See, this comment is why we need to do a better job of keeping stories like this off the front page. There's nothing in the comment you replied to that indicates any cavalierness about "gay rights", and yet, there it is: the nasty comment accusing another HN user of bad faith. Right on cue.
Normally I'd agree that stories with a high political divisiveness content should be kept off the front page.
But this is a story about one of the most prominent people in tech and one of the most prominent companies in tech. In addition, it has ramifications for everyone who wants to run or own a company. So it very much belongs on the front page of HN.
The fact that a lot of the comments will be inflammatory is predictable, if sad, but that's no reason to try to sweep it under the rug. A different approach is needed for stories like this one that are otherwise perfect fits for top-of-HN material.
> There's nothing in the comment you replied to that indicates any cavalierness about "gay rights"
You missed the point. The GP's comment, by dismissing gay right's relevance to mozilla, implicitly treated the matter in a "cavalier" manner.
Let's do a little find/replace to prove the point. Eich donated $1000 to the KKK. The GP notes that lynching niggers has nothing to do with the day to day operations of Mozilla, so what's the big deal. The parent is dismayed by how trivial black person's rights are considered by HN. What's your comment, tptacek?
The gay rights issue is much more complicated than "oppose gay mariage == EVIL".
A huge number of people supported the proposition - a really huge number. Do you think they all were bad people? Do you think this particular, say, 30% of the population of California are bad people who should never run a company?
If you're not isolated in a liberal pocket of a huge city, you know and like and respect some of these people, and you think they can do a fantastic job at many things. And by the way, it seems to have been fine for Eich to be CTO, but end of the world for him to be CEO, explain that.
The truth is both sides are wrong. Marriage is defined between and man and a woman, that's just the meaning of the word applied to people. And it shouldn't mean anything to the law, there should be no tax implications, no child rights implications, nothing. Also, by the way, all religions are just not true.
Of course, thinking these things makes me EVIL to just about everyone. I'm not sad though, just really cynical. Politics is just one irrational side shouting at the other, saying that anyone who doubts their side for a second is evil. Anything logical doesn't matter until it happens to come into fashion. I just avoid it all to the greatest extent possible.
Most people are probably very much in favor of marriage equality, they just draw a different line than you about the role that personal opinions should play in an pluralistic workplace. Let's not conflate the two views here, there's been enough discussion around this to recognize that there are at least nuanced arguments on both sides that defy this binary classification.
Today I learned that some people believe gay rights are so important that they think anyone who disagrees with the preferred, tendentious public-policy perspective on gay rights IS A MONSTER incapable of treating people like human beings and destructive to an organization. Also, pluralism is dead.
Today you learned that how? Are you unaware that there is a large portion of the population that think that gay marriage should not be recognized by the state?
