Okcupid calls for users to ditch FireFox due to CEO's previous Prop8 donation

[ABlockOfCheese]

"someone else"
you mean the company? lol

uhh yes

did you have to not use protection?  Are you going to make the company responsible for your bad decision?

[Ad Bot]

[SWAT One]

To be fair, everyone is entitled to an opinion, no matter what consensus people have about it.

Like seriously why does everyone go baaawwww over one guy voting this when millions of others did the same?  Pretty ironic.

[Frankie²]

did you have to not use protection?  Are you going to make the company responsible for your bad decision?

what bad decision? to have love? wtf
its in the companies best interest to provide it
a few million condoms a year is cheaper than providing healthcare for a workers newly formed family

[Night Fox]

what bad decision? to have love? wtf

the bad decision to not use protection...

[DrenDran]

you're acting as if the ceo is paying out of pocket for this
the ceo has personal beliefs, and thats fine, but his beliefs are effecting other people that work in his company
it is the law that this company provides healthcare for its workers and i really do think contraception falls under the category of it

No offense but it seems you don't really know what you're talking about and are not understanding our arguments.

We're saying if the CEO wants to have an opinion he should be allowed to have that opinion.
We are also saying, on a separate note, that other people should not have to pay for your contraception.

what bad decision? to have love? wtf

No, but it is a luxury. If you can't afford to do it, you should not do it.

Shame personal responsibility isn't a thing anymore.

[Dodger]

its in the companies best interest to provide it
a few million condoms a year is cheaper than providing healthcare for a workers newly formed family

It should still be the company's choice to follow their "best interest" in this case, and not be forced by government regulation to do so.

[DrenDran]

It should still be the company's choice to follow their "best interest" in this case, and not be forced by government regulation to do so.

If anything, the government should provide free abortions, that way we get less unwanted babies. The healthcare companies should decide what to do for everything else.


It's like people can't stop themselves from loving, for even the briefest amount of time.

[Headcrab Zombie]

It's stupid when people boycot companies due to the personal beliefs of their leaders.

It has nothing to do with beliefs, it has to do with money.
If a company is  donating money to a group, that money comes from customer purchases.
Not wanting to purchase something if your money will be donated to groups you don't support is perfectly logical

It's a pretty moot point for a free product, though.

[Frankie²]

the bad decision to not use protection...

as if a couple is going to have love or not based off whether they have a condom

It should still be the company's choice to follow their "best interest" in this case, and not be forced by government regulation to do so.

arent you the same guy from the police shooting thread? lol
do you really think that allowing companies more freedoms would be in the best interest of the people?

[DrenDran]

It has nothing to do with beliefs, it has to do with money.
If a company is  donating money to a group, that money comes from customer purchases.
Not wanting to purchase something if your money will be donated to groups you don't support is perfectly logical

It's a pretty moot point for a free product, though.

The money the person owned in a position at that company is their own. It's not like he was diverting company funds to bash the gays. What if a bunch of the lower level employees did the same thing with their money, would they be fired as well?

as if a couple is going to have love or not based off whether they have a condom

Like I said, shame the idea of being responsible apparently died and I didn't notice.

do you really think that allowing companies more freedoms would be in the best interest of the people?

Well, do you think socialism is a great idea either?

[ABlockOfCheese]

what bad decision? to have love? wtf
its in the companies best interest to provide it
a few million condoms a year is cheaper than providing healthcare for a workers newly formed family

I thoguht we were talking about contraceptives here, not condoms.

In which case if you can't afford a damn condom for yourself then you have bigger issues than love.

[Blockzillahead]

And what will not using Firefox solve?
What will Firefox not work for gays? Okcupid can kiss my ass.

[Headcrab Zombie]

The money the person owned in a position at that company is their own.

His "own money" comes from a salary, paid for by the company, that is funded by customer purchases. It doesn't matter how you try to justify it or twist it, the money sources back to the customer.

What if a bunch of the lower level employees did the same thing with their money, would they be fired as well?

What? I never said anyone should be fired, or even punished in any way at all. They have the right to spend their money how they want. Similarly, consumers have the right to not spend their money how they don't want.
As far as that goes, the COE has a tremendous power over marketing. What he does is going to have significantly more weight than some other random employee

[Frankie²]

Well, do you think socialism is a great idea either?

depends on the topic
socialized healthcare would be great, but obviously due to congress being dumb thats not happening any time soon so theyre doing the next best thing, its not companies such as hobby lobby will be financially hurt because of this lol (not sure about small businesses, id have to look more into that)

I thoguht we were talking about contraceptives here, not condoms.

In which case if you can't afford a damn condom for yourself then you have bigger issues than love.

condom = birth control = contraception
and about affording it, thats a completely different issue

[Dodger]

It has nothing to do with beliefs, it has to do with money.
If a company is  donating money to a group, that money comes from customer purchases.
Not wanting to purchase something if your money will be donated to groups you don't support is perfectly logical

It's a pretty moot point for a free product, though.

It was a personal donation based on what I read, not company funds. This ain't no Dan Cathy.

His "own money" comes from a salary, paid for by the company, that is funded by customer purchases. It doesn't matter how you try to justify it or twist it, the money sources back to the customer.

If a McDonalds worker donated 1000$ to a group supporting the death penalty (same amount that Eich donated), would you boycott McDonalds for being pro-death penalty?

from the police shooting thread? lol
wat
do you really think that allowing companies more freedoms would be in the best interest of the people?
Not every business freedom is equally bad. There's a healthy balance between employee and employer which can be achieved. If anything, theres been more restriction of business freedom historically (some bad, some good). The only major recent freedom given to businesses that I can recall is superPAC donation which I agree is bullstuff, but thats an issue on a whole other level. Businesses are also made of people too, and associating them as being completely against consumers is a pretty narrow view. Businesses hire people, ensure livelihoods, etc.