Mozilla chief resigns over same-sex marriage controversy

[RuamRudy]

This CEO contributed $1,000 in support of a law in 2008 that took the exact same position on gay marriage that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton espoused at the time. Forcing him to resign is absolutely ridiculous.

And a lot has changed in the 6 years since then. I am not sure about Hilary, but Obama has since shown enthusiastic support for equality laws. Possibly if Mr. Eich had done the same, he would still be in his job.

But think about it - why would Mozilla pander to a minority if they felt that the weight of public opinion was either with Mr. Eich or nonplussed? Clearly, they believe that society, on the whole, finds his views to be objectionable.

And perhaps Mr Eich had changed his views also. On taking his appointment as CEO "Eich was blogging about how he'd show everyone that he could deal with a complicated situation, celebrate diversity and the company, and ensure that everyone could trust in his leadership". Wasn't Eich offering enthusiastic support just like Obama? oh no, lets drag up a $1000 donation 6 years ago and get him sacked from the job he would have excelled at, and make sure that so much s**t sticks to him he will never get a job again.

What I find objectionable are the views of the Executive Chairwoman. 10 days earlier she had picked the man for the job of CEO. After 8 days in post because she feared a backlash that may cost some money she turned her back on the man that helped bring the company into existence. Nice.

You are right about the poor behaviour of the board, but that is the nature of business. I work for a large international company; several years ago our CEO made a decision which ultimately cost the company a lot of money and he was forced to resign.

The Mozilla case is a bit of that, mixed with a lot of poor due diligence and background checks, but it was ultimately not a decision made about his personal views per se, and more a concern that his personal views would tarnish the reputation of the company. It was not about protecting gays, but about protecting Mozilla.

[Ulysses G.]

This CEO contributed $1,000 in support of a law in 2008 that took the exact same position on gay marriage that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton espoused at the time. Forcing him to resign is absolutely ridiculous.

And a lot has changed in the 6 years since then.

Then why is he be persecuted for something that happened 6 years ago - before things had changed? After all, not only Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, but many others held the same view at the time. The law was passed by a majority of California citizens

Edited April 5, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[RuamRudy]

This CEO contributed $1,000 in support of a law in 2008 that took the exact same position on gay marriage that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton espoused at the time. Forcing him to resign is absolutely ridiculous.

And a lot has changed in the 6 years since then.

Then why is he be persecuted for something that happened 6 years ago - before things had changed? After all, not only Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, but many others held the same view at the time. The law was passed by a majority of California citizens

It was a business decision taken by the board of his company. If they did not believe that his past actions would negatively impact their company, they would not have forced him out.

Why do they think that his past actions will negatively impact the business? I cannot say for sure, but I suspect it is because they think that the majority of their customers do not share the views he expressed previously, and that their customers would consider them to be sufficiently unacceptable, even now, that their relationship with Mozilla would be affected.

[Jingthing]

I stated originally here that I would be against anyone being forced out for free speech, even bigoted free speech and I still feel that way. Whether he was fully forced out or just strongly encouraged, in other words COULD he have stayed if he really wanted to, is probably debatable. From what I read, he COULD have stayed but it would have been uncomfortable. I've had a lot of uncomfortable job situations, haven't you? As far as gays being fired for being gay in America, yes that still happens widely and is fully legal in many states. You can exaggerate gay power all you want but the fact remains gay Americans remain a class of people who are not yet fully first class U.S. citizens, in marriage equality, in employment and housing discrimination LEGAL protections, etc. I realize this is a red meat issue for American right wingers and they are going to latch onto to this Mozilla story and twist it every which way to continue their unending campaign against full gay equality in the U.S.A. I think this story will be good for them, but the march of history is for gay Americans to reach the first class citizens UNDER THE LAW goal that is the sought for prize.

Also, be very very careful to put all gay Americans into this red herring box of being against free speech for the anti-gay. The VAST majority of us are for free speech for ALL, even free speech for bigoted speech and causes.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/04/mozilla_and_brendan_eich_s_resignation_why_don_t_conservatives_want_to_protect.html

Edited April 5, 2014 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Now in American history, someone with a known record of contributing to bigoted racist causes would generally not even be offered a high profile corporate position. I expect in 20 years or so, it will be the same thing for those with a known record of contributing to bigoted anti-gay civil rights causes. But now and then, free speech is still fully legal and constitutional. That doesn't mean there aren't consequences to free speech though. The KKK is extreme and not suggesting supporting Prop 8 is equivalent, but do people really think companies should be legally forced to ignore KKK membership when considering a high profile job application? It just gets messy sometimes.

[sustento]

So if 4 guys go for a job, one is gay three are straight. The best all round candidate for the job who is subsequently chosen for his qualifications and all round experience is one of the straight guys. the other 2 straight guys, say 'sh*t" never mind on to the next interview, does the gay guy claim discrimination because he wasn't picked? Because that has happened. how do you identify discrimination against gays in terms of employment?

If he didn't get the job because he wasn't the best candidate then there's no problem. If they employed and then fired him because they subsequently found out he was gay then that's discrimination. Simple isn't it?

You've got this slightly wrong. We're not asking for equal rights and tolerance - we're asking for equal rights. We've been asking for tolerance since the day the world began but it doesn't seem to have worked so we just want equal rights. We don't want tolerance from Massa - we want the same treatment under the law as everyone else.

P.S. - any answer to post 38?

Your question was rhetoric, am I obliged to answer every post you write? Well if you must.

Yes, that part is simple, the best person gets the job. What puzzles me is when you say 'if the best person gets the job and then they subsequently fire him because he is gay. Considering the number of class actions in the US and the ridiculous amounts of money they reach, why would anybody fire someone because they are gay? They know they would be inviting trouble. They would not expose their prejudice. How about if the employee subsequently turns out to be inappropriate for the job or consistently under performs and the boss paying the salary thinks, no way do I want this clown on my payroll. The straight guy packs his desk and leaves, the gay guy now has an option, pack your desk and leave or claim discrimination for being gay. That is the reality of what happens. We have had it in the UK, not only with gays but also with black police officers claiming they never got the senior promotion they wanted because they were black. Nope it was just because they were not the best man for the job, but they play the discrimination card in order to reap a financial reward....and it works.

Whether you condone it or not is irrelevant, you know it happens. I personally know of a guy in the British Air Force who claimed to be gay several months before legislation came in legalising gays in the armed forces. He wasn't gay, he admitted it to me over a beer. He claimed to be gay so that he could get on the financial band wagon that he knew was coming. He claimed and received around $300K for sexual harassment. He was given the idea by his friend who was gay who told him he would be doing it as it was a dead cert. The result is positive discrimination. We have a Black Police Officers Federation in the Uk but it is racist to have a white police officers federation. We have a gay police officers federation but cannot have a heterosexual one. I really do not have an issue with any minority group, but I do have an issue with them when they start to encourage or demand positive discrimination. It is wrong.

So when the gay man is fired for being gay, how do you know he is being fired for being gay?

My question wasn't rhetorical but you've made a good attempt at answering a question I didn't actually ask. I've no idea what the Black Police Officers Federation has to do with anything.

I was fired for being gay. I was also told I was being fired because I was gay. Mind you this was in the UK where we don't reach for a lawyer at every excuse. It was also back in the day when we gay folks were expected to ride in the back of the bus.

I'm not usually a spiteful man but when I see all the the straight whiners going on about how badly they're being treated and how discriminatory it all is the phrase that springs to mind is 'som nam na'.

[Jingthing]

Mozilla Man is still a rich white straight man of the SUPER ELITE who will likely be unemployed for like FIVE MINUTES (yes I'm exaggerating for effect but it's obvious he will now be flooded with great job offers, that is if he really wants to work at all), while still same sex couples can't legally marry in the majority of U.S. states, and gay Americans have no national protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment, housing, etc. So cry me a river, Mozilla Man ...

Not to mention it is hardly proven he couldn't have avoided the unemployment at all considering he wasn't actually fired.

Edited April 5, 2014 by Jingthing

[Scott]

Inflammatory posts and replies deleted. Please stay on topic.

[HeavyDrinker]

Who cares who weds who? If there's love then it's nowt to do with noone

[Jingthing]

Who cares who weds who? If there's love then it's nowt to do with noone

Or whatever the motivation is to marry. People get married for all kinds of reasons and that's their personal business; not the state and not the mosque.

[GentlemanJim]

I stated originally here that I would be against anyone being forced out for free speech, even bigoted free speech and I still feel that way. Whether he was fully forced out or just strongly encouraged, in other words COULD he have stayed if he really wanted to, is probably debatable. From what I read, he COULD have stayed but it would have been uncomfortable. I've had a lot of uncomfortable job situations, haven't you? As far as gays being fired for being gay in America, yes that still happens widely and is fully legal in many states. You can exaggerate gay power all you want but the fact remains gay Americans remain a class of people who are not yet fully first class U.S. citizens, in marriage equality, in employment and housing discrimination LEGAL protections, etc. I realize this is a red meat issue for American right wingers and they are going to latch onto to this Mozilla story and twist it every which way to continue their unending campaign against full gay equality in the U.S.A. I think this story will be good for them, but the march of history is for gay Americans to reach the first class citizens UNDER THE LAW goal that is the sought for prize.

Also, be very very careful to put all gay Americans into this red herring box of being against free speech for the anti-gay. The VAST majority of us are for free speech for ALL, even free speech for bigoted speech and causes.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/04/mozilla_and_brendan_eich_s_resignation_why_don_t_conservatives_want_to_protect.html

So let me get this right this is a red meat issue in a red herring box?

The VAST majority of us are for free speech for ALL, even free speech for bigoted speech and causes.

That is blatantly apparent from the members comments in the gay site you linked us to yesterday.

[GentlemanJim]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Mozilla Man is still a rich white straight man of the SUPER ELITE who will likely be unemployed for like FIVE MINUTES (yes I'm exaggerating for effect but it's obvious he will now be flooded with great job offers, that is if he really wants to work at all), while still same sex couples can't legally marry in the majority of U.S. states, and gay Americans have no national protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment, housing, etc. So cry me a river, Mozilla Man ...

Not to mention it is hardly proven he couldn't have avoided the unemployment at all considering he wasn't actually fired.

Yes he is of the super elite and very very wealthy. He donated a $1000 to prop 8. Go figure. I think if he was as active as you indicate when you earlier said you 'despise him' he could have contributed $10M and not even needed a receipt. Mountains out of molehills. It all fits the agenda of positive discrimination.

[PaiMei]

This CEO contributed $1,000 in support of a law in 2008 that took the exact same position on gay marriage that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton espoused at the time. Forcing him to resign is absolutely ridiculous.

And a lot has changed in the 6 years since then. I am not sure about Hilary, but Obama has since shown enthusiastic support for equality laws. Possibly if Mr. Eich had done the same, he would still be in his job.

But think about it - why would Mozilla pander to a minority if they felt that the weight of public opinion was either with Mr. Eich or nonplussed? Clearly, they believe that society, on the whole, finds his views to be objectionable.

Actually during the 2008 election, while coming out generally in favor of gay rights Obama came out specifically against gay marriage: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/11/obama-on-mtv-i/

And then there's the whole Duck Dynasty thing.

Look, it can be tricky walking the line between folks religious or philosophical beliefs as they translate into cultural institutions vs. protecting groups outside of the majority or mainstream. (Or even in the mainstream depending on the situation).

Gays have been discriminated against horribly in the past so there's a sensitivity there that can go overboard. I don't see this guy as being patently hateful or against gays - when you go into areas like marriage you're dealing with traditional influences (right or wrong) and playing in traditions's backyard. Personally I"m against straight people getting married, most of the time someone is getting exploited, but that's another topic.

Anyway, the point is - there's nothing to indicate this guy has a hateful agenda. Pick your battles, this one isn't worth it and it may serve to do the opposite - trivialize the very real discrimination gays have suffered in comparison.

[Jingthing]

...

Gays have been discriminated against horribly in the past so there's a sensitivity there that can go overboard.

...

In the past?

Oh my God, I can't even believe I'm reading this.

So let me get this straight, gay people are not discriminated against anymore as a class of people?

Gay people in the USA (not to mention Russia, Uganda, etc.) now enjoy equal civil rights under the laws?

Is that really what you wanted to suggest?

Hopefully the next generations can take an arrogant and clueless statement like yours as something even approaching real, not now. not even close!

Maybe some people see shows like GLEE and conclude gay teens in the USA aren't still getting their asses kicked everyday in school just for being gay, and many STILL being driven to suicide by a homophobic culture especially in regions dominated by fundamentalist Christian hate dogma. Yes, it IS getting better, but it's not nearly GOOD ENOUGH yet.

Edited April 5, 2014 by Jingthing

[connda]

<sigh>

[Richard W]

The Government should recognise permanent unions of couples in law, regardless of gender and the same, equal rights should apply.

Shouldn't it also recognise polygamous unions?

[sustento]

The Government should recognise permanent unions of couples in law, regardless of gender and the same, equal rights should apply.

Shouldn't it also recognise polygamous unions?

If you want to marry a bunch of people all you have to do is convince your specific law-making organisation that it's the right thing to do. Let us know when you succeed.

[GentlemanJim]

The Government should recognise permanent unions of couples in law, regardless of gender and the same, equal rights should apply.

Shouldn't it also recognise polygamous unions?

Why not. If everyone consents then go for it. Personally I have enough trouble with one wife so 7 or 8 would drive me nuts. Make sure the same legislation applies to straights and gays though!

Looking on the bright side I have often thought the term 'circle jerk' to be rather vulgar but now the people that engage in such activities could perhaps consider calling it a 'Mozilla', there bye remembering for ever how the Gay community got one over on Mr Eich and having a neat name for a rather dreadful activity. It will mean much more to the gay community in San Francisco I am sure.

Edited April 5, 2014 by GentlemanJim

[sustento]

The Government should recognise permanent unions of couples in law, regardless of gender and the same, equal rights should apply.

Shouldn't it also recognise polygamous unions?

Why not. If everyone consents then go for it. Personally I have enough trouble with one wife so 7 or 8 would drive me nuts. Make sure the same legislation applies to straights and gays though!

Looking on the bright side I have often thought the term 'circle jerk' to be rather vulgar but now the people that engage in such activities could perhaps consider calling it a 'Mozilla', there bye remembering for ever how the Gay community got one over on Mr Eich and having a neat name for a rather dreadful activity. It will mean much more to the gay community in San Francisco I am sure.

[sustento]

The Government should recognise permanent unions of couples in law, regardless of gender and the same, equal rights should apply.

Shouldn't it also recognise polygamous unions?

Why not. If everyone consents then go for it. Personally I have enough trouble with one wife so 7 or 8 would drive me nuts. Make sure the same legislation applies to straights and gays though!

Looking on the bright side I have often thought the term 'circle jerk' to be rather vulgar but now the people that engage in such activities could perhaps consider calling it a 'Mozilla', there bye remembering for ever how the Gay community got one over on Mr Eich and having a neat name for a rather dreadful activity. It will mean much more to the gay community in San Francisco I am sure.

Oh do get over yourself. You expect us to sit there and have 'tolerance' for the point of view of vile creatures like Fred Phelps (gone to heaven at last TF) yet you get your panties in a knot when a few poofs kick back? Here's the juice Jim. We tried tolerance. It didn't work. We aren't interested in tolerance any more Bwana. Too late!

[GentlemanJim]

Shouldn't it also recognise polygamous unions?

Why not. If everyone consents then go for it. Personally I have enough trouble with one wife so 7 or 8 would drive me nuts. Make sure the same legislation applies to straights and gays though!

Looking on the bright side I have often thought the term 'circle jerk' to be rather vulgar but now the people that engage in such activities could perhaps consider calling it a 'Mozilla', there bye remembering for ever how the Gay community got one over on Mr Eich and having a neat name for a rather dreadful activity. It will mean much more to the gay community in San Francisco I am sure.

Oh do get over yourself. You expect us to sit there and have 'tolerance' for the point of view of vile creatures like Fred Phelps (gone to heaven at last TF) yet you get your panties in a knot when a few poofs kick back? Here's the juice Jim. We tried tolerance. It didn't work. We aren't interested in tolerance any more Bwana. Too late!

Dear me, do you need someone to rant to? Go ahead. Where would you ever think I would tolerate Fred Phelps? If only they would have had a funeral for him I would have queued up to throw a log on the fire and stoke it up a bit. I bet he had a shock when they turned him away at the pearly gates. Show me where I am getting my knickers in a twist when a few 'poofs' kick back. See there is a classic example, if I come on here and call gays poofs then my oh my, I am spawn of satan, you call gays poofs and it's trendy. I know you are not tolerant, in fact quite the reverse, no need to tell me, I know.

[Scott]

I think we will drop the homophobic slurs, like poof. Let's stick to the topic, please.

[PaiMei]

...

Gays have been discriminated against horribly in the past so there's a sensitivity there that can go overboard.

...

In the past?

Oh my God, I can't even believe I'm reading this.

So let me get this straight, gay people are not discriminated against anymore as a class of people?

Gay people in the USA (not to mention Russia, Uganda, etc.) now enjoy equal civil rights under the laws?

Is that really what you wanted to suggest?

Hopefully the next generations can take an arrogant and clueless statement like yours as something even approaching real, not now. not even close!

Maybe some people see shows like GLEE and conclude gay teens in the USA aren't still getting their asses kicked everyday in school just for being gay, and many STILL being driven to suicide by a homophobic culture especially in regions dominated by fundamentalist Christian hate dogma. Yes, it IS getting better, but it's not nearly GOOD ENOUGH yet.

Sorry a bit awkward on the phone. But yes I did mean to imply that in

America (which is where this is happening), especially in LA, NYC, etc - discrimination against gays was horrible in the past and that environment has grown significantly more tolerant.

Perhaps tolerance is something u could ask yourself of sir in addition to slinging accusations. My friends are quite comfortable with me,

Edit: asked a good friend to look at my post critically and his quote was that you had some anger and I should disengage from the dialog. Which I'm gonna do.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Edited April 6, 2014 by PaiMei

[sustento]

Shouldn't it also recognise polygamous unions?

Why not. If everyone consents then go for it. Personally I have enough trouble with one wife so 7 or 8 would drive me nuts. Make sure the same legislation applies to straights and gays though!

Looking on the bright side I have often thought the term 'circle jerk' to be rather vulgar but now the people that engage in such activities could perhaps consider calling it a 'Mozilla', there bye remembering for ever how the Gay community got one over on Mr Eich and having a neat name for a rather dreadful activity. It will mean much more to the gay community in San Francisco I am sure.

Oh do get over yourself. You expect us to sit there and have 'tolerance' for the point of view of vile creatures like Fred Phelps (gone to heaven at last TF) yet you get your panties in a knot when a few poofs kick back? Here's the juice Jim. We tried tolerance. It didn't work. We aren't interested in tolerance any more Bwana. Too late!

Dear me, do you need someone to rant to? Go ahead. Where would you ever think I would tolerate Fred Phelps? If only they would have had a funeral for him I would have queued up to throw a log on the fire and stoke it up a bit. I bet he had a shock when they turned him away at the pearly gates. Show me where I am getting my knickers in a twist when a few 'poofs' kick back. See there is a classic example, if I come on here and call gays poofs then my oh my, I am spawn of satan, you call gays poofs and it's trendy. I know you are not tolerant, in fact quite the reverse, no need to tell me, I know.

[sustento]

The Government should recognise permanent unions of couples in law, regardless of gender and the same, equal rights should apply.

Shouldn't it also recognise polygamous unions?

I am afraid polygamy doesn't sit well with the liberal/PC agenda....

If those who want polygamy can persuade their elected representatives to make it law as we did with gay marriage then let them get on with it.

[ChiangMike]

There's an irony and hypocrisy here. I agree that it detracts from the real and substantive prejudice that takes place and this kind of hysterics does more to trivialize than promote equality.

Why isn't there similar outrage over Obama's opposition in the past to Gay Marriage? Why isn't he being called a nazi, fascist, or equated to grotesque repression in Uganda or Russia for taking the exact same position as Eich?

Eich comes out in interviews and says he supports the inclusiveness at Mozilla of the LGBT community, but his personal view is that marriage is some sort of sacred act. I think that's bullshit, but I don't think he's a hate monger and this whole conversation itself has a reverse effect.

Comparing this guys as CEO to the civil rights movement is a joke (and an insult to a zilliion gay people who have really suffered in genuine discrimination).

And yet again - the hypocrisy - why no similar outrage against president Obama? This is a lynch mob plain and simple and the flavor of the week.

[Credo]

I don't think Obama gave any money to support a proposition to prevent gay marriage.

[Jingthing]

There's an irony and hypocrisy here. I agree that it detracts from the real and substantive prejudice that takes place and this kind of hysterics does more to trivialize than promote equality.

Why isn't there similar outrage over Obama's opposition in the past to Gay Marriage? Why isn't he being called a nazi, fascist, or equated to grotesque repression in Uganda or Russia for taking the exact same position as Eich?

Eich comes out in interviews and says he supports the inclusiveness at Mozilla of the LGBT community, but his personal view is that marriage is some sort of sacred act. I think that's bullshit, but I don't think he's a hate monger and this whole conversation itself has a reverse effect.

Comparing this guys as CEO to the civil rights movement is a joke (and an insult to a zilliion gay people who have really suffered in genuine discrimination).

And yet again - the hypocrisy - why no similar outrage against president Obama? This is a lynch mob plain and simple and the flavor of the week.

Again, he quit.

He was pressured but it's not at all clear he couldn't have stayed if he really had wanted to.

Obama did not support Prop. 8 so your assertion that Eich and Obama were equivalent on this issue is FALSE.

Here is a strong reminder of how HORRIBLE and BIGOTED Prop 8 actually was, yes, the rhetoric used in this proposition was remarkably similar to the rhetoric used now in Putin's Russia. A coincidence? NO! That is because religiously motivated homophobes from America have actively exported their anti-gay rhetoric to many countries in the world, mostly in Africa, but also in Russian speaking countries.

The tactics used by pro-Prop 8 campaigners were not merely homophobic. They were laser-focused to exploit Californians’ deepest and most irrational fears about gay people, indoctrinating an entire state with cruelly anti-gay propaganda. Early on, Prop 8’s supporters decided to focus their campaign primarily on children, stoking parents’ fears about gay people brainwashing their kids with pro-gay messages or, implicitly, turning their children gay.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/04/04/brendan_eich_supported_prop_8_which_was_worse_than_you_remember.html

Obama on Prop. 8.

No he didn't give money to it.

He spoke out against it!

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Obama-opposes-proposed-ban-on-gay-marriage-3278328.php

Gay rights moved to the forefront of the presidential campaign Tuesday after Democratic Sen. Barack Obama'sannouncement that he opposes a November ballot measure that would ban same-sex marriage in California.

In a letter to San Francisco's Alice B. Toklas Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Democratic Club, the presumptive presidential nominee said he opposed "the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution" and similar efforts in other states.

Edited April 6, 2014 by Jingthing

[Loptr]

So Mozilla's "organisational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness" only works one way!

Sent from my XT1032 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Funny, considering that this guy had the same position on the topic as President Obama did in 2008 when the donation was made.

The truth is that the LGBT lobby in the US have become McCarthy-like witch-hunters attacking anyone that "they feel" does not accept their lifestyle. That ain't the way it's supposed to work in a free society (ha) and their own are beginning to question their motives and actions. Let's not forget the LGBT lobby are still in the vast minority when compared to the general population. Push too hard and they'll get bitch-slapped back into the closet. Personally, I couldn't care less what someone's sexual preference is until you make it my business. When you threaten my livelihood based on my opinion of your lifestyle, watch for the fur to fly.

Edited April 6, 2014 by Loptr

[Loptr]

The Government should recognise permanent unions of couples in law, regardless of gender and the same, equal rights should apply.

Shouldn't it also recognise polygamous unions?

Why not. If everyone consents then go for it. Personally I have enough trouble with one wife so 7 or 8 would drive me nuts. Make sure the same legislation applies to straights and gays though!

Looking on the bright side I have often thought the term 'circle jerk' to be rather vulgar but now the people that engage in such activities could perhaps consider calling it a 'Mozilla', there bye remembering for ever how the Gay community got one over on Mr Eich and having a neat name for a rather dreadful activity. It will mean much more to the gay community in San Francisco I am sure.

Oh do get over yourself. You expect us to sit there and have 'tolerance' for the point of view of vile creatures like Fred Phelps (gone to heaven at last TF) yet you get your panties in a knot when a few poofs kick back? Here's the juice Jim. We tried tolerance. It didn't work. We aren't interested in tolerance any more Bwana. Too late!

Then be prepared to have some alpha-male hand you your lunch when you demand that he accept your lifestyle choices. Where can I buy a ticket because I don't want to be late as it won't last more than 3 seconds.