I think the Voltaire's quote comes handy here:
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
There is a basic contradiction when those that are defending freedom, are acting against it, when they prosecute this guy, because they do not agree with his ideas.
Who is taking away his freedom of speech? Mozilla employees expressed their feelings on their boss. The free market expressed their opinions of him and he decided to step down. Nobody put a gun to his head. He's free to say what he wants and have whatever believes he chooses. Freedom of speech doesnt protect you from backlash for what you said.
Seems that people frequently misinterpret "freedom of speech" as "backlash immunity".
More like the backlash constituent misinterprets "freedom of speech."
Do they not realize he is entitled to think/feel/speak in opposition to them?
I had been tempted to comment here, and have discarded several attempts. I'm not sure how to say what needs saying, without offending someone.
My personal, typical reaction to that last part (feeling like i can't speak my mind without an unreasonable backlash), is to just say it anyway, because 1) "**** you, that's why!" and 2) "freedom of speech."
I have to give y'all a chance to accept my opinion, even while anticipating many will overreact and misinterpret it.
I'm not gay, and i don't really care whether gay people marry. I'm not going to go out of my way to endorse it, but neither would i lobby against it. It's an issue that simply doesn't concern me in the slightest, except for the veracity with which it is emphasized and pursued, and often used as an excuse for a witch hunt. I don't feel threatened in any way, by the notion or practicalities of gay marriage. I personally don't hold the notion of marriage in such high regard, and the whole thing seems silly to me. Marriage, to me, seems to carry a negative connotation of the feeling of the need to contractually obligate someone to remain with you; if it's really love (which is what *I* think marriage should be about), then you shouldn't need to coerce anyone into a legally binding contract, in order for them to remain a prominent and prioritized fixture in your life.
Tax benefits? Okay, point granted.
However... I do not think it's "wrong" for someone to
think or speak in opposition to gay marriage... but the idea of
lobbying against what someone else feels are
their rights, is what i find disturbing. And this happens in countless realms of law. It upsets me to think of all the people literally throwing money at a system, in attempt to control (read: "limit") what other people are allowed to do, or manipulate how they are recognized "in the eyes of the law" (isn't justice supposed to be blind?).
So, i will grant that the backlash against
lobbying, in this case, is warranted. But he is allowed his opinion, just like anyone else (including all the gays who think any opinion contrary to theirs should be labeled "bigotry," though i find that opinion especially fallacious, and vehemently oppose it). As soon as people turn it into "he shouldn't be allowed a dissenting opinion," THEN i have a problem with it.
So my perspective is that neither "side" is "right." Two wrongs don't make a right. (but three lefts do)
He shouldn't be lobbying against other people's perceived rights, and those people shouldn't be insisting that he not be allowed a different opinion than theirs, and then intentionally impeding the functionality of something that not only he uses, just because they don't like his opinion (though i would argue that lobbying versus impeding ff functionality is kinda fair... or at least relatively justified, and i can't deny being a fan of "an eye for an eye").
After all, a huge tenet of the LGBTx community, is the right to be accepted and fairly treated, despite perceived (and actual) differences, and unconventional and/or alternate preference or lifestyle.
For any LGBTx to say "he's not allowed to have that opinion," is literally "the pot calling the kettle black."
I realize accusing anyone of hypocrisy is never a popular stance, but there it is. This seems to be a common occurrence among mob-mentality witch hunts.
"What's right is not always popular; what's popular is not always right."
Again, if you argue for acceptance of people's rights to opinions, you also have to protect the bigots! (even if you dislike their opinion, they are still humans with rights, just like you) You don't just get to arbitrarily pick and choose which or whose opinions should be allowed, based on your own personally biased preference. Otherwise, you're basically saying "only my opinion is acceptable, and anyone who disagrees should have no rights." That's not going to work out well, and i would argue, is yet another form of bigotry.
But instead of making it all anti-bigotry hate, we should focus our attention on
the lobbying for reduction or prevention of human's rights.
Let them have their dissenting opinions, as long as they aren't actually infringing your rights (as which in this case, lobbying could/should be construed).
An argument against lobbied oppression is more credible and legitimate than an argument of preference against contrary preference.
