Chick-Fil-A Scandal V2.0 With Firefox CEO
Chick-Fil-A Scandal v2.0 with Firefox CEO
He was given a break when it was outed in 2012, he kept his job (whatever it was). Like I said, he should not have been promoted to CEO.
Shiva.Viciousss said: »
He was given a break when it was outed in 2012, he kept his job (whatever it was). Like I said, he should not have been promoted to CEO.
It shouldn't matter to his job at all. Being fired for political leanings is ridiculous, although I'm aware stepping down was his decision. Even Glenn Beck has liberals on his staff. There's no reason Firefox, which isn't a political entity at all, should even care in this case.
[+]
It only matters because he became the CEO, the face of the company. I don't know why they would promote him knowing about this incident and knowing the backlash it would bring, but they did anyway. It was a dead issue before the promotion.
A "majority vote" that was heavily financed by the LDS Church out of Utah in clear violation of the law. Just a friendly reminder there.
Personally, I think Mozilla shot themselves in the foot by letting him become CEO. But let's not pretend that Eich is some blameless figure being criticized for something beyond his control. He worked in a markedly inclusive company and has been there since the beginning. Apparently that inclusiveness had been bothering him enough to contribute a moderate sum of money to a non-inclusion piece of legislation. I'm willing to admit he may have changed his mind, but the timing is too convenient, especially considering, again, he'd been working in a progressive company for years and still felt the need to spend money on a regressive cause.
And, y'know, the reality is that image matters. No one pulling down 6+ figures should be ignorant of that, so suffering for a bad decision is part of the territory.
And, of course, public donation. If you don't want someone knowing that you support the Baby Seal Clubbing Enthusiasts party, donate anonymously.
Personally, I think Mozilla shot themselves in the foot by letting him become CEO. But let's not pretend that Eich is some blameless figure being criticized for something beyond his control. He worked in a markedly inclusive company and has been there since the beginning. Apparently that inclusiveness had been bothering him enough to contribute a moderate sum of money to a non-inclusion piece of legislation. I'm willing to admit he may have changed his mind, but the timing is too convenient, especially considering, again, he'd been working in a progressive company for years and still felt the need to spend money on a regressive cause.
And, y'know, the reality is that image matters. No one pulling down 6+ figures should be ignorant of that, so suffering for a bad decision is part of the territory.
And, of course, public donation. If you don't want someone knowing that you support the Baby Seal Clubbing Enthusiasts party, donate anonymously.
Thats pretty much what I have been saying >.>
I wasn't arguing with you, Viciousss? I just didn't feel like hitting the quote button to indicate it was in response to Ravael.
His contract likely included a morality clause that essentially allows the company to dictate what is and what isn't acceptable personal behavior. Could this be seen as an unwelcome intrusion into the lives of its employess? Perhaps, but you have to consider that this guy wasn't just another work peon. He was a prominent figure at the core of the company, and the company should get to rectify any problems his behavior, private or public, has on the company image.
He wasn't fired for political leanings. He actually acted on them. He was fired for his past actions.
He wasn't fired for political leanings. He actually acted on them. He was fired for his past actions.
[+]
Shiva.Onorgul said: »
A "majority vote" that was heavily financed by the LDS Church out of Utah in clear violation of the law. Just a friendly reminder there.
It was financed by members of the LDS Church. There is no evidence that the church itself donated a dime.
Amusing considering the flip flop the LDS church had on black colored people rather recently.
At least they evolved, when finances and demographics took hold.
At least they evolved, when finances and demographics took hold.
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »
Amusing considering the flip flop the LDS church had on black colored people rather recently.
At least they evolved, when finances and demographics took hold.
At least they evolved, when finances and demographics took hold.
I don't see what that has to do with anything. I was only pointing out that the church as an entity didn't illegally donate money.
Considering the LDS Church itself was fined, no, it wasn't just some people who were accidentally Mormon.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Shiva.Onorgul said: »
A "majority vote" that was heavily financed by the LDS Church out of Utah in clear violation of the law. Just a friendly reminder there.
It was financed by members of the LDS Church. There is no evidence that the church itself donated a dime.
But you also don't know if the members of the church did so under the urging of the church. The church has a very strong influence on the members personal lives.
Corporations before Citizens United did similar things by having employees make political donations to candidates of the companies choosing then reimbursing them afterwards through bonuses.
[+]
A lot of people are unaware, that indirectly, as we work for someone else, or more so for ourselves, regardless of the position we hold, we are emissaries of our workplace.
As long as what we do doesn't harm the image of our workplace, they could care less. If what we do promotes business, increases total sales, or inspires productivity, new and profitable ideas, they care just as much as anything we'd do that would tarnish our reputation as an employee, and subsequently, the reputation of the workplace or business.
They can hire and fire people for any kind of meaningless *** they want - as long as it's not something that's a legally protected status. Regardless of how we feel about it. Doesn't make it right, nor does it make it wrong.
Also for people who tend to relay arguments with "logic" in them, and then pander ceremoniously to emotional logic: That's hypocrisy.
As long as what we do doesn't harm the image of our workplace, they could care less. If what we do promotes business, increases total sales, or inspires productivity, new and profitable ideas, they care just as much as anything we'd do that would tarnish our reputation as an employee, and subsequently, the reputation of the workplace or business.
They can hire and fire people for any kind of meaningless *** they want - as long as it's not something that's a legally protected status. Regardless of how we feel about it. Doesn't make it right, nor does it make it wrong.
Also for people who tend to relay arguments with "logic" in them, and then pander ceremoniously to emotional logic: That's hypocrisy.
I'm researching this further. There's a lot of conflicting information to sort out.
Okay, so apparently the donations from the church were "in-kind and nonmonetary" and the fines were a result of a mistake regarding a daily reporting requirement. So, essentially, the donations were not cash and legally reported to California, but the fines came as a result of late reporting of said contributions. The total fine? $5539. Woooo, big deal there.
Why are we talking about a church?
Bismarck.Bloodrose said: »
A lot of people are unaware, that indirectly, as we work for someone else, or more so for ourselves, regardless of the position we hold, we are emissaries of our workplace.
As long as what we do doesn't harm the image of our workplace, they could care less. If what we do promotes business, increases total sales, or inspires productivity, new and profitable ideas, they care just as much as anything we'd do that would tarnish our reputation as an employee, and subsequently, the reputation of the workplace or business.
They can hire and fire people for any kind of meaningless *** they want - as long as it's not something that's a legally protected status. Regardless of how we feel about it. Doesn't make it right, nor does it make it wrong.
Also for people who tend to relay arguments with "logic" in them, and then pander ceremoniously to emotional logic: That's hypocrisy.
As long as what we do doesn't harm the image of our workplace, they could care less. If what we do promotes business, increases total sales, or inspires productivity, new and profitable ideas, they care just as much as anything we'd do that would tarnish our reputation as an employee, and subsequently, the reputation of the workplace or business.
They can hire and fire people for any kind of meaningless *** they want - as long as it's not something that's a legally protected status. Regardless of how we feel about it. Doesn't make it right, nor does it make it wrong.
Also for people who tend to relay arguments with "logic" in them, and then pander ceremoniously to emotional logic: That's hypocrisy.
Yep. Its called corporate branding and corporate culture. If someone regardless of hierarchical standing says or does something that comes into conflict or is contrary to the specific brand image and culture, they're 86d
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Okay, so apparently the donations from the church were "in-kind and nonmonetary" and the fines were a result of a mistake regarding a daily reporting requirement. So, essentially, the donations were not cash and legally reported to California, but the fines came as a result of late reporting of said contributions. The total fine? $5539. Woooo, big deal there.
Lakshmi.Zerowone said: »
Bismarck.Bloodrose said: »
A lot of people are unaware, that indirectly, as we work for someone else, or more so for ourselves, regardless of the position we hold, we are emissaries of our workplace.
As long as what we do doesn't harm the image of our workplace, they could care less. If what we do promotes business, increases total sales, or inspires productivity, new and profitable ideas, they care just as much as anything we'd do that would tarnish our reputation as an employee, and subsequently, the reputation of the workplace or business.
They can hire and fire people for any kind of meaningless *** they want - as long as it's not something that's a legally protected status. Regardless of how we feel about it. Doesn't make it right, nor does it make it wrong.
Also for people who tend to relay arguments with "logic" in them, and then pander ceremoniously to emotional logic: That's hypocrisy.
As long as what we do doesn't harm the image of our workplace, they could care less. If what we do promotes business, increases total sales, or inspires productivity, new and profitable ideas, they care just as much as anything we'd do that would tarnish our reputation as an employee, and subsequently, the reputation of the workplace or business.
They can hire and fire people for any kind of meaningless *** they want - as long as it's not something that's a legally protected status. Regardless of how we feel about it. Doesn't make it right, nor does it make it wrong.
Also for people who tend to relay arguments with "logic" in them, and then pander ceremoniously to emotional logic: That's hypocrisy.
Yep. Its called corporate branding and corporate culture. If someone regardless of hierarchical standing says or does something that comes into conflict or is contrary to the specific brand image and culture, they're 86d
I agree fire this bigot and homophobe. Once a bigot always a bigot amirite? And he represents all of us yet.
YouTube Video Placeholder
[+]
Shiva.Onorgul said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Okay, so apparently the donations from the church were "in-kind and nonmonetary" and the fines were a result of a mistake regarding a daily reporting requirement. So, essentially, the donations were not cash and legally reported to California, but the fines came as a result of late reporting of said contributions. The total fine? $5539. Woooo, big deal there.
I was successfully refuting a point you were making, nothing more. Namely, the one where you said the contributions were in clear violation of the law. Present your other arguments, I'm game.
Aman are you gay for Obama? Fret not, you wouldn't be the first.
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
In other words, you can't defend the indefensible. I couldn't care less if you're within the community. You're asking me to see merit in an argument that has exactly none and asking me to be respectful for a platform that has shown no respect to LGBTs in their activism.
Oh and you put me on par with the WBC so kindly *** yourself, kkthx ^^
Oh and you put me on par with the WBC so kindly *** yourself, kkthx ^^
There's a word in the English language called tact, look it up. You'll go along way. Placing yourself on this elitist gay scaffold wont get you far. And if you think I'm the only/first gay to tell you your a bigot- I won't be the last.
Do you respect the opinions of white supremacists grounded in *** ideology based on feel good, we're the master race logic or are you just playing academic with this mess? Or people who believe that aliens abducted them in the night and played a game of Operation in their chest cavity? Or perhaps the opinions of those who believe Malaysia Airlines flew into another dimension caused by tears in the fabric of reality?
Opinions by nature arent inherently deserving of respect. One can choose to agree to disagree or call a belief - like my belief in unicorns being behind the dawn of civilization - the unsubstantiated *** that it is.
You're riding both sides real hard.
Opinions by nature arent inherently deserving of respect. One can choose to agree to disagree or call a belief - like my belief in unicorns being behind the dawn of civilization - the unsubstantiated *** that it is.
You're riding both sides real hard.
[+]
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »
Do you respect the opinions of white supremacists grounded in *** ideology based on feel good, we're the master race logic or are you just playing academic with this mess? Or people who believe that aliens abducted them in the night and played a game of Operation in their chest cavity? Or perhaps the opinions of those who believe Malaysia Airlines flew into another dimension caused by tears in the fabric of reality?
Opinions by nature arent inherently deserving of respect. One can choose to agree to disagree or call a belief - like my belief in unicorns being behind the dawn of civilization - the unsubstantiated *** that it is.
You're riding both sides real hard.
Opinions by nature arent inherently deserving of respect. One can choose to agree to disagree or call a belief - like my belief in unicorns being behind the dawn of civilization - the unsubstantiated *** that it is.
You're riding both sides real hard.
I digest such opinions accordingly. I attempt to understand why they are arriving at that particular opinion. Everyone has a reason for which they arrive at particular opinions.
Simply calling their opinions stupid or garbage doesn't help resolve anything- it just fuels the fire.
Do I respect the opinion of the white supremacist? I don't agree with it whatsoever. However, I attempt to understand what is making that particular individual arrive at that opinion. Is it family upbringing? Is it geographic location? Socioeconomic factors? Level of education? Etc...
[+]
Knock it off, Baconwrap. It's that same level of understanding that got our nation into this mess. Can you imagine the kind of chaos that would grip Congress if everyone suddenly decided to take the time to understand other people's opinions instead of just calling them stupid?
Stupid opinions are clearly *** stupid, regardless of the want to understand their origins and how they apply to one's thought process. It still leads up to having a stupid opinion.
And thus we see the great paradox. The side that preaches tolerance the most practices it the least.
[+]
Understanding the bigot is ancillary to the very real harm they cause to those they arbitrarily deem inferior. And yes, it's arbitrary.
Such arbitrary designations of superiority aren't grounded in reality and are those as respectable as believing monsters live under the bed. Keeping personal servants isn't acceptable, treating people like an underclass isn't acceptable nor is trying to funnel money to strip people of their rights.
If I wanted Saudi Arabia, I'd live in the sand.
Such arbitrary designations of superiority aren't grounded in reality and are those as respectable as believing monsters live under the bed. Keeping personal servants isn't acceptable, treating people like an underclass isn't acceptable nor is trying to funnel money to strip people of their rights.
If I wanted Saudi Arabia, I'd live in the sand.
I already told you why it was crap. If I had only said it was stupid and left it at that then, yeah, that would have been less than productive. Bringing up the point that I can marry a woman is a total non-sequiter and has *** all to do with marriage equality. Am I missing something else or should I consider where Nausi lives before further digesting this?
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
And thus we see the great paradox. The side that preaches tolerance the most practices it the least.
You mean what leads to bunk ideas like the 3/5ths compromise.
Again, what is the reason that we should allow bigots into government again?
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.