Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Good work, Arizona (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Hilts
- Start date
LinusMarr
Footballguy
Yes brohans, im also getting a kick out of the bigotry towards the religious people, its a lot of jimmy-jack with bigots upset about someone else's bigotry. My bigotry is justified while your bigotry isn't brohans! and a bunch of jimmy cracked corn and I don't care stuff brohans. I think im gonna grow a fu-man chu oh brohan my brohan...
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr Oadi
Footballguy
Have a competition for women? Better let that woman who was born a boy in or there will be a lawsuit coming your way! http://news.yahoo.com/transgender-woman-sues-crossfit-over-competition-082010118.html
joffer
Footballguy
I suppose there's no chance of Mississippi losing a Super Bowl. Maybe the chewing tobacco company could threaten a boycott.
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/04/02/3421938/mississippi-religious-discrimination/
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/04/02/3421938/mississippi-religious-discrimination/
timschochet
Footballguy
Dr Oadi
Footballguy
Homosexual agenda costs CEO his job all for standing up for marriage.
http://www.cnet.com/news/mozilla-ceo-eich-resigns-after-controversy/
http://www.cnet.com/news/mozilla-ceo-eich-resigns-after-controversy/
fatness
Footballguy
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
Lutherman2112
Footballguy
It is a serious question. If someone supports some political viewpoint which has no direct bearing on job performance, is it OK to fire them?
Lutherman2112
Footballguy
Eich wasn't fired.It is a serious question. If someone supports some political viewpoint which has no direct bearing on job performance, is it OK to fire them?
Koya
Footballguy
While I don't agree with the harassment of those with opposing views, the market had always responded to certain touch point issues when company leaders step into the fray.
To my knowledge, the issue for many/ most here was less the donation than the fact that the CEO would not apologize. If indeed that is true, then if a bunch of the companies partners see the CEO as someone who is standing in the way of providing nothing more than equal rights and freedom, that's part of the game.
This is not about free speech but rather taking action. Free speech would be the CEO speaking his belief that same sex marriage is wrong, immoral, whatever - but NOT looking to IMPOSE those views upon others by actively supporting a group that's trying to use legislative channels to DENY those rights and freedoms.
The latter is taking actual action to deny rights and freedoms. Now, we are a free nation and the CEO did nothing illegal, however I see a strong distinction between stating your belief that something is wrong but that people should be entitled to have that choice with freedom and equality under that law and what the CEO did who is to extend his belief to ACTIVELY attempt to deny rights and freedoms. And even with that, as I understand it, those very people that he was trying to deny rights and freedoms to (not just state his opinion on the matter) along with their allies were simply asking for an apology with didn't come.
For me, there's a huge distinction between voicing your opinion ( I do NOT support my daughter marrying a black guy !) and looking to take legal channels to deny rights, freedom and equality ( I'm going to actively support outlawing interracial marriage ! )
Lutherman2112
Footballguy
Brendan Eich Steps Down as Mozilla CEO
Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn’t live up to it. We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: it’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves.
We didn’t act like you’d expect Mozilla to act. We didn’t move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We’re sorry. We must do better.
Brendan Eich has chosen to step down from his role as CEO. He’s made this decision for Mozilla and our community.
Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.
Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness. We welcome contributions from everyone regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race, sexual orientation, geographical location and religious views. Mozilla supports equality for all.
We have employees with a wide diversity of views. Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public. This is meant to distinguish Mozilla from most organizations and hold us to a higher standard. But this time we failed to listen, to engage, and to be guided by our community.
While painful, the events of the last week show exactly why we need the web. So all of us can engage freely in the tough conversations we need to make the world better.
We need to put our focus back on protecting that Web. And doing so in a way that will make you proud to support Mozilla.
What’s next for Mozilla’s leadership is still being discussed. We want to be open about where we are in deciding the future of the organization and will have more information next week. However, our mission will always be to make the Web more open so that humanity is stronger, more inclusive and more just: that’s what it means to protect the open Web.
We will emerge from this with a renewed understanding and humility — our large, global, and diverse community is what makes Mozilla special, and what will help us fulfill our mission. We are stronger with you involved.
Thank you for sticking with us.
Mitchell Baker, Executive Chairwoman
Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn’t live up to it. We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: it’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves.
We didn’t act like you’d expect Mozilla to act. We didn’t move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We’re sorry. We must do better.
Brendan Eich has chosen to step down from his role as CEO. He’s made this decision for Mozilla and our community.
Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.
Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness. We welcome contributions from everyone regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race, sexual orientation, geographical location and religious views. Mozilla supports equality for all.
We have employees with a wide diversity of views. Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public. This is meant to distinguish Mozilla from most organizations and hold us to a higher standard. But this time we failed to listen, to engage, and to be guided by our community.
While painful, the events of the last week show exactly why we need the web. So all of us can engage freely in the tough conversations we need to make the world better.
We need to put our focus back on protecting that Web. And doing so in a way that will make you proud to support Mozilla.
What’s next for Mozilla’s leadership is still being discussed. We want to be open about where we are in deciding the future of the organization and will have more information next week. However, our mission will always be to make the Web more open so that humanity is stronger, more inclusive and more just: that’s what it means to protect the open Web.
We will emerge from this with a renewed understanding and humility — our large, global, and diverse community is what makes Mozilla special, and what will help us fulfill our mission. We are stronger with you involved.
Thank you for sticking with us.
Mitchell Baker, Executive Chairwoman
He was pressured to resign. But still the question holds. Is that a legitimate role of a corporation to ensure their people hold the proper political viewpoint?Eich wasn't fired.It is a serious question. If someone supports some political viewpoint which has no direct bearing on job performance, is it OK to fire them?
timschochet
Footballguy
The CEO, yes. Having a bigoted CEO hurts the company.He was pressured to resign. But still the question holds. Is that a legitimate role of a corporation to ensure their people hold the proper political viewpoint?Eich wasn't fired.It is a serious question. If someone supports some political viewpoint which has no direct bearing on job performance, is it OK to fire them?
Koya
Footballguy
Jon - per my last point, do you see any distinction between expressing your views ( which in this case includes limiting the rights of others even if you feel to exercise those rights is, according to you, immoral) and trying to have the govt enforce those views ( of limiting certain rights and freedoms, again even though you may personally feel its wrong or immoral )He was pressured to resign. But still the question holds. Is that a legitimate role of a corporation to ensure their people hold the proper political viewpoint?Eich wasn't fired.It is a serious question. If someone supports some political viewpoint which has no direct bearing on job performance, is it OK to fire them?
Supporting Obamacare could be considered as hurting the company.The CEO, yes. Having a bigoted CEO hurts the company.He was pressured to resign. But still the question holds. Is that a legitimate role of a corporation to ensure their people hold the proper political viewpoint?Eich wasn't fired.It is a serious question. If someone supports some political viewpoint which has no direct bearing on job performance, is it OK to fire them?
Anytime you support a political viewpoint, you are trying to have government enforce those views. Spending money to promote the idea or vocalizing those views are not that much of a distinction.Jon - per my last point, do you see any distinction between expressing your views ( which in this case includes limiting the rights of others even if you feel to exercise those rights is, according to you, immoral) and trying to have the govt enforce those views ( of limiting certain rights and freedoms, again even though you may personally feel its wrong or immoral )He was pressured to resign. But still the question holds. Is that a legitimate role of a corporation to ensure their people hold the proper political viewpoint?Eich wasn't fired.It is a serious question. If someone supports some political viewpoint which has no direct bearing on job performance, is it OK to fire them?
He wasn't fired, he resigned. That said, of course it's OK for a company's customers to complain about a CEO's support for Obamacare, a CEO's support for the KKK, or a CEO's preference for strawberry ice cream. If the subset of customers who complain are important enough, the company is well within its rights to fire the CEO. Why would this even be a question?
Clifford
Footballguy
Eich had refused to give up the post, despite a growing chorus of voices demanding his resignation. He was named chief executive of the nonprofit Mozilla Foundation two weeks ago.
This is not right. The left is really showing a very, very bad side of itself with this.
This is not right. The left is really showing a very, very bad side of itself with this.
bigbottom
Footballguy
It may be illegal, depending on the state.It is a serious question. If someone supports some political viewpoint which has no direct bearing on job performance, is it OK to fire them?
Koya
Footballguy
Perhaps I should state it this way:Anytime you support a political viewpoint, you are trying to have government enforce those views. Spending money to promote the idea or vocalizing those views are not that much of a distinction.Jon - per my last point, do you see any distinction between expressing your views ( which in this case includes limiting the rights of others even if you feel to exercise those rights is, according to you, immoral) and trying to have the govt enforce those views ( of limiting certain rights and freedoms, again even though you may personally feel its wrong or immoral )He was pressured to resign. But still the question holds. Is that a legitimate role of a corporation to ensure their people hold the proper political viewpoint?Eich wasn't fired.It is a serious question. If someone supports some political viewpoint which has no direct bearing on job performance, is it OK to fire them?
Do you see a difference in having a viewpoint whereby you feel that something is not moral or right but allow others to exercise their freedom and either vocalizing or contributing re a desire to actually limit their ability to act in such a manner?
Again for the mixed marriage point - I don't beeline it's right to have mixed marriage and would hate my daughter to marry a black guy but don't ask my govt to prevent it as compared to I don't believe its rights and I will vocalize And/ or contribute to others that vocalize the viewpoint that govt should limit those freedoms?
To me that's a huge distinction.
Lutherman2112
Footballguy
The prop 8 issue just didn't just come up a few weeks ago, it's been known for two years inside the Mozilla community and was causing problems within the organization. From recode.net:Eich had refused to give up the post, despite a growing chorus of voices demanding his resignation. He was named chief executive of the nonprofit Mozilla Foundation two weeks ago.
This is not right. The left is really showing a very, very bad side of itself with this.
Last edited by a moderator:
Lutherman2112
Footballguy
There were other reasons people in the Mozilla community didn't like Eich for the CEO job; those reasons just don't grab headlines. From March 28 WSJ:
Last edited by a moderator:
