
OkCupid/IAC Employees Donated Thousands to Anti-Gay Marriage Politicians - TheTruthOk
http://pastebin.com/ekaFQXbE
======
pmorici
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.

~~~
meritt
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.

~~~
crazygringo
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.

~~~
hyperbovine
Segregation, marriage inequality, restrictions on abortion and contraception--
what do each of these have in common? It's that the government is imposing an
arbitrary value system on the behavior of private citizens. This is acceptable
when said behavior could harm others. In these other cases, it feels pretty
off to have this happening in 2014. (Do not respond to me about fetuses.)

~~~
mynewwork
I love when people end an argument with "Do not respond to me about <the
obviously controversial part of my opinion>".

The fact is, people from all backgrounds and political viewpoints hold
opinions which they view as absolute. Whether that's "being anti-gay is
equivalent to being pro-slavery" or "abortion is murder", people are going to
disagree even if they are both guided by the same fundamentally good goals.

~~~
hyperbovine
I fully admit that it's controversial, I just don't have the time or the
energy to debate it here. (Or anywhere.) The rationale I gave holds up, but
good luck debating it.

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

------
CurtHagenlocher
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.

~~~
wf
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.

~~~
peterwwillis
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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy)

------
jonah
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
_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
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.

~~~
cobrausn
I'll take the bait. The NRA is reacting to any mention of gun control from the
left the same way the left reacts to any mention of abortion restrictions from
the right - don't believe anything they say, because they are trying for
victory by inches. And considering some of the rhetoric flying around, they
probably should (both sides).

------
grifpete
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.

~~~
devilshaircut
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
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.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The term "thought-police" does not necessarily have a government
> connotation.

Only if you rob it of all substance does it not necessarily imply an
oppressive government.

~~~
nilkn
I think the notion of thought-police posited by meddlepal is just as scary as
that of an oppressive government. Governments, at least, can be overthrown.

~~~
devilshaircut
And private individuals or organizations cannot? The flaw of logic is obvious.

~~~
nilkn
I don't really know what you're trying to say. I'm not talking about one
person or one organization.

~~~
devilshaircut
From the poster who suggested the use of the term "thought police":

> "The term 'thought-police' does not necessarily have a government
> connotation."

If it is not government, then the party under discussion therefore must be a
private individual or organization. I don't understand how this is anything
like the commonly accepted understanding of "thought police". It is simply one
private party critiquing the behavior (in this case, a monetary donation to
support certain legislation) of another private party.

It is an inherent double standard.

Also: if Eich, rather than fund legislation which discriminates against gays,
funded legislation that discriminated against, for example, black people,
would you be confident that black people who worked for Mozilla would be
working in a fair environment? Would another private organization, like
OKCupid, be justified in questioning such an individual?

If this is to be branded the "thought police" then I worry about freedom of
expression and our cultural mores, in general.

~~~
nilkn
Eich is being critiqued right now by more than just one private party. That's
why I was confused with your post.

Also, "critique" is a rather kind way of putting it. It's more like doing
everything possible to take his job away.

And that's the real problem. Trying to sabotage someone's career over a
difference of political opinion is not a mature or effective way to advance
your message. How would you like it if all your coworkers publicly petitioned
for you to quit because it was discovered you were pro-choice
(hypothetically)? There are people who think abortion is plain old murder.
People like that will think a pro-choice stance is absolutely unacceptable,
and they might even think an example should be made of anybody who supports
such legislature.

~~~
devilshaircut
Why does the quantity of private parties matter? He publicly donated money. I
don't understand why you believe he is immune to criticism.

Do you understand that he is CEO of a large company? Do you understand that
LGBT individuals and their allies work for this company? Including its board
of directors. Do you understand that they have already publicly spoken about
the real consequences his appointment to CEO has on them?

Would I like it if people petitioned for me to quit? No. I can't imagine Eich
is too pleased with this backlash. But that doesn't make LGBT individuals
wrong in speaking out against promoting bigoted legislation. If you think
"hurt feelings" is a good defense for Eich, how do you think his LGBT
constituency feels? He materially invested in anti-gay legislation. These
people spoke out against it.

I am just so floored by this type of reasoning you promote.

And "trying to sabotage someone's career" is like Dan Brown getting a bad book
review. Like Brown, Eich has already made a successful career out of
technology; nothing they say is going to limit his success in the field. It is
an absolute fact that there are those of his constituency who feel
specifically discriminated against. How is it not within their right (or other
peoples' rights) to speak out publicly about this?

How is this even close to thought crime? It is a matter of private
citizens/organizations; he contributed materially to anti-gay legislation (not
simple thoughts); there is no governing body capable of actually punishing
him.

Again, I am floored by the reasoning being promoted here.

------
mxfh
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](http://iac.com/brands?field_category__tid=22)

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

------
vezzy-fnord
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.

------
eridius
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.

~~~
azth
> 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.

~~~
chrisoverzero
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.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
And, in response, they're conducting a campaign to remove from Eich one of the
basic civil rights of man - free speech (including political speech). You
don't lose that right just because you become a CEO.

~~~
chrisoverzero
No government is restricting Mr. Eich's freedom of speech. In fact, no one is,
at all. People are using their free speech to counter his. This is the system
working as intended.

(Also, people desiring or acting to remove him from a position as CEO is not
an issue of freedom of speech. There is no right to being a CEO.)

------
futhey
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.

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

------
wdr1
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/](http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/11/obama-on-mtv-i/)

------
zhemao
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.

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

------
mullingitover
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?

------
kevrone
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.

~~~
kevrone
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...](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/goldman-sachs-ceo-lloyd-blankfein-
same-sex-marriage-support-a-business-issue/)

------
xirdstl
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?

------
davidgerard
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_.

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

------
United857
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
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.

------
grifpete
I suspect the did much more damage developing javascript.

------
benched
I found this to be the most interesting page:

[http://iac.com/about/leadership](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!

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

