ShcShc11 0 #1 August 23, 2012 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/07/google-announces-support-same-sex-marriage_n_1656680.html QuoteGoogle launched a new campaign on Saturday supporting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights around the world. Dot 429 reports that the initiative, called "Legalize Love," debuted in Poland and Singapore, and "will focus on places with homophobic cultures, where anti-gay laws exist," though it will operate in every city in which Google has an office. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 24 #2 August 23, 2012 Fucking eh! Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,471 #3 August 23, 2012 Cool! Anyone who criticizes Google from this point forward shall be understood to be trying to violate their First Amendment rights. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #4 August 23, 2012 QuoteCool! Anyone who criticizes Google from this point forward shall be understood to be trying to violate their First Amendment rights. they will simply cease to exist in the only search engine anyone uses. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #5 August 23, 2012 QuoteQuoteCool! Anyone who criticizes Google from this point forward shall be understood to be trying to violate their First Amendment rights. they will simply cease to exist in the only search engine anyone uses. Great, must be awesome to have the ability to delete entire societies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,106 #6 August 23, 2012 QuoteCool! Anyone who criticizes Google from this point forward shall be understood to be trying to violate their First Amendment rights. So, if one exerts their first amendment rights (criticism), they're violating Google's first amendment rights?Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,471 #7 August 23, 2012 >So, if one exerts their first amendment rights (criticism), they're violating Google's first >amendment rights? Exactly. See Chick-Fil-A issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RonD1120 58 #8 August 23, 2012 I wonder why they desire to get involved.Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 189 #9 August 23, 2012 Quote>So, if one exerts their first amendment rights (criticism), they're violating Google's first >amendment rights? Exactly. See Chick-Fil-A issue. Taking your business elsewhere to avoid patronizing a particular establishment is fine. Interfering with the ability of someone to do business because you don't like them is another thing altogether. If, for example, there was enough business to support a McDonalds on every corner, they should have the opportunity to open them. None of that business, however, will be from me either way. Legislating morality has a bad track record. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,471 #10 August 23, 2012 >Taking your business elsewhere to avoid patronizing a particular establishment is fine. Absolutely - whether it is Chick-Fil-A or Google. >Interfering with the ability of someone to do business because you don't like them >is another thing altogether. No one is threatening that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #11 August 23, 2012 Quote Quote Cool! Anyone who criticizes Google from this point forward shall be understood to be trying to violate their First Amendment rights. they will simply cease to exist in the only search engine anyone uses. Hmm... I guess I'm not anyone. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,106 #12 August 23, 2012 Quote>So, if one exerts their first amendment rights (criticism), they're violating Google's first >amendment rights? Exactly. See Chick-Fil-A issue. Ahhh.. gotchya. Didn't connect the dots. And, agree with Winsor's point also. On a final note, I care not about an organization's particular support of a position, platform, charity, etc. up to the point that they are adding a charge for their product/services for ME to indirectly support if I don't agree with it. For example, if Chik-fil-a decided to increase their price $.02 for every $.02 goes to closing down abortion clinics, then I would not buy their product/services. Only because it's not like they're taking the $.02 out of their bottom line, they're adding to the top line. And, then they get the charitable deduction.Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,471 #13 August 23, 2012 >I wonder why they desire to get involved. "Though our business and employees are located in offices around the world, our policies on non-discrimination are universal throughout Google. We are proud to be recognised as a leader in LGBT inclusion efforts, but there is still a long way to go to achieve full equality. Legalise Love is our call to decriminalise homosexuality and eliminate homophobia around the world. "At Google, we encourage people to bring their whole selves to work. In all of our 60 offices around the world, we are committed to cultivating a work environment where Googlers can be themselves and thrive. We also want our employees to have the same inclusive experience outside of the office, as they do at work, and for LGBT communities to be safe and to be accepted wherever they are." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 189 #14 August 23, 2012 Quote>Taking your business elsewhere to avoid patronizing a particular establishment is fine. Absolutely - whether it is Chick-Fil-A or Google. >Interfering with the ability of someone to do business because you don't like them >is another thing altogether. No one is threatening that. A variety of local politicians have opposed giving further business licenses because of the stance of the principal of Chic-Fil-A. That strikes me as threatening interference on the basis of personal preference. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #15 August 23, 2012 QuoteQuote >Interfering with the ability of someone to do business because you don't like them >is another thing altogether. No one is threatening that. A variety of local politicians have opposed giving further business licenses because of the stance of the principal of Chic-Fil-A. That strikes me as threatening interference on the basis of personal preference. IIRC, 3 mayors made statements that were somewhere between bluster and inappropriate threats to interfere with the zoning board - Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco. The last one merely said they were not welcome in SF, and CFA seems to agree - the nearest one is I believe 100 miles inland. Jon Stewart lambasted all 3 of them for these statements. If CFA did apply and got rejected, it would be a pretty easy civil case. The bark has no bite here. Winsor - otoh, I do not agree that city planning should sign off on an infinite number of fast food, liquor stores, or medical pot clinics even if there is demand to support it. Their job, done correctly and without bias, still requires balance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
