Thoughtcrime

[Sasaki Kojiro]

You just compared a group of private citizens making a personal choice against Mozilla...

The fact is this, what people choose to do with their money earned is their business. They may go about donating to whatever cause they want. It is also a fact that this money comes from the business for which they work for (in general). Therefore, if you wish to declare a boycott on a company in order to prevent the possible promotion of undesirable causes, then again, it is the individuals choice to not spend his/her own money and they are not a fool for choosing to do so.

If you defend the right of someone to do something, but not what they actually did, you are acting as if you can't defend what they actually did.

This religious school demanded that it's teachers sign a morality clause saying, among other things, that they did not engage in homosexual activity:

http://www.katc.com/news/fatima-s-sc...t-controversy/

When I read this I'm not thinking about their right to do it, I'm thinking about how obviously nasty it is. We should be able to accept people as friends even if they have beliefs we find very objectionable and engage in activities we find very objectionable, and we should certainly be able to accept them as colleagues. Demanding recantations and purity tests and the like is disgusting. What would you think of someone who responded to this story about the catholic school by talking about nothing but how the school had the legal right to do that?

But to deny access to an adult relationship based on another form of class system is far worse. It is crossing the line from material segregation to human segregation. It's a denial of human rights that is as abhorrent as slavery, apartheid, Australian aboriginals on the wildlife census or other forms of racial segregation.

In slavery people are treated like animals and forced to work with no compensation, their lives are controlled in many ways, they were whipped, families were split up for profit and so on...

Making gay marriage illegal doesn't deny anyone access to an adult relationship. It just removes certain legal aspects of that relationship that are generally insignificant and don't justify this kind of language. Hospital visitation rules are a problem, but they are a problem for many people who can't be visited by their loved ones for various reasons, e.g. widows and widowers who can't be visited by the only friend they have left in the world. It seems harmful to pretend like legalizing gay marriage solves that issue, when in fact it only solves it for some people. For all you know he is in favor of civil unions in any case.

If you say that not having a legal document means you don't have an adult relationship, you are insulting a lot of people.

Arguably, depending on your code of ethics, it may be a moral duty for you to do so and not to simply refrain from that organization yourself.

You have some responsibility for your beliefs. You can't just say "I think opposing gay marriage is like supporting slavery, so I have a moral duty to hate people who oppose gay marriage". That's completely unjustified.