
OKCupid CEO Apologizes for Supporting Antigay Candidate - mkr-hn
http://www.advocate.com/business/2014/04/08/okcupid-ceo-apologizes-supporting-antigay-candidate
======
danso
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.

~~~
chris_wot
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?

~~~
toxican
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.

~~~
001sky
Obama campaigned in california in 2008

2008 was a presidential year

2008 prop 8 was on the ballot

He is on record -- in california -- supporting a definition of marriage

that excluded same-sex couples

While speaking to "special interest groups" who supported prop8

=== That is "action" with intent...it is cut and dry.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Obama campaigned in california in 2008 True.

> 2008 was a presidential year

True

> 2008 prop 8 was on the ballot

True, and Obama is on record in California in 2008 _specifically_ opposing
Prop 8 and all similar attempts (Prop 8 wasn't unique) attempts to write a
similar defense of marriage into state and federal (there was an active move
to do that, too, then) constitutions.

> === That is "action" with intent...it is cut and dry.

Sure, action _against_ the position Eich was _for_.

~~~
001sky
You seem to avoid the obvious issue. He encouraged and sought the approval of
blacks and religious groups who overwhelmingly (7/10) voted against prop8 and
led to that ballot measure being passed. He used <specific language> about
<the subject> to win their favour. So he was not in any way neutral on this
issue. It is impossible to argue.

~~~
dragonwriter
> So he was not in any way neutral on this issue. It is impossible to argue.

I am not arguing that he was neutral, I am arguing -- as is manifestly and
unquestionably the case -- that he was on the opposite side of Eich. He
_specifically_ condemned Prop 8 and similar measures.

The fact that that opposition was in spite of the fact that he very publicly
stated that he shared some of the moral beliefs that others claimed made
support of Prop 8 _necessary_ , if anything, underlines his opposition, rather
than mitigates it, as his position was that Prop 8 (and similar measures to
enshrine a man-woman definition of marriage in Constitutions) were wrong in
the then-current environment _even_ _given_ the moral belief that marriage
_ought_ to be between a man and a woman.

~~~
001sky
It's the "actions not the words that matter", according to those preaching
intolerance on this subject today.

~~~
masklinn
> It's the "actions not the words that matter"

Well then your whole case would fall down if you'd ever had one (rather than a
gish gallop) since Obama had anti-equality words (retracted since) and pro-
equality actions.

~~~
001sky
The flip-and-the-flop have in common being <both> opportunistic and self
serving.

------
Tohhou
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.

~~~
mcv
> 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.

~~~
Tohhou
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](http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm)

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

~~~
67726e
That's the fun thing about most religious folks. They pick and choose which
parts of <HOLY BOOK> to follow. Not to pick on anyone in particular, but ever
heard the term "Cafeteria Christianity"[0]? It seems that following the
entirety of a religion would be rather hard unless you quickly dive into the
sticky situation of saying which parts are valid and which are not.

[0] -
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cafeteria_Christianity](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cafeteria_Christianity)

~~~
mcv
Yeah, it's so hypocritical to only follow the words of Jesus Christ, and
ignore all the older stuff that's contradicted or overridden by Jesus. Like
they don't even know why their religion is called Leviticianity.

