Mozilla CEO resigns because of Prop 8 donation in 2008

[garbon]

That's not a thought, that's taking active action to consciously deprive others of a right. It's no different than lobbying for anti-miscegenation laws.

Except there's no reason for that except racism. There are other reasons for opposing gay marriage than homophobia.

Thinking civil unions are enough doesn't really apply to this situation as supporting Prop 8 was an active repeal of what had already been granted.

I think mentioned earlier that religiously inspired bigotry is still bigotry. One could theoretically turn the other cheek on this issue, especially as the state isn't trying to change definition of marriage for a religion - just for its own purposes.

[garbon]

True though apparently Wisconsin has criminalized going to another state to have a marriage performed that is not permitted in Wisconsin.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/03/scott-walker-lawsuit-gay-marriage_n_4718412.html

ACLU Sues Scott Walker, Challenges Wisconsin's Same-Sex Marriage Ban

Four same-sex couples represented by the American Civil Liberties Union sued Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) and other state top administration officials on Monday, challenging Wisconsin's seven-year-old ban on gay marriage.

In addition to attempting to overturn the state's constitutional amendment barring marriage equality, the lawsuit also seeks to repeal Wisconsin's "marriage evasion" law, which criminalizes leaving the state to "contract a marriage that is prohibited or void" in Wisconsin. Couples violating the marriage evasion statute can be fined up to "$10,000 or imprisoned for not more than 9 months or both."

"Wisconsin is unique in that sense, and so we think that argument particularly exemplifies the harm or the animus toward same-sex couples in some parts of the country," John Knight, director of ACLU's LGBT and AIDS Project, told the Washington Blade on Monday.

The couples in the lawsuit are Roy Badger and Garth Wangemann; Charvonne Kemp and Marie Carlson; Judith Trampf and Katharina Heyning; and Virginia Wolf and Carol Schumacher, the lead plaintiffs in the case.

Virginia Wolf et al. v. Scott Walker et al., which was filed by the ACLU, the ACLU of Wisconsin and Mayer Brown LLP, argues that Wisconsin's gay marriage ban violates the couples' due process and equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment.

"Wisconsin, a historic leader in marriage equality, maintains one of the most restrictive bans on marriage for same-sex couples in the nation," the lawsuit reads. "The State deprives same-sex couples of these rights and freedoms for no other reason than their sexual orientation and their sex."

"We're completely in love, and we'd like to be married in the state that we live in," Kemp, one of the plaintiffs, told the Washington Blade on Monday. "I'm willing to go to the Supreme Court to fight for the right for everyone to be able to get married if that's what they choose to do. It's about marriage equality for all, not marriage equality for some, or for just us."

The lawsuit is pending before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin while numerous states, including Kentucky, Utah, Florida and Virginia, are facing dozens of similar lawsuits seeking marriage equality.

[Barrister]

That's not a thought, that's taking active action to consciously deprive others of a right. It's no different than lobbying for anti-miscegenation laws.

Except there's no reason for that except racism. There are other reasons for opposing gay marriage than homophobia.

Forget the "other reasons".  Assume it was straight homophobia.  So what?

What if they guy had donated to David Duke at some point in the past, but had otherwise never shown any other issues.  He hired black employees in the past, treated them fairly and with dignity, and did not use inappropriate language.  Is it really a good idea to fire someone in that kind of circumstance?

[crazy canuck]

That's not a thought, that's taking active action to consciously deprive others of a right. It's no different than lobbying for anti-miscegenation laws.

Except there's no reason for that except racism. There are other reasons for opposing gay marriage than homophobia.

Forget the "other reasons".  Assume it was straight homophobia.  So what?

What if they guy had donated to David Duke at some point in the past, but had otherwise never shown any other issues.  He hired black employees in the past, treated them fairly and with dignity, and did not use inappropriate language.  Is it really a good idea to fire someone in that kind of circumstance?

How many "black employees" does he have working in senior managment?    Your argument is getting weaker counsel.

[The Brain]

That's not a thought, that's taking active action to consciously deprive others of a right. It's no different than lobbying for anti-miscegenation laws.

Except there's no reason for that except racism. There are other reasons for opposing gay marriage than homophobia.

Forget the "other reasons".  Assume it was straight homophobia.  So what?

What if they guy had donated to David Duke at some point in the past, but had otherwise never shown any other issues.  He hired black employees in the past, treated them fairly and with dignity, and did not use inappropriate language.  Is it really a good idea to fire someone in that kind of circumstance?

If he is found to be a big enough CR/PR liablity to the company then of course it is. Just like any other skeleton in the closet that peeps out.

[Iormlund]

Lawyer fight!

*grabs popcorn.

[Sheilbh]

I think mentioned earlier that religiously inspired bigotry is still bigotry. One could theoretically turn the other cheek on this issue, especially as the state isn't trying to change definition of marriage for a religion - just for its own purposes.

It's not necessarily bigotry. It's not necessarily motivated by views on gay people, but of marriage. The state changing the definition is beyond it's power in this view. If marriage is a religious creation which the state piggy-backed onto, it can't change that meaning. It should piggy-back off or offer something different.

But what about the boycott of restaurants or shops that stock food grown by someone who opposes same sex marriage?

Edit: Oh and that Wisconsin law is absurd.

[Iormlund]

If marriage is a religious creation which the state piggy-backed onto, it can't change that meaning.

Don't be ridiculous. Marriage pre-dates Christianity by millennia.

[garbon]

I think mentioned earlier that religiously inspired bigotry is still bigotry. One could theoretically turn the other cheek on this issue, especially as the state isn't trying to change definition of marriage for a religion - just for its own purposes.

It's not necessarily bigotry. It's not necessarily motivated by views on gay people, but of marriage. The state changing the definition is beyond it's power in this view. If marriage is a religious creation which the state piggy-backed onto, it can't change that meaning. It should piggy-back off or offer something different.

But what about the boycott of restaurants or shops that stock food grown by someone who opposes same sex marriage?

Edit: Oh and that Wisconsin law is absurd.

Well we have the separation of church and state, so I don't see why the state can't change definitions for itself.  Also, I think an assumption that needs examining is that we have religious individuals who are annoyed about the state muddling definitions of marriage but are just dandy with homosexuals. Is that a common thing?

But you're right. Perhaps there is a decent subset of individuals who isn't bigoted but just too hung-up on a particular word. After all, I personally don't recall caring much if we called them civil unions* though really seems like that would need to be consistently applied to all state sanctioned unions...California had already instituted gay marriage and then we've seen what has happened as far as sorting things out when US/England legalized gay marriage but we have people who already contracted unions. Makes quite a mess with the anti-marriage label having the argument that they aren't comfortable with the label?

I don't see why that would be a problem. Again, I wouldn't participate (like I didn't in this boycott) but I don't see why people can't or how that's wrong. People should be free to spend how they will and if they are aware of the connection and it doesn't sit right with them, that's their choice.

*though yes a separate but equal labeling scheme does serve to set one version up as a lesser.

[Capetan Mihali]

He explicitly supported a campaign to treat a segment of the population as second-class citizens.

That's not a thought, that's taking active action to consciously deprive others of a right. It's no different than lobbying for anti-miscegenation laws.

Of course it is.  Prop 8 didn't criminalize anything.

Anti-miscegenation laws didn't criminalize anything either, just made couples "prove" they were of the same race before granting marriage licenses.

[Admiral Yi]

Anti-miscegenation laws didn't criminalize anything either, just made couples "prove" they were of the same race before granting marriage licenses.

I thought folks could get thrown in the hoosegow for banging across the color line.

[Capetan Mihali]

True though apparently Wisconsin has criminalized going to another state to have a marriage performed that is not permitted in Wisconsin.

Marriage evasion laws are broader and older than the issue of same-sex marriage.  Not that it wouldn't be used against same-sex couples, of course.  I believe quite a few states have them, and that the rationale had to do with age, consanguinity, bigamy, plus race in some states.

[Capetan Mihali]

Anti-miscegenation laws didn't criminalize anything either, just made couples "prove" they were of the same race before granting marriage licenses.

I thought folks could get thrown in the hoosegow for banging across the color line.

Not white men.  And black men tended to be either lynched or convicted of rape if it became public.

But a law like Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the Racial Integrity Act of 1924 (famously overturned in the 60s by aptly-named Loving v. Virginia), just barred marriage between white and colored.

[Valmy]

But a law like Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the Racial Integrity Act of 1924 (famously overturned in the 60s by aptly-named Loving v. Virginia), just barred marriage between white and colored.

Virginia is for lovers.

[Ed Anger]

I'm of pure Aryan stock.