OKCupid CEO Apologizes for Supporting Antigay Candidate

http://www.advocate.com/business/2014/04/08/okcupid-ceo-apologizes-supporting-antigay-candidate

by mkr-hn • 12 years ago

25 71 12 years ago

danso• 12 years ago

Two important things to know:

1. Clicking on the OP will force you to watch an obnoxiously, unskippable loud ad about razors and chest-shaving.

2. Sorry, don't think supporting an antigay candidate and a specific antigay law are the same thing. If I voted for Obama because I liked his proposals on health-care, does that mean I also support his wanton drone attacks? If I voted for Mitt Romney because of his tax proposals, does that mean I support...well, his likely use of wanton drone attacks? Now, supporting a candidate specifically for that measure...such as healthcare or tax proposals, that'a s different situation.

But the kicker is this: OKCupid's CEO apologized. I guess to some, that makes him a total flip-flopping hypocrite. With Eich, we have someone who made a donation 6+ years ago and has never sought to give context to it or explain it or give further reflection to it, which means he either holds those anti-gay marriage views just as strongly today, or believes that apologies, or evolving viewpoints is a sign of weakness. Not really strong signs of confidence in a CEO, quite frankly.

(note: I don't think he gets the benefit of the doubt of, "Well, he just doesn't want the government to be in the business of regulating marriage." If that were the case, then why hasn't he simply said that, as other political candidates have done?)

To put it another way: I've worked with people who had less-than-favorable views of Asians, mostly because they had never worked/seen one in real-life (such is small town Midwest). That's OK with me. But if, after working with me, befriending me, and such, they still unapologetically held those opinions? Yeah, that's a different ballpark than simply having a disagreeable belief at some point in the past.

rsynnott• 12 years ago

Sorry, don't think supporting an antigay candidate and a specific antigay law are the same thing

A specific anti-gay law that stripped existing rights from people, at that. Yeah, it's very different.

danford• 12 years ago

Eh.. supporting an anti Jew law is way different than supporting Hitler too, I mean, just because someone doesn't like Jews and they want an extermination law doesn't mean they want Hitler to do it. I can't believe people can't see this blatant logic.

DatBear2• 12 years ago

Candidates have the power to push for changes in legislation... if this candidate had changed legislation in support of any of his views on gay rights, how would it be any different than what donating to Prop 8 achieved?

mcv7• 12 years ago

Clicking on the OP will force you to watch an obnoxiously, unskippable loud ad about razors and chest-shaving.

I didn't notice it.

Sorry, don't think supporting an antigay candidate and a specific antigay law are the same thing.

No, but they are kinda close.

OKCupid's CEO apologized.

That's definitely the big one. Eich should have done that, and distanced himself from the foolish ideas he held in the past.

That said, I think the call for a Firefox boycott was way over the top, and considering OKCupid's CEO's political support in the past, at least a little hypocritical.

I don't think he gets the benefit of the doubt of, "Well, he just doesn't want the government to be in the business of regulating marriage." If that were the case, then why hasn't he simply said that, as other political candidates have done?

It's an argument that makes no sense. If he didn't want government to regulate marriage, he wouldn't support a law that regulates marriage (which is what banning gay marriage but allowing straight marriage is: government regulating marriage).

masklinn7• 12 years ago

No, but they are kinda close.

They're kinda close but kinda far as well, supporting an anti-gay candidate may be because

* you have the same views on the subject

* you are not aware of his views (but you can be criticised for lack of due diligence)

* you are aware of his views but support him for other reasons

* you are aware of his views but absolutely don't want the other guy (similar but not identical to 3, you're not supporting a specific candidate so much as supporting anyone other than a candidate)

Of these, only #1 is close to the prop8 situation.

discardorama2• 12 years ago

No, but they are kinda close.

Let's not be dense. They're not even close. It's almost impossible to vet a candidate and figure out his views on each and every position; while with a proposition like prop 8, one just has to read the title to figure out what it's all about.

loceng• 12 years ago

Find someone who has proposals on health-care you like but not the wanton drone attacks? Or if there are none like that, then start to campaign yourself to get elected? Also, being a friend with a person from a small town who has prejudice against someone is very different than who you elect the President of the USA.

StavrosK3• 12 years ago

If I voted for Mitt Romney because of his tax proposals, does that mean I support...well, his likely use of wanton drone attacks?

If you like someone as a CEO because of their leadership qualities, does it also mean that you support their stance on gay rights, though?

masklinn7• 12 years ago

No, but that's one removed from the matter at hand. The concerns were with Eich, not with people who thought Eich would be a good CEO.

chris_wot• 12 years ago

So you would vote for the President of the United States when he was not in support of gay marriage, and that's OK, but if the new CEO of Mozilla holds the same stance you will?

Don't think I've seen Obama apologizing for his past stances on gay marriage. What's the difference again?

masklinn7• 12 years ago

Don't think I've seen Obama apologizing for his past stances on gay marriage.

I don't know if he formally apologised, but he talked about his own change of heart and he did things and directed his administration towards gay marriage[0]. And even before his final shift, Obama definitely presented supportive stances towards LGBT groups.

And AFAIK he never went and gave money to actively remove LGBT civil rights.

What's the difference again?

Er… one changed his mind and stance, the other not?

[0] his case is significantly complicated by his support for gay marriage during his original 1996 Illinois Senate run, moving to indecision in 1998, support for civil unions in 2004 (senate) and 2008 (presidential) before snapping back rapidly to support — as early as 2008 he called for the repeal of DOMA, voted against the federal marriage amendment and publicly opposed Prop 8, giving support to "fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law."

toxican2• 12 years ago

There's a difference between having a stance and doing something about it. AFAIK Obama never actively fought gay's rights, he just had a negative opinion of it. Mozilla's CEO took action against homosexuals and donated money to a cause seeking to deny them rights. The difference is the difference between thinking something and acting on it.

But that's just how I view it.

dragonwriter4• 12 years ago

So you would vote for the President of the United States when he was not in support of gay marriage, and that's OK, but if the new CEO of Mozilla holds the same stance you will?

Even when Obama was "not in support of gay marriage", he condemned Prop. 8 and similar moves to enshrine prohibition of same-sex marriage in Constitutions -- whereas Brendan Eich donated money to the Prop. 8 campaign.

So you would vote for the President of the United States when he was not in support of gay marriage, and that's OK, but if the new CEO of Mozilla holds the same stance you will?

I've seen Obama, at a minimum, change his mind very publicly, has never once advocate any change in law or policy hostile to same-sex marriage, and has used the power of his office to direct that the government first stop defending existing statutes hostile to same sex marriage, and then take other substantive steps in support of it.

Meanwhile, Eich said that his donation doesn't prove that is a bigot, but hasn't done anything to indicate that his hostile position has changed.

What's the difference again?

The fact that their positions in 2008 weren't the same to start with, and that one of them has very publicly moved to a very much more pro same-sex marriage position since then.

IOW, there's pretty much nothing similar at all.

mantrax43• 12 years ago

I think we can safely stop thinking about the morality and legality of our actions, as long as we just apologize regularly.

Here we have two people who have both performed actions which are both indirectly anti-gay. But one is let go due to an apology, and the other wasn't due to no apology.

Apologizing is like a mark-and-sweep garbage collection approach to our past perceived sins.

Accountability (and reference counting) is boring and takes a lot of resources.

So we should just apologize.

BTW, I apologize for everything.

I also sincerely apologize for this post. Forgive me.

scrollaway• 12 years ago

Nothing is let go due to an apology. It's let go because he was not in any way, shape or form supporting anti-gay laws and his apology is about not having done enough research on the guy.

Seriously.

discardorama2• 12 years ago

Supporting Prop 8 is not "indirectly anti-gay". It is directly anti-gay. Prop 8 has only 1 purpose: to deny gay couples the protection of marriage. On the other hand, with a candidate, one could in all honesty support a particular position (or set of positions), while being unaware of the candidate's stance on some other positions.

I was waiting for Eich to respond to the firestorm with some clarification or a public statement; he did neither other than resigning. That, to me, speaks volumes: he'd rather give up his CEO position than his anti-gay position. So it is best that he resigned and left.

_pmf_• 12 years ago

With Eich, we have someone who made a donation 6+ years ago and has never sought to give context to it or explain it or give further reflection to it, which means he either holds those anti-gay marriage views just as strongly today, or believes that apologies, or evolving viewpoints is a sign of weakness. Not really strong signs of confidence in a CEO, quite frankly.

And having a CEO that panders to the public opinion is better ... how?

Yoric• 12 years ago

Or he believes that this is a private matter and doesn't want to discuss his private opinions in public. Which is a good sign in a CEO for a company whose main concern is protecting privacy (and free speech and education, etc.).

edgarallenbro2• 12 years ago

Isn't that what a CEO is supposed to do?

Left hand: Complains that CEOs/politicians don't listen and are out of touch Right hand: Complains that CEOs are pandering

...what?

protomyth• 12 years ago

"If I voted for Mitt Romney because of his tax proposals, does that mean I support...well, his likely use of wanton drone attacks?"

I take it you didn't bother to study Gov. Romney's position versus the President's current wanton use of drones. Much it seems like your lack of looking at the views the candidate supported by OKCupid's CEO has continually stated.

OKCupid's CEO is a hypocrite who did not apologize prior to throwing stones at other. He only "apologized" under pressure.

m52go• 12 years ago

Wow, that sort of ad is inexcusable.

mkr-hn• 12 years ago

Video ads are fine, but auto-playing with sound is awful. It's the kind of ad I have a blocker for. I would have found another source if I knew about the ad.

mathattack• 12 years ago

It's tough, because there is a morale issue at stake, but if we all become 1 issue voters, the political system breaks down. We have to support the candidates who on balance do enough for what we believe in.

To your point - there's also a difference between supporting an issue, versus a candidate.

nilkn2• 12 years ago

OkCupid as an organization sought specifically to harm Eich and Mozilla. I don't really care about any apology unless it is issued directly to him.

Tohhou8• 12 years ago

Anyone who has ever donated to a church is in the same boat. You would be hard pressed to not find someone who hasn't given money to a church in some form, and equally hard pressed to not find a church which is not anti-gay, has not had any anti-gay activity at all in any form.

They are all scum. None are fit to have jobs anywhere. It would be better for those who have been leaders of companies, leading them to prosperity, to burn than let them stay - fire them all, everyone. Yes, you too.

Not just Christianity but Judaism or Islam which are even more explicitly anti-gay - logically anyone who is a Jew or Muslim should be targeted next by the social justice witch hunt.

Edit: Many downvotes! Self righteous hypocrites rejoice! You enable anti-gay hate. You disgust me.

mcv7• 12 years ago

You would be hard pressed to not find someone who hasn't given money to a church in some form, and equally hard pressed to not find a church which is not anti-gay

You're not looking very hard. Churches vary a lot, especially once you start looking outside arch-conservative US. There are churches that have gay vicars. Lots of churches have not had any anti-gay activity. The WBC is not exactly average.

Tohhou8• 12 years ago

You really think supporting homosexuals is a common trait in churches anywhere? "Being gay isn't bad if you don't act on it." Oh, yeah, sure. Totally not anti-gay.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm

Anyone who thinks this book is golden is anti-gay no matter how they spin their politics.

Cuuugi2• 12 years ago

It's a fair jump from "Anti-gay" Church to WBC. So you go to a hippy church, that's great. You said it yourself, churches vary a lot but most side on the homosexuality being a bad thing.

adventured3• 12 years ago

Nice to meet you. I'm your hard pressed example, there are millions like me in the US.

Tohhou8• 12 years ago

Is your bible the inerrant word of your god? If not then does it have any legitimacy? Is homosexuality a sin?

I have yet to find someone like you who who at some point does not admit they are anti-gay. They say they are not, and then you find out they are due to holding two contradictory views at once. Even then you've never given money to any church than ones you know for a fact are 100% not anti-gay, have no one in power who is not anti-gay? That is the parallel.

goatforce5• 12 years ago

May I present the Metropolitan Community Church:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Community_Church

And i've not been keeping a list or anything, but plenty of churches in my part of the world have rainbow flag stickers on their signs/noticeboards.

I went to watch the local Pride parade a few years ago and was bored by the number of churches marching in the parade. (It's great that you're actively showing your support, but at least put some effort in to do something fun during the parade. Sheesh!)

Tohhou8• 12 years ago

Leviticus

Homosexual acts are an abomination to God. 18:22 If a man has sex with another man, kill them both. 20:13

Something about wanting their cake and eating it too.

Beside this, my point is that even if people join this church, they have undoubtedly donated money to an anti-gay church in the past, which makes them forever unworthy apparently.

OKCupid CEO Apologizes for Supporting Antigay Candidate

Related Stories