly about whether or not someone should lose their job because of something they do in their private time or something that they are eg g’bring gay. It isn’t right either way, you can’t pick and choose the freedoms people have and publicly flogging them because you don’t agree with them isn’t right no matter what. It sucks massively that he’s against gay marriage but are you saying everyone who doesn’t believe in gay marriage should be unemployed? That’s ridiculous.

        The ability to contribute to a political campaign was his right, just because none of is agree with it means he should lose his job? Would you like your employer to fire you based on decisions they disagree with?

        • Dearest Gherbs,

          Let someone attempt to take your rights away.
          Let that inequality you face be enshrined in law.
          Then tell the world what you actually know and not assume.
          Otherwise you are just more of the hate you seem to love.

          • Gherbs

            By the same standard, dearest Barry, take away the rights of anyone who doesn’t agree with you to voice their opinion.

            Nobody likes what Eich did. Nobody may like him as a person – why does he need to lose his job over it? When did his employment become dependant on whether or not he supports gay marriage.

            Employment shouldn’t play into his beliefs and vice versa – we don’t have to agree with him but how dare people express that LGBTQ voices should be heard but try to say anti LGBTQ voices be denied that same right?

            I believe in equality and fighting for what you believe in but of you deny someone the chance to voice their argument, it’s not a fight, it’s not a debate, it’s one side silencing the other. As much as it would be so amazing to have equal rights for everyone everywhere, you don’t win by putting a gag over the other sides mouth.

          • TampaZeke

            If he had contributed to a blatantly racist, misogynistic or antisemitic campaign we wouldn’t be having this discussion and you and no one but the most vile racists would be arguing that it was inappropriate to challenge him and his appointment to the position.

          • Gherbs

            I take it you’ll be boycotting Intel whose employees contributed over $80,000 then?

          • bobbleobble

            Is any of those employees CEO?

          • Gherba

            Why does it matter? He wasn’t CEO when he contributed the money, he was an employee. Did Mozilla the company donate the money? Are they acting in the same way as chick fil a? Acting as one body? Nope, one guy, acting on how he feels, not breaking the law, he just happens to have a very unpopular opinion.

            Why should he lose his income because f that? Mozilla knew of his contribution the whole time and yet let him do the job regardless of what they thought of it – the same treatment that we in the LGBT community want – to not be discriminated about who we sleep with, how we live, who we are, we just want to do our jobs .

          • bobbleobble

            If he’d remained in his previous post then he’d still be working at Mozilla. But his appointment to the top job at the very least brought into question Mozilla’s commitment to minority groups and, since they knew about his donation, their judgement in general. Like it or not, CEO is a very different proposition to any other employee in the company.

            Why should he feel that he can get away with out and out bigotry? Why should gay people just roll over and let everyone walk all over us? Why should we tolerate the intolerant?

          • Gherbs

            So let’s round up everyone who is against gay marriage and force them out of their jobs, yeah? I’m sure that’ll do wonders for equality. That’s basically the logic you end up with if we think it’s right for one man to be fired, everyone should be.

          • bobbleobble

            You’re either being deliberately obtuse or you need to actually read what I’ve written.

            The fact that he is CEO is the important issue here. The man at the top, the spokesperson, the guy who sets policy and runs the company. And this guy thinks that gay people are second class citizens that shouldn’t have the same rights he enjoys. I choose not to give my business to a firm who would appoint someone like that to such a position.

            Should every gay person in the world be forced to use Firefox. Or eat at CHick-fil-A? Or are we allowed to exercise our freedom of association?

          • Gherbs

            I appreciate your viewpoint about the power he would have a CEO, I genuinely do, I just believe that it’s a slippery slope for people to lose their jobs over their personal, political or religious beliefs. It’s just like us not wanting to be discriminated against in our own jobs for example because we are gay – neither is right. Yes, we have the freedom to boycott a company, I personally don’t boycott a company unless I know that as an entire company I feel they’re doing something incredibly wrong, like chick fil a acting as a company to hurt the gay community, but one person in an entire company that I disagree with – I wouldn’t boycott that company and I don’t feel a person should be unemployed because their beliefs and mine don’t match up.

          • bobbleobble

            But I do feel that the whole company did something wrong in this instance. As I said, if Eich had stayed in his previous position then he would still be employed. It was his move up to CEO that was the problem. And that was Mozilla’s decision as a whole. As you said they knew about his donation and yet went ahead with his appointment anyway.

            In any event, it’s my choice to decide what companies I patronise and why I might choose not to. Ultimately Eich went not because of his donation but because his appointment was hurting Mozilla’s reputation, in my view quite rightly. My annoyance comes because it seems that only Eich’s freedom is being talked about and nobody seems to recognise my freedom of association.

          • Gherbs

            Your freedom is just as important as his. It just seems like the whole world demonized one man who happened to get a promotion within a company he’s worked at for years because of his contribution to a political campaign all because of a publicity campaign by okcupid. I just felt a lot of people jumped on a hatred bandwagon without thinking that here’s a human cost to the fight for equality on both sides. I hate to think of the gay people who have lost their jobs in fighting for gay rights just as much as the bigots who try to keep us down. They’re still people who need jobs. I just can’t stand that the treatment I want at for work for being gay doesn’t apply to everyone, no matter what they are or believe.

          • bobbleobble

            He wasn’t fired for being straight. In fact he wasn’t fired at all, he chose to resign because he was damaging Mozilla’s reputation. And you say my freedom is important but then you suggest that those who weren’t happy with his appointment have demonised and jumped on a hatred bandwagon. It doesn’t sound to me like you actually support my freedom at all.

            I don’t think you and I are going to see eye to eye on this. But I feel no sympathy for him.

          • I know for a fact it is already a downward spiral when people must post as anonymous.
            It don’t get any slippery slope than that.
            I do give Mr Eich one thank you.
            For the courage to finally name himself and be named for his part in history.

          • stambo2001

            Eich did not bring his politics to the workplace. The homosexuals brought their politics to the workplace.

          • TomSatsuma

            “So let’s round up everyone who is against gay marriage and force them out of their jobs, yeah?” I wonder if you are even reading others’ comments.

          • stambo2001

            So the homosexuals are not bigoted against religions and cultural norms that oppose their lifestyle? Good one. It’s okay for the minority to call for the end to majority beliefs but it’s not okay for the majority to call for an end to minority beliefs? /cuckoo

          • TampaZeke

            I didn’t boycott Mozilla. So what’s your point?

          • bobbleobble

            Nobody has said he cannot have his right to speak but his right to speak is balanced by our right as consumers to patronise companies that we feel live up to what we believe in. Or is he the only one with freedom?

            Perhaps laws should be passed forcing everyone to shop at certain companies no matter what?

          • No one has denied Mr Eich his right to speak his belief and opinion.
            Mr Eich resigned from the CEO position.
            Nobody is gagging Mr Eich.
            Mr Eich can continue with his beliefs and opinion.

            However, in my opinion, equality should never have to be a fight.
            Equality is not a debate.
            Either we are all human beings with equal rights or we are not.
            Either we help each other in our humanity and our understanding of each other
            or we end up trying to make laws, verse, and take action to actively hate.

            If one follows and patiently waits for the facts of the story, it was and still is about Prop Hate, an attempt to enshrine inequalities into law ( after taking away such hard won equality, which should never have had to be fought for in the first place ).

            I have to ask which part of history repeating itself is it we fail as a civilized society to understand here?

          • Gherbs

            When people basically say yeah you have the right to speak your voice but when you do you’ll be publicly hounded and forced to step down from your job in a company you helped build to great success – that’s effectively saying don’t speak unless you agree with us. That’s not how you change hearts and minds.

            And unfortunately, equality is a debate. We all wish it wasn’t but this wouldn’t be an issue if equality was inherent.

          • bobbleobble

            But you don’t change anything unless you’re prepared to stand up for yourself and that gay people aren’t simply going to let things lie. I think it’s important that those who are anti-gay are aware that there might be consequences for what they do just as racists are now aware of that same thing. People are still quite rightly angry about Proposition 8 which was only overturned last year.

          • ” …if equality was inherent.”

            This is crux of the misunderstanding that hate loves to perpetuate.

            Equality IS inherent.

            The concepts of slavery and genocide come from the bible.
            We are told we are sinners from the day we are born.
            According to some.

            We are not born of hate.
            We are not born hating.
            We learn hate.

          • TomSatsuma

            “how dare people express that LGBTQ voices should be heard but try to say anti LGBTQ voices be denied that same right?”

            I think you are confused. Nobody has said that.

          • “By the same standard…”
            This is where the hate you hide behind reveals itself.
            I have set nor stated NO standard.
            In other words, you deflected and did not answer the question.
            Hate tactic.

        • bobbleobble

          Are YOU blind? She’s trying to compare the employee/employer relationship to the customer/supplier relationship. The two are not analogous and thus her argument is nonsense. Customers, including OKCupid have the freedom to choose if they give their custom to a company of which they do not approve. It’s nothing to do with employees and bosses. You talk glibly of freedoms and yet you seem to be saying they only apply one way.

          Nowhere have I said that everyone who is against same sex marriage should be unemployed. However, he isn’t just another employee is he? He’s the head of the firm, the spokesperson and its representative. That makes it a different consideration. Had he stayed in his previous post he would still be working for Mozilla but appointing him to the top job was insupportable for many.

          Of course it was his right to donate if he wanted to but then I have a right not to use Mozilla’s products. And by donating he’s not just against gay marriage he actively contributed to a campaign that successfully TOOK AWAY rights from gay people. That is more than just against gay marriage.

          And there are currently 29 states of the US where people can be fired just for being gay. Whilst that situation remains I cannot manage to feel any remorse for someone losing their job for being anti-gay.

          • Gherbs

            You express sadness over there being 29 states where it is legal to be fired for being – this is obviously awful, but how is it right for someone else to lose their job for having an opposite view on gay marriage whether they act on it or not. None of these things, being gay or being against gay marriage should effect our employment, whether you’re a CEO or you bag groceries.

            People can boycott any company they want, but bigots need jobs too and firing him for views means people see that one aspect of him as being enough to fire him, despite how good he is at his job. This is the same logic that has been applied to gay people when firing them and it isn’t right either way.

          • bobbleobble

            I disagree. I think being CEO is very different from bagging groceries. The CEO has a huge influence over the direction that the company takes which can include its policies towards gay employees or gay customers. That’s why I think if you disapprove of the person or people at the top, whatever the reason, it’s perfectly justifiable to boycott that company’s goods and services.

            I refuse to have anything to do with Sky TV because I think the Murdochs are the worst thing that ever happened to the media industry. Perhaps I should be forced to have a Sky box since media moguls need jobs too?

          • TomSatsuma

            “People can boycott any company they want” They did.
            “but bigots need jobs too and firing him for views means people see that
            one aspect of him as being enough to fire him, despite how good he is at
            his job.” He wasn’t fired.

            People chose to boycott because he’s the public face of the company and they didn’t like him.

            His presence was damaging the company.

            It’s that simple.

            Short of forcing people to use their products I don’t really know what you want.

    • A good analogy would be the CEO of GoDaddy slaughtering Elephants and making videos of it to a heavy metal soundtrack like some obscene American rich c*nt.

      Hundreds of thousands of people boycotted GoDaddy because they found it abhorrent. That was the choice of the consumer.

      If I knew of a CEO that goes hunting at the weekends, I would boycott that company too. This is freedom of choice, and no whimpering apologist for hatemongers will persuade me otherwise.

  • Robert W. Pierce

    He wasn’t forced to leave his job. He left of his own volition because of the negative publicity it was causing to Mozilla. Mozilla didn’t do due diligence when they were looking for a CEO.

    • Gherbs

      They didn’t look for a CEO in the traditional sense, Eich was already the chief technical officer and were well aware of his contribution – it was made public record in 2012. They knew what they were doing and clearly didn’t have a problem with it. He was forced to step down as there always no other option for him.

    • stambo2001

      Uh-huh. Have you seen at all the negative publicity Mozilla has gotten since forcing Eich to resign? They made a bad play and are getting steamrolled for it.

  • Wow if I were a lesbian using THAT dating app…
    I would truly begin to wonder who was profiting.
    Somebody’s worst enemy?

  • Rumbelow

    His rights and freedoms cease to deserve consideration when he is actively trying to remove and block the rights and freedoms of others.

  • Yet another person who doesn’t seem to understand the difference between religious belief and almost criminal religious action.

    Why is it that so many seemingly intelligent people cannot grasp this one simple fact – Eich can BELIEVE in anything he wants to believe in, but donating money to a cause which only intends to subjugate and control the rights of other free people is FAR BEYOND religious freedom, it’s religious fascism.

    If gay marriage were even remotely affecting the lives of others, I would at least understand the argument against it. But the fact is, gay marriage only affects the people getting married, no one else.

  • rcdcr

    This isn’t about what he BELIEVES.

    He can BELIEVE anything he would like to believe.

    The problem is, these aren’t just BELIEFS for him

    He actually TOOK ACTION to harm gay peple in California. By removing civil rights WE ALREADY HAD. That isn’t a belief. It is AN ACTION.

    I wonder if I took action to have this lesbian woman’s civil rights removed, if SHE’dD have a problem with that?

    • Gherbs

      You’d have every right to try, duh. That’s how political campaigns work, some succeed, some don’t, but the point is people try to change things, sometimes that goes against popular opinion of what is right. Thank god people do try, for right or wrong, it’s how people affect change.

      And I’m gay, that’s what I am. Sleeping with people of the same sex is the action. What’s actually the difference? Would it be better if he was just secretly a homophobe?

      • The difference is that you sleeping with another man HAS NO BEARING ON ANY CHRISTIAN.

        Likewise, your marriage to another man has NO BEARING ON ANY CHRISTIAN.

        That is what makes Prop 8 almost criminal.

        Too many people seem to believe that democracy means “authoritarian rule by the majority”. That is NOT what democracy is. Democracy is not about inflicting your religious will on others and attempting to remove the rights of others when those rights have absolutely no impact your existence!

        Do you get the difference now? Do I need to start making comparisons?

        Here you go…

        If this were a vote to bring back racial segregation, or to ban women from voting, or to remove the rights of little girls to go to school, would you still suggest that it’s “democracy”?


        • stambo2001

          Neither is democracy legitimizing and normalizing a deviant behaviour if the majority refuse.

          Can a man and a woman reproduce. Yup.
          Can a black man and white woman reproduce. Yup.
          Can a slave reproduce with a free man? Yup.
          Can a Christian reproduce with a Muslim. Yup.
          Can two men reproduce? Nope.
          Can two women reproduce? Nope.

          Understand at all?

          • Bill

            The majority has NO SAY where the rights of another human being are concerned.

            You have NO SAY in this.

            You MAY have an opinion, but if you try and put that opinion into law and that law steps on MY liberty, the law is vile and will not stand.

            Your ‘baby making’ talk is stupid.

          • stambo2001

            I have as much say as you do buddy. Those ‘human rights’ you cite do NOT exist in nature. Both ‘human rights’ and ‘social laws’ don’t mean one iota of fecal matter if the majority refuses to play ball. Homosexuals cannot reproduce which makes their talk of babies and marriage ‘stupid’ as you say. Homosexuality has been considered abhorrent crossing all religions, all cultures and society from the beginning of recorded time. If a law gets enacted and you break it you’ll be treated like the criminal you would be. Funny how that works.

      • If you believe political campaigns are or should be about taking away equality…
        Well I thank the God (which I choose not to believe in) do not have your problems.

      • Bill

        Are we allowed to vote on the civil rights of others in America?

        Please provide your source if you reply.

    • stambo2001

      And a majority of people agreed with him as Prop 8 was passed. Should those 7+ million people be fired too, cause by your own words they ‘took action’. You do of course realize that political actions, taking things to vote in the public forum, are the democratic way to do things here right? Your side wants us to believe that having a political stance, and supporting that view with money and advocacy, is a crime if it opposes your particular view. Good luck running with those scissors in your hand.

  • Toni Massari

    FOR FCUK SAKE! H E W A S **N O T** S A C K E D, H E R E S I G N E D!
    Can these people PLEASE, go and read the statements?

    • stambo2001

      forced resignation = fired

  • Gerry

    The Telegraph always seems able to find an Uncle Tom or an Aunt Thomasina !

    The issue is quite straightforward IMHO. Everyone is entitled to express their opinion and to donate accordingly (unless of course this incites violence etc). If Eich had just been a programmer or someone without staff responsibilities then it wouldn’t have been an issue. As long as he could do the job effectively his private life and opinions wouldn’t be relevant as long as he didn’t associate Mozilla with them.

    However, when you’re CEO responsible for a company’s staff and you’re in the media spotlight, then things are rather different. Similarly, an equivalent position in the UK Civil Service would be known as Politically Restricted: you wouldn’t be able to campaign for a political party, and public comments and publications would have to be approved.

    Eich simply disqualified himself: a butcher wouldn’t expect to head the Vegan Society, a Master of Foxhounds wouldn’t lead the RSPCA, and an alcoholic wouldn’t be the best choice to be the school bus driver. His action meant that he wasn’t the best person for the CEO’s job.

    It certainly doesn’t mean that everyone who objects to SSM should be unemployed; people can believe and say what they like, within the law. But it does mean that people have to be mindful of their actions if they seek to deny others the rights that they take for granted themselves. If you show that you’re unsuitable for the job, don’t expect to keep it !

  • Dazzer

    I think we’re all overstating the importance of gay people in Eich resigning. No
    major US LGBT organisation called for his resignation and there was no
    official boycott.

    Instead, it’s when his own employees started calling for his resignation, a team of apps designers (admittedly gay) said they would no longer be providing their services to the company, OK Cupid publicly criticised Mozilla (although still
    allowed the browser to be used on its site), and board members started
    standing down that Eich resigned.

    And let’s not forget the massive youth demographic – gay or straight – that takes a dim view of active discrimination against a minority.

    His standing down was a commercial decision. Any CEO put in that situation would be under enormous pressure to resign. His politics have commercial ramifications
    as well as creating an on-going PR nightmare.

    The point is that Eich’s public declaration – and actions in support – of a
    private opinion would continue to create problems for the company he was
    supposed to be managing.

    Everyone is talking about Eich’s personal freedoms and no-one is pointing out that he has corporate responsibilities.

    Even though I dislike Eich for his views about me and my friends, I kind of admire him. He didn’t do what most CEOs would have done and just lied and said his view had ‘evolved’. Nor did he tough it out at Mozilla. Instead, through his resignation he stuck to his personal principles and the principles of good management – when he’d lost the confidence of many important people, he resigned.

    He didn’t compromise his own (misguided) personal philosophy and he didn’t continue to do damage to a company he’d helped found.

    All us gays taking blame/taking responsibility is a bit of a red herring. Eich was taken down by a far wider grouping of people in society.

    We’re taking the blame from people like Moulder and Andrew Sullivan because we’re institutionally used to taking the blame. And the,to preserve our self-esteem, sometimes we can take credit for being effective, too

    But the reality is that Eich left Mozilla because he couldn’t be an effective CEO. It wasn’t just the LGBT population that said this, a lot of other people said it as well.

  • TomSatsuma

    “It isn’t right that Brendan Eich lost his job because of his personal
    beliefs, anymore than I should lose my job because I’m a lesbian.”


    So what someone believes about the rights of others that have nothing to do with him (and actually, it’s not just belief, it’s his actions) is equivalent to what someone IS!?

    So being black and being racist are equivalent?


  • Roku

    Getting a bit tired of the assertion that ‘the gays’ forced him out of his job. No we didn’t, some of us simply weren’t comfortable supporting a company who’s CEO financially backed a campaign to deny us the same rights as everyone else. I assume Mozilla decided the negativity caused by their CEO’s actions were impacting on their business. This is something all companies do- the CEO is the face of the company.

  • It doesn’t seem to matter where I go and discuss this, the opposition supporting Eich always fall completely silent when I make the comparison to the Taliban campaigning to remove the rights of women to vote.

    It’s a good comparison to make, and it seems to immediately expose the hypocrisy of the right wing. They don’t have an answer, because it shows without question that they are wrong.

    The fact is, these people believe in authoritarian religious rule when it suits their bigotries. They’re happy to support the religious attempt to remove the rights of others when it’s Christianity attacking the rights of LGBT people, but when you switch it and point out that it’s no different to the Taliban attacking the rights of women, they suddenly shut up and have no argument.

    It’s the usual, typical, right wing hypocrisy that often astounds me. They’ll scream about all kinds of things, but when you point out they are really no different to any other extremist religious or political group wanting to inflict their will onto a majority, they just can’t deal with it, their brains go into meltdown.

  • Steven Gregory

    She tries to equate hunting or adultery with political action against equal rights? Let’s try this: what if Eich donated $1000 to fight equal rights for women, ethnic minorities, elderly or handicapped persons, would that be objectionable? With reasoning skills this flawed, she’s not a writer, but a keyboard operator.

  • ChrisInLA

    It is a bit sad to see some one lose a well paid position, because his views are currently not wholly fashionable. However, the freedom to be who you are and do what you want comes with a heavy price, despite all the oft regurgitated stuff about freedom of speech, etc. Let us not forget that LGBT people in many places in the USA and elsewhere do lose their jobs simply for being who they are and not for what they choose to support. In some countries they are put in jail and in some they are killed.

    No one is compelled to approve of same gender marriage; everyone is free to express that opinion. However, I do not think it is morally right that people should be free to try to prevent others from living peacefully in the way that they choose. I happen to disagree with the whole idea of marriage, but it does not prevent me from attending the weddings of relatives and friends, of celebrating their anniversaries, and even from being a best man on two occasions. One’s opinions should not hinder the happiness of others.

  • If I know person goes hunting, I would definitely boycott whatever it is they do – and if I know they hate gay people, the same applies. This not about rights, but about ethics.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.