Beware the Gay nazis They're fierce!
Posted on 04/05/2014 4:49:50 AM PDT by rhema
This week a well known company whose products I have used for years made national headlines. Why? They made a controversial decision based on their closely held corporate convictions in response to a national outcry. They were criticized by those on the other side who claimed that their expression of their organizational beliefs would violate the freedom of their employees and cause them harm.
No, I am not talking about Hobby Lobby. I am talking about Mozilla.
Yesterday, newly appointed Mozilla CEO Brandon Eich resigned amidst an online furor that erupted because he donated $1,000 to support California's Proposition 8 opposing the legalization of same sex marriage. Though Eich had worked for the company for years, made significant achievements in the tech field, and committed to keep his personal convictions isolated from his corporate leadership, criticisms (and even boycotts by some groups, like dating site OK Cupid) resulted in his resignation.
Isn't it interesting that many who don't think Hobby Lobby can have corporate convictions now think that Mozilla can?
The parallels between the two situations are striking. Of course, there are some distinctives between the two that keep them from being identical. But think about the similarities between them on the basis of the following assertion about convictional decision making by organizations (divided into four aspects): (1) Organizations can hold (2) closely held corporate convictions (3) that are used to make significant decisions (4) that reflect the beliefs of its leadership.
Let's think through the parallels between these two corporate situations in light of all four of aspects of the assertion above.
1. Organizations can hold: This is an issue of ability. Can an organization, as an organization, have corporate convictions that drive decisions. It is not a question of should they hold any particular conviction(s). It is Hobby Lobby's conviction that it will not provide abortion-inducing contraceptives. It is Mozilla's conviction that they will not be led by someone who opposes same sex marriage. It is inconsistent to suggest that one organization can have a core conviction and not the other.
2. Closely held corporate convictions: This is an issue of Identity. Notice the term is corporate conviction, not religious belief because Mozilla would likely deny that a particular religion is driving their decision. Regardless of whether an organization's convictions are explicitly based on religion, all companies have some form of corporate values. Both Hobby Lobby and Mozilla have explicitly stated core convictions. It is inconsistent to suggest that one organization can have corporate convictions and not another.
3. That are used to make significant decision: This is an issue of strategy. It should be expected that corporations make strategic decisions on the basis of their core values. In the case of Hobby Lobby, the decision was to oppose coverage of abortion inducing contraceptives. In the case of Mozilla, the decision was to remove a leader whose personal beliefs did not match their corporate values. It is inconsistent to suggest that it is right for one organization to make strategic decisions based on core convictions and not the other.
4. That reflect the beliefs of its leadership: This is a question of ideology. The personal preferences of a company's leadership can, and often do, shape the corporate convictions of an organization. One of the main critiques of Hobby Lobby is that its leadership has forced its convictions onto the employees of the organization. But isn't this precisely what Mozilla has done too? How would reactions have been different if Mozilla ran off their CEO for supporting same sex marriage rather than opposing it? Mozilla chairwoman Mitchell Baker said the company failed to stay "true to ourselves" and reflect its organizational culture of "diversity and inclusiveness." In both cases, the convictions of the leadership caused the organization to make controversial decisions. It is inconsistent to suggest that it is right for one organization to make decisions that reflect the ideologies of its leaders and not the other.
Mozilla's decision has raised major concerns for those who care about freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Whether you are Hobby Lobby or your hobby is to lobby for what you believe, you must count the costs of your convictions.
Because Mozilla has no balls and would rather a deviant crowd run their business!
Sarcastic response -
“Because the lynch mob is always right.”
But no one seems to be happy in these sensible roles. Everyone wants a role in social engineering, and wants to tell everyone else how to live their lives.
Migrating to Opera browser and Evolution email client.
Thanks rhema.
> Isn’t it interesting that many who don’t think Hobby Lobby can have corporate convictions now think that Mozilla can?
Is there a list of all the companies (like OK Cupid) and other entities participating in the Mozilla boycott?
Because Mozilla and the Cultural Marxists have declared war on Christianity and traditional morality and they intend to win.
The answer to that is the same as the answer to, why George Soros' money is good in politics and the Koch Brothers' is not. Because Mozilla has the CORRECT corporate convictions.
Because Mozilla aids and abets queers
Queers are sacred beings in the moonbat pantheon
I removed Mozilla Firefox from my computer yesterday. Didn’t need it anyway, when any webpage I want to view is accessible through Chrome or Opera. Likewise, I plan to uninstall Mozilla Sunbird and Thunderbird today. Now if only I can find a good POP e-mail program to replace Thunderbird.
Add to that the fact that it is only those who have the immoral/amoral convictions that are willing to stand up for the convictions. We look down our nose at those who are willing to do whatever it takes (rioting/protesting/filing endless lawsuits) in order to fulfill their depraved agenda. We consider ourselves to be "above that" and allow them to dictate to us. Our side seems really good at expressing our "outrage" in forums and other relatively benign venues, but do not follow up except to tell ourselves and others that "someday" our knights in shining armor will show up to save the day and we can rally round them. We still go under the false meme that we are a nation of laws while we sit back and allow the lawless to walk over us. We want to "fight fair and in a civilized manner" while we allow the other side to walk over us and our protests that what they do is "just p[lain wrong and illegal".
We are now in a state of lawlessness and those who adhere to the "law" under these conditions are doomed to failure.
Same reason it’s detestable for a bakery to refuse to bake for a gay wedding, yet it’s laudable for Susanna Martinez’s gay hairdresser to refuse to style Martinez’s hair.
Double standard.
Beware the Gay nazis They're fierce!
Will check them out. Time to leave Homozilla, FagFox and LGBThubderbird behind.
> Because Mozilla and the Cultural Marxists have declared war on Christianity and traditional morality and they intend to win.
And mat they all be Chik-Fil-A’d
> Because Mozilla and the Cultural Marxists have declared war on Christianity and traditional morality and they intend to win.
And may they all be Chik-Fil-A’d
Big difference is that Hobby Lobby isn’t firing any employees because they do not share the same beliefs as the corporate leadership.
I use Google Chrome, am assuming it is ok and not affiliated with Mozilla in any way shape or form ?
no..
but there are many reasons not to use chrome (owned by google) as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.