Ah, but in this case you have one person who donated a little to a group looking to maintain a logical and historical view of an institution, and another that donated a tremendous amount to subvert the efforts of those very traditional view people. I stand by my question of who is the bigger bigot.

As I said, by all accounts, he treated the employees fairly and equitably. As CEO, he would have had a greater voice in overall policy and 2 weeks as CEO wouldn't seem to have been sufficient time to determine whether that was the case.

Bigotry is determined by the side one is on, not by the amount of funding one provides. A man who donates a single penny to the cause of hate is a bigger bigot than the man who donates a million dollars to the cause of love.

Really? I thought you believed free speech should go uncensored, and there should be no consequences for voicing a dissenting opinion. Are you abandoning that position?

Of course. When the opposition is trying to either engage in or defend evil, then naturally an attempt to silence them will be made. Would you sanction your own destroyers?

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism. The First Amendment only prohibits the government from arresting or fining someone for the things they say. It does NOT protect anyone from being criticized for those things. The Constitution is directed at the government, not the people. Because the government never got involved in this issue with Eich, his freedom of speech was never violated.

Perhaps we should be using the word "persecution" instead of "discrimination."

I've been thinking that due to the multiple meanings which the word "discriminate" can have, it might be best to avoid it entirely in the discussion of civil rights, and simply use the word "persecute" instead. Then there's no confusion.

Anyway, if you're trying to argue that no one should ever be criticized for their political contributions, you're effectively castrating all civil rights proponents, and allowing bigots to go unchecked. Were this Germany in 1930, your position would strip the Jews of their ability to defend themselves against the Nazis.

Eich funded a hate group, and therefore funded persecution. And now you're defending him for doing so. Therefore, you're defending persecution.

Eich did more than simply engage in free speech. He donated $1,000 to a hate group. Speech is words, not money.

I may be a pompous ass, but at least I'm not defending a man who helped to fund a hate group. ;)

By the way, I noticed you ignored the hypothetical question.

The backlash against Eich not because of his thoughts, but because of his financial contribution to a hate group.

Weren't you the one who was saying any and all ideas should be permitted, and there should be no consequences for voicing an unpopular opinion? And you call me a hypocrite?

When the Proposition 8 case was making its way through the California courts, and Eich decided to fund the wrong side, we was helping to promote and enable a group which was violating the rights of the LGBT community.

Everyone believes behavior should have limitations on it, even you. Would you permit murder or theft in the name of freedom? Of course not. This is no different.

Seems like this net5000 is mostly here to hock some marketing tool. Not sure it's working by the comments being made here.

Why do you keep going on about Eich being fired. He resigned. Please get your facts straight.

The gay lifestyle is not already equal to the straight one, and making such a claim is incredibly ignorant. Straight couples can get married in all 50 states, while gay couples can get married in only 17. And then there's enormous amounts of persecution and harassment in many parts of the country, much of which LGBT people not only have no legal way to defend against, but now far right fundamentalists are trying to pass laws to specifically allow persecution.

Heterosexuality is accepted by 100% of the population. Homosexuality is accepted by only about 50%. To say that 50% is equal to 100% is absurd.

The only responsibility to employees, from an HR perspective, is to be fair and equitable to those employees. By all accounts that was the case, although in only 2 weeks, who could make a case one way or another?