OkCupid/IAC Employees Donated Thousands to Anti-Gay Marriage Politicians

by TheTruthOk • 12 years ago

127 185 12 years ago

The implication here is that OKCupid is being hypocritical. But there's clearly a difference between donating money to a candidate who has positions on a wide variety of issues -- some of which you may not agree with -- and donating money to a very specific cause.

But really, you need to treat what OkCupid is doing as some pretty clever marketing that's gotten it lots of free advertising, and not some kind of moral statement.

pekk• 12 years ago

There's also a big difference between a CEO and run of the mill employee

lolwutf• 12 years ago

Which is why, if you're running a company, you generally don't go barking up moral trees in the way OkCupid did, since you're speaking for a larger organization that possibly doesn't share your beliefs.

sentenza• 12 years ago

But that implies that, as employees rise through the ranks, there must come a point at which their political stance starts to matter.

We had such an arrangement here in Germany (then West-Germany) a few years back: When you wanted to become a civil servant beyond a certain pay-grade (if I remember correctly, it was the first "advanced" pay grade for schoolteachers) in the 70s, you could not be a member of certain political parties (KPD, the communist party for instance).

wf• 12 years ago

Yea, I don't really see an issue here. I'm sure you could pull up something like this and point fingers about a specific issue for anyone who has ever donated to any candidate. Plus, these individuals opinions are not representative of their company.

I'm more curious about what the purpose of attempting to smear IAC and OkC is.

gscott• 12 years ago

Slash and burn everything associated with someone who has a differing opinion is the most likely reason.

peterwwillis2• 12 years ago

Nobody's personal beliefs should be representative of the company. If the guy was a Catholic, would you say that Mozilla is a Catholic organization, or that he's going to make Catholic decisions?

You may not remember that President Kennedy was accused of being "controlled" by the Vatican when he was elected because he was the first (and remains the only) Roman-Catholic president, and people were freaked out he'd take orders from the Pope. Turned out not to be the case.

  To address fears that his being Catholic would impact his decision-making,
  he famously told the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on
  September 12, 1960, "I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am
  the Democratic Party candidate for President who also happens to be
  a Catholic. I do not speak for my Church on public matters – and
  the Church does not speak for me."[46] Kennedy questioned rhetorically 
  whether one-quarter of Americans were relegated to second-class
  citizenship just because they were Catholic, and once stated that, 
  "No one asked me my religion [serving the Navy] in the South Pacific."[47]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy

protomyth2• 12 years ago

"But really, you need to treat what OkCupid is doing as some pretty clever marketing that's gotten it lots of free advertising, and not some kind of moral statement."

If that is true, then that is as morally bankrupt as a company can get and I starting to believe I know who Bill Hicks was talking about.

patrickxb• 12 years ago

Where are the OkCupid employees on that list?

Perhaps you should change the title to IAC Employees... It's fine to point out that employees at their parent company made donations to these politicians, but I don't see any work done here to link the data with OkCupid employees.

The dates of many of those contributions are way before IAC bought OkCupid.

oijaf888• 12 years ago

Yeah looking over it I don't see a single OkC employee, former or current on there.

pmorici• 12 years ago

The thing I don't get about this whole faux controversy is since when is it professionally acceptable to discriminate against someone for their private political views and esp. those that might be informed by religious beliefs so long as they don't bring them into the workplace? I mean by the time everyone is done investigating who believes what and donated how much to who there won't be anyone left to work anywhere. This whole thing is just really slimy.

meritt2• 12 years ago

Many of us view being anti-gay just as absolutely unacceptable as being pro-slavery or denying suffrage to women. It's not simply a "political view" in 2014. It's not an opinion. It's flat out wrong and supporters of that backwards mentality reap what they sow.

peterwwillis2• 12 years ago

Many of us view being homosexual just as absolutely unacceptable as being pro-choice or denying husbands the right to beat their wives. It's not simply a "moral view" in 2014. It's not an opinion. It's flat out wrong and supporters of that unnatural way of life reap what they sow.

azth2• 12 years ago

Then why does that not follow to followers of Christianity or Judaism for instance, given that both religions do not tolerate homosexuality? Should we get rid of those people in the workplace as well?

rainmaking2• 12 years ago

It could be merely misguided.

crazygringo• 12 years ago

It would be nice if the world were that black-and-white, but it's not. Plenty of Republicans etc. also believe that abortion, or even contraception provided by your health plan, is "absolutely unacceptable", "flat out wrong" and a "backwards mentality".

But we live in a democracy, where we need to get along. Black-and-white absolutist thinking doesn't really help anyone. You may not think it's "simply a political view" in 2014, but many other people do. Fortunately, we live in a pluralistic society with freedom of expression where we're all allowed to have and share our views, which is the whole basis of democracy.

And this is very different from women's suffrage, because nobody's right to vote, or their participation in the democratic process, is being legally affected here. Other things are being affected, but not people's representation as citizens in a democracy.

peeters6• 12 years ago

I've always thought "anti-gay marriage = anti-gay" as being a false equivocation. Can someone convince me otherwise?

Heck, at the very least there are people who are anti-marriage (from a political POV), for whom it would be discriminatory to exclude gay marriage from that position.

You cite slavery. Was every single person who was against emancipation "pro-slavery"? Was there no room for nuance? I mean maybe some people really didn't like slavery, but hated the prospect of civil war even more.

smutticus• 12 years ago

"anti-gay" is an oversimplification. Eich gave money to a campaign opposing the legalization of same sex marriage. That's a far cry from anti-gay. He may very well be anti-gay, whatever it is that means, but this particular donation does not equate to that sentiment.

tootie• 12 years ago

That's not it. Being anti-gay is perfectly acceptable. Passing laws that create official discrimination is not ok.

checker659• 12 years ago

Look, I'm as much for gay rights as the next dude, but what kind of world are you trying to create by cornering people who hold opinions different than yours? Not cool.

Reading your comment, the word 'witch hunt' comes to mind. Just because they wronged you doesn't mean you wrong them too.

DatBear2• 12 years ago

Was it a political view in 2008?

hosh2• 12 years ago

Whoa, whoa, whoa!

There is a vast difference between feeling strongly about an individual who feels strongly against folks who are gay, and judging anyone and everyone based upon their political views.

The latter comes from a lack of empathy. One sees the label and stops seeing the person. That lack of empathy is exactly what drives hatred and bigotry.

I'm not saying doing so is hypocritical. For conflicts like this to come to an end, all parties need to connect to individuals rather than knee-jerk reacting.

devilshaircut8• 12 years ago

I agree with you. And frankly I am so appalled by the false equivalence offered by many 'liberals' on this issue. Rather than recognize that this freedom falls squarely within the preamble of the US Declaration of Independence, it is instead suggested by these people that it is a 'private' or 'religiously-motivated' 'belief' that therefore falls outside of critique, protest, or public protection (etc.). I'm sorry but this is simply not a moral case to make.

As I indicated before, I find it so appalling that you see such views espoused by the 'liberal' party of the US.

cek994• 12 years ago

Even if this were true (which it isn't), the slippery slope argument most definitely applies here. Are you going to reject the veneration of our founding fathers because they held slaves? What if a company has middle managers who are against same sex marriage, or engineers? Do we boycott them as well? You are advocating for intellectual puritanism in the name of protection of diversity -- an utterly incoherent position.

Also, we're talking about political speech from many years ago, for a cause that the majority of Californians passed -- and, lest we forget, President Obama, liberal hero he is, did not support gay marriage until 2012. Many, many religious conservatives (hundreds of millions of them, in fact) would argue against your conflation of anti-gay marriage with anti-gay. And just because you seem unable to fathom dissenting views on this issue doesn't mean they don't exist.

nilkn9• 12 years ago

I don't think you realize that there are (quite a few) people in the country who think being pro-gay-marriage is absolutely unacceptable.

Until nearly 100% of the population accepts it as a basic and obvious axiom, it does not even remotely have the same status as being pro-slavery or denying suffrage to women.

gus_massa• 12 years ago

Just in case, I agree with gay marriage, women suffrage and I’m against slavery. But I think that the people that disagree with my opinion have the right to have a different opinion. Are you sure that all your other opinions are also correct?

It’s interesting to read again http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html .

pc863• 12 years ago

Let's not pretend that these people are donating money to the KKK or Focus on the Family. They are donating to major political candidates, with complex issue platforms of which gay marriage is almost certainly a small part. I don't see any names on here that could be considered "champions" of traditional marriage. Are you saying that every single person who donated anything to Mitt Romney or George W. Bush should be shunned and "reap what they sow?"

smsm422• 12 years ago

It is an opinion, what else could it be? You think it is wrong, but I also think many other prevalent mainstream opinions are wrong and injurious to my rights - such as banning me under the threat of imprisonment (or being shot by the warrior police, if I'm unlucky) to own certain chemicals, or certain tools of self-defense, or even certain information, or engage in certain voluntary transactions without prior state approval. You may say it's for my own and for society's benefit to restrict my rights, and everybody comes out ahead with it. But that's exactly what the other guys say too - everybody would be ahead and society would benefit greatly if only gay marriage were not allowed. You say holding such views is despicable and non-acceptable to the point that if you use browser which is made by a company whose executive holds such views you are tainted by it. Then I ask why you're not tainted by having people supporting even harsher infringements of liberties? Should we boycott everything that has relationship to people ever supporting gun control, war on drugs, rent control, zero tolerance policies, blasphemy bans, speech codes, etc.? Should we ban people known to have socialist sympathies (and this comes as close to actual slavery as it can get - socialist governments actually implemented forced labor many times and routinely strip people of their rights) from participating in our communities, for example? How far should we go with this?

Houshalter• 12 years ago

A lot of people believe that about every issue and on both sides. And we aren't talking about some small minority of bigots, it's the majority of the population. You can't just say it's not an issue in 2014 because it very much still is.

jaibot• 12 years ago

What is and isn't acceptable in figuring into professional interactions is a moving target over time. For example, actively supporting white supremacist groups would probably have drastic professional consequences today; in the 1920's there would be few if any consequences. See: Overton Window.

We're currently in a transitional period as discrimination-against-people-based-on-sexual-orientation undergoes the same social transition that discrimination-against-people-based-on-skin-color underwent a few decades ago. When it's over, people won't think of it as a political thing anymore.

wslh• 12 years ago

I am waiting for the vegan people to protest against all those CEOs that eat meat.

kjs3• 12 years ago

Let me Google that for you: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=peta+protests+ceo

grifpete6• 12 years ago

I agree. I totally disagree with him but he has a right to hold views that I and others disagree with. And he has a right to donate accordingly. And Mozilla is not an organization whose mission is gay rights. This is politically correct overreach.

jasonostrander• 12 years ago

What discrimination? Eich exercised his right to donate to political causes. OkCupid (and others) are exercising their right to protest. Just because you have the right to your political views does not mean you don't have the right to be criticized for those views.

benched4• 12 years ago

We're entering a time (finally, I hope) where people don't care why a person is a bigot, or whether they're only a bigot in "private", whatever that means. I can see how this could be problematic as well as you, but I'm very willing to ride with it for now.

eqdw• 12 years ago

I agree with you, and can't help but think: how many of these people would resign in protest when an openly Christian CEO takes the reins of their company. There's a lot of slimy shit in the bible: homophobia, slavery, misogyny, patriarchy, social injustice, etc.

I'm of the opinion that actions speak louder than words. The first time Eich tries to pull some shit, I'll change my mind. But until then, I'm willing to give him a fair shake

mullingitover2• 12 years ago

The thing I don't get about this whole faux controversy is since when is it professionally acceptable to discriminate against someone for their private political views and esp. those that might be informed by religious beliefs so long as they don't bring them into the workplace?

Because actual voting is essentially worthless now that our judicial elders have dictated that spending money is the same thing as speech. Money now buys elections, moreso than votes. So we're learning to vote with our dollars like the fat cats do.

omonra• 12 years ago

It appears that this debate is also considered outside the voting booth. Ie most of the actual popular votes that have been held were deemed unconstitutional. So the judicial elders are settling this issue by decree.

davvolun• 12 years ago

Sort of agree...

I've never been to Chic-fil-a because anything I purchase there is presumably having a portion donated to anti-gay legislation. I'm not comfortable with Orson Scott Card's activism (historically, though apparently he's reversed his position to more of a 'ehh, whatever') but I did purchase Shadow Complex. I've never used OKCupid, and if the company itself or major profit holders were donating large sums to anti-gay legislation, I would be comfortable personally boycotting them, as it were, but calling out individuals for their beliefs like this...I feel like it's going too far. As much as I support gay rights, I don't think being unable to get legally married is on the same level as human slavery or women's suffrage...

jonah2• 12 years ago

If there's any indication that Eich acted unlawfully in his role as CEO that's an issue. If his personal opinion* simply differs from what's popular in the community, then it's just that - different.

What if he donated to the NRA or a pro-GMO campaign for example? Would there be similar uproar? This is just mob rule.

* I'm making no statement as to whether I agree with either side.

dec0dedab0de• 12 years ago

What if he donated to the NRA or a pro-GMO campaign for example? Would there be similar uproar?

No, because noone see those causes as being founded in fear and hate.

EDIT: changed wording for clarity

Also, to the downvoters Do you really think we would have heard about all this as much if it were related to other issues?

batmansbelt• 12 years ago

Well, the NRA is at least partially responsible for perpetuating an unhealthy gun culture in the USA that is responsible for thousands of deaths every year. There's plenty to fear and hate about that.

dropit_sphere• 12 years ago

No, because no one see those causes as being founded in fear and hate.

There is a serious lack of empathy in the viewpoint the parent describes. The premise that "anyone who disagrees with x is motivated by fear and hate" is a very dangerous one.

mpyne4• 12 years ago

If his personal opinion* simply differs from what's popular in the community, then it's just that - different.

More importantly IMHO, you could just as logically argue that any CEO who contributed to Republican campaigns is just as guilty as Eich for working to oppose gay marriage. Individual Republicans' opinions aside, the Republican Party is still running on an opposition platform as of April 2013 after all, and that party has done far more to hurt gay marriage rights than Prop. 8 by itself.

Eich is being crucified because he's a viable target, not because of any innate guilt that he alone is imbued with. I find that quite hypocritical.

untog• 12 years ago

More importantly IMHO, you could just as logically argue that any CEO who contributed to Republican campaigns is just as guilty as Eich for working to oppose gay marriage

Not really. I don't think there was a single Republican candidate that campaigned on the issue of gay marriage and nothing else. There is also a message of fiscal conservatism, pro-business stances, etc. etc.

Donating money to Prop 8 was a simple and straightforward move to try to block gay marriage, and absolutely nothing else.

jonny_eh• 12 years ago

When did supporting science to improve agriculture become conflated with supporting the NRA and anti-gay rights?

jonah2• 12 years ago

I just picked the first couple controversial topics that came to mind. Not implying anything.

elicash• 12 years ago

What if he, instead, had donated to writing race-based discrimination into the state constitution? Not a rhetorical question. For some, including me, that's the fair comparison. Not gun laws or other types of legislation.

If you don't think mine is the right comparison, that's fine, but if you're interested in understanding the other point of view as I assume you are, there it is.

benched4• 12 years ago

I found this to be the most interesting page:

http://iac.com/about/leadership

One group. One dream. To own a bunch of random websites, together.

edit: With the help of Chelsea Clinton and Michael Eisner!

rainmaking2• 12 years ago

I don't believe in publically crucifying people whose political beliefs I don't agree with.

zpietro• 12 years ago

Is that an april fools joke or is this site becoming LGBT Hacker News?

vezzy-fnord2• 12 years ago

My main disagreement with the Mozilla boycott is that I believe it is wholly unfair to disregard so many years of hard work by countless contributors that have all been pivotal in the advancement of web technologies, just because of the actions of one person (even if it is their de facto figurehead), whose intentions, by the way, are still not clear.

Even more, considering Mozilla's a free software non-profit foundation. But if you're going to do it, why half-ass it? After all, Eich is the man. Go on and boycott JavaScript. A dedicated activist like Stallman would not persist merely because of convenience.

devanti• 12 years ago

A more accurate title should be "donated to Republicans". But I can see what they're trying to do

United857• 12 years ago

How much did OkCupid/IAC employees donate to pro-Gay Marriage politicians? This list is useless without seeing a comparison, and until then, I think this is just a poor attempt at trolling.

megablast• 12 years ago

Just you can't just look at how many people someone have killed, you also have to look at how many children they have had? It is a zero sum game, after all.

eridius5• 12 years ago

So? Unless these employees were doing so on behalf of their employer, I don't see why it matters in the slightest.

The only reason why Brendan Eich's contribution should be an issue is because he's now the CEO of Mozilla and people are afraid that his personal beliefs on the matter will affect Mozilla. But that worry is only justified when talking about the CEO (or I suppose the Director of Human Resources, or whatever the equivalent at Mozilla is).

And even that I think might be an overreaction. From everything Brendan Eich has said publicly, it appears that he wants to keep his personal beliefs private, and that he's committed to everything Mozilla stands for in his public role as CEO. So I'm not worried that he's going to turn Mozilla into a bad work environment for gay employees. My only real worry is that he will not be proactive about improving conditions or about supporting relevant community initiatives, but the same could be said of a CEO that has no opinion whatsoever on gay marriage.

In any case, OKCupid has taken public actions (e.g. their message to Firefox users) that indicate that, as a company, they come down in favor of gay marriage. The individual beliefs and actions of their rank & file employees should not matter in the slightest.

azth2• 12 years ago

The only reason why Brendan Eich's contribution should be an issue is because he's now the CEO of Mozilla and people are afraid that his personal beliefs on the matter will affect Mozilla.

What proof do we have that his personal beliefs will affect Mozilla? Guilty until proven innocent I see.

chrisoverzero2• 12 years ago

Mixing "people are afraid" and "proof" doesn't exactly work. This isn't a criminal court; there's no need to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not even a civil court, so there's no need for a preponderance of evidence.

This person donated money to a campaign to remove from them one of the basic civil rights of man, and they're understandably worried about what might happen because of that. Additionally, they're unhappy with having a person who has done so in such an important and visible position of something they love.

eridius5• 12 years ago

Well, this isn't a court of law. This is about attempting to predict his future behavior, and how said behavior will materially affect the lives of thousands of people (both Mozilla employees and community members who are affected by Mozilla's role in the community).

Personally, I'm willing to give Eich the benefit of the doubt. But I also think that his actions as CEO during the next couple of months should be watched carefully, and held to a higher standard than if the CEO was someone who had done nothing at all with regards to gay marriage. Eich did something 6 years ago that negatively impacted a lot of people, and he needs to show that this action does not reflect his behavior as CEO, and the best way to do that is to be proactive about making things better. That doesn't mean maintaining the current health care benefits for gay employees (as he promised to do). This means implementing new policies to improve things for gay employees, or performing some form of community outreach related to this goal, or even publicly supporting a gay rights organization.

BHSPitMonkey• 12 years ago

When you have a CEO who openly believes that a class of people (whether that's gays, women, hispanics, etc.) are inherently "bad people", there's cause for concern about how that might affect the running of a large organization (whose employees are bound to include people openly belonging to that group). His stance and position alone could be enough to alienate potential talent. Nobody can say he's "guilty of adversely affecting Mozilla" at this point, but the situation does raise those types of questions.

vezzy-fnord2• 12 years ago

In any case, OKCupid has taken public actions (e.g. their message to Firefox users) that indicate that, as a company, they come down in favor of gay marriage.

I don't think that's quite true. Rather, what it seems is that they're being opportunists by milking a controversy so as to make themselves appear as if they have the moral high ground.

Telling people to boycott a free software browser that has been the result of over a decade of labor by large numbers of contributors and has been responsible for many advancements in the web, over the actions of one person (even if the CEO), the reasons of which are still unclear, is not what I'd call supporting gay marriage.

There's plenty of other much better ways to express support. What's even more interesting is that they have selected Firefox as the product to boycott, and not the rest of the Mozilla Foundation's projects. I guess actually targeting the root cause (Eich, and consequently JavaScript) is too much to swallow.

eridius5• 12 years ago

I think their recommendation of boycotting Firefox is wrong. But the point is that OKCupid has made a public statement that, however misguided, indicates support for gay marriage.

I guess actually targeting the root cause (Eich, and consequently JavaScript) is too much to swallow.

Firefox is probably the only thing they can target that makes sense. JavaScript is probably the only other Mozilla project that the majority of OKCupid visitors would even recognize, and most of them probably don't use JavaScript at all and have no way to boycott it (not to mention that it's pretty hard to boycott JavaScript anyway, because it's the assembly language of the web).

Also, the only indicating factor they have to decide if they should even show the message is that the user's browser is Firefox. Showing this message to everyone would definitely be too much.

AnimalMuppet2• 12 years ago

Well, it sends the message that, if you oppose gay marriage, they're going to find a way to make you pay. That may be of some value to the battle for gay rights, but it's a horrible way to do it.

Even if you frame this as a civil rights battle, you don't win civil rights battles that way. The black right to vote was not won by eliminating the KKK's right to free speech.

grifpete6• 12 years ago

IF his beliefs lead to policies inside Mozilla that disadvantage gay employees THEN will be the time to protest. Otherwise he is entitled to hold his own private beliefs no matter how much we/I may disagree with them.

nobodysfool• 12 years ago

You are entitled to your opinions, but you have no say in when people are legally able to protest, regardless of how much you disagree with their right to do so. They can protest any time they want.

DatBear2• 12 years ago

They haven't taken public actions that indicate that they come down in favor of gay marriage, just that they come down in opposition of Brendan Eich.

mxfh• 12 years ago

While I believe OkCupid's intentions are true, the parent company IAC tries to cover all bases.

Looking at their "Personals" portfolio[1] only, already gives a list of the following companies and brands:

  match.com
  chemistry.com
  meetic
  twoo
  tinder
  peoplemedia[2] including
    OurTime.com
    LDSplanet.com
    catholicpeoplemeet.com
    republicanpeoplemeet.com
    marriagemindedpeoplemeet.com

I mean, I would wonder more if actually committed staff/management of some of those peoplemedia sites wouldn't donate to prop 8, Mitt Romney (R/LDS) and the like.

That's capitalism at work. Much like Axe/Lynx and Dove seem to sell different agendas yet still both add to Unilever's revenue.

[1] http://iac.com/brands?field_category__tid=22

[2] http://iac.com/brand/peoplemedia

grifpete6• 12 years ago

I am all for gay marriage and I have a deep dislike of homophobia. But I am concerned about some of the reactions to Mozilla because of Brendan Eich's position. I totally disagree with him but surely he is entitled to have his view and to donate accordingly. He was donating as a private person not as a representative of Mozilla. Furthermore, there is nothing about Mozilla as an organization that particularly 'stands for' gay rights. It is not as if he is working for a gay rights group and then donating to oppose the group he is working for. This smacks of the thought police to me.

devilshaircut8• 12 years ago

How does this "smack of the thought police"? OKCupid is not a government organization. At worst, they are expressing their own political belief. If you are considering the situation outside of the context of OKCupid, then I do not understand the relevance of the comment. And outside of the context of OKCupid, again, no authority is 'policing' Eich's thoughts. He donated money and this is information which is known publicly; there is no reason that he should be immune from critique. Given that he has offered several thousand dollars in support of legislative measures which would seek to actively discriminate against citizens, his employees among them, I believe that any and all scrutiny is necessary.

meddlepal• 12 years ago

The term "thought-police" does not necessarily have a government connotation. This whole situation reeks of some splinter group of gay-rights activists attempting to take out a high-profile target because he has a different opinion on marriage than they do. They are attempting to guide people's opinions by showing them what happens if you decide to go against them. Quite frankly, I think it is morally disgusting and it weakens there cause ultimately. Mr. Eich's personal politics are none of our business unless he starts allowing those politics to influence Mozilla... which until that occurs I see do not see a reason to criticize him.

grifpete6• 12 years ago

I suspect the did much more damage developing javascript.

kevrone2• 12 years ago

I think it's the fact that he is in a position of some power within our industry that makes his personal and political viewpoints relevant to the rest of us. What kind of message does it send to your employees when you support a view that is rejected by (what I'm guessing is) a vast majority of the people in your industry?

The fact is, we can pull our support from people who we think are shitty if we want to in order to push progress forward to the kind of society we want to live it, specifically one where all Americans are treated equally under the law.

If it were up to me, I would completely eradicate the idea of marriage as a government institution, it doesn't belong in their hands in the first place. But I'm very much in the minority on that one.

kevrone2• 12 years ago

Something else that is interesting is that the big companies have already figured out that it's simply better business to support LGBT rights. I have absolutely no reason to believe that guys like Blankfein actually give two shits about the gays, but they will be the ones to push us forward. If only to make more money.

Case in point: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/goldman-sachs-ceo-lloyd-blankfei...

zhemao• 12 years ago

So they're homophobes because they donated to Republican candidates? Are we seriously doing this now? Just because you donate to a political candidate doesn't mean you agree with his/her positions on everything. I doubt many of these candidates even feel that strongly about gay marriage and are not just pandering to the Republican base.

futhey• 12 years ago

I'm not going to defend Brendan Eich, what he did was deplorable and the Prop. 8 victory dealt a demoralizing blow to the LGBT community. However, as a gay developer, I can't stomach the witch-hunt mentality, even if it happens to be in support of a just cause. Mozilla has done incredible things over the years which have changed the internet for the better. I'd rather not live in a world where imposed political correctness shields me from knowing people for who they really are.

waterlesscloud• 12 years ago

An entirely predictable next step in the saga. :-/

mullingitover2• 12 years ago

Funny, I don't see any of these people on the list donating explicitly to Prop 8 PACs or the like. While I would find that pretty hypocritical, I can't fault them simply for donating to politicians who had many policy stances, one of which was an opposition to same sex marriage.

Is the complaint here simply that these people failed to be single-issue voters?

xirdstl• 12 years ago

Among the quiz questions that OkCupid asks its users, do any of them deal with this issue (given the extensive set of questions they ask on very diverse subjects, I might guess yes?). Are the users who don't support gay marriage then told that they "are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure"? Given their stance, they ought to do that, yes?

wdr1• 12 years ago

Curious. They left off everyone who contributed to Obama in 2008.

Obama was on record openly opposing gay marriage, explicitly stating "I am not in favor of gay marriage."[1]

As we all know, he's since changed his mind (which is good thing), but would the same logic apply to the Republicans on this list? If they changed their position, does it mean it's okay to have contributed to them why they opposed gay marriage?

[1] http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/11/obama-on-mtv-i/

davidgerard• 12 years ago

So did anyone actually look at the linked list before commenting?

It's a list of every OKCupid employee who donated to any Republican. Zero of them are donations to the Proposition 8 campaign.

Remember:

* Donating to take existing rights away from gay people = freedom of speech.

* Objecting to someone donating to take away existing rights from gay people = fascism.

OkCupid/IAC Employees Donated Thousands to Anti-Gay Marriage Politicians

Related Stories