Mozilla Appoints New CEO Anthony Enzor-Demeo

I find it funny some people shit on Firefox for adding Pocket, but defend Brave for adding crypto scams to the browser.

Pretty much all of the legal benefits of marriage are contractual, not financial, and come at no cost to the public.

Things like spousal medical rights, a joint estate, etc don't come at the expense of anybody else.

Why is the reaction seen as irrational or immature but not the action that triggered it?

You could argue that there are laws that only apply to married couples, and that brings meaning to marriage. Firstly, generally speaking, things we associate with marriage culturally are mostly not protected by law, most notably fidelity. Secondly, to my limited knowledge, the line between a married couple and two people living together is increasingly getting blurred by laws that apply marriage legal obligations to non-married couples if they have lived together for a certain time.

So when a person wishes to deny this important institution to a minority, they are creating an out-group and discriminating against them.

By that logic, we can put those discriminators themselves in an out-group and discriminate against them. We can deny them institutions such as directorships. Fair's fair.

It's more than fair - despite what conversion camps want to sell, being queer is an intransigent characteristic. Being a bully is just a choice. Discriminating against bullies is as morally just as discriminating against the incompetent.

Obviously it's fine to campaign against marriage.

It's one thing to believe as you do, it's quite another to push for legislation that would (in your example) deny childless couples societal advantages, whatever that actually means.

If you're not in favor of a-or-b arguments the answer is to allow a and b, eh?

I don't mind working with someone who has incompatible views with me, but I'd be quite unhappy working with someone who was actively working on undermining my rights.

That's right. To get a bit philosophical, it's interesting to see some people's justifications about how they are right to be intolerant in the ways they want to be, while still believing that they are free-thinking and tolerant. A lot of convoluted arguments are really about keeping one's self-image intact, justifying beliefs that are contradictory but which the person really wants to believe. I think that is a trap that is more dangerous for intelligent people.

For what it's worth, I support and supported gay marriage at the time, but don't think people should be forced out of their job for believing otherwise. Thoughts and words you disagree with should be met with alternative thoughts and words.

That doesn't mean they believe in the awful things their clients do.

If it’s about government fiscal policy, probably not. If it’s more along the lines of discriminating against or undermining people’s rights, then yeah I would refuse to hire them.

Standards should be higher for folks with more power. The cashier at the grocery store expressing bigoted beliefs won't harm me much; my boss doing it is more serious.

> Nobody was being murdered here, it's not remotely the same.

I assure you, homophobia has its murder victims. (Including a good number of Holocaust ones.)