Oklahoma City High School Bans Firefox from Student Computers Because of Mozilla’s Support for Gay Marriage. (Not So.)

Oklahoma City High School Bans Firefox from Student Computers Because of Mozilla’s Support for Gay Marriage. (Not So.) September 15, 2014


Oklahoma City High School Bans Firefox from Student Computers Because of Mozilla’s Support for Gay Marriage. (Not So.) 

Did you do a double-take when you read that headline?

It is, I hasten to assure you, not true. As in, I made it up.

I made it up to make a point, and that point is that what’s good for the politically-correct goose ought to also be good for the traditionalist gander.

According to Fox News, California’s Ventura High School has “banned” Chick Fil-A chicken sandwiches for fear that the taste of a sandwich made by a company who held political views that run counter to … I guess the Ventura zeitgeist, if there is such a thing … might be “offensive.” Aside from the fact that this is a tempest in a crock pot kinda deal, it does tend to reflect the double standard we’ve got going here.

Imagine, if you will, if the made-up-by-me title to this post had been describing an actual/factual event. Can you wrap your mind around what would almost certainly be the plethora of critical blog posts denouncing “Christian bigots,” “dumb Okies” and probably the mothers of the school board members who had voted allowed this? I actually can imagine it, which is why I decided to write this post.

Because, you see, if it’s good for the politically-correct Ventura goose, then it should also be good for the traditionalist gander, wherever they reside.

From FoxNews:

Feathers have been ruffled at California’s Ventura High School, where the principal this week banned the football booster club from selling Chick-fil-A sandwiches over fears that people might be offended.

What, pray tell, could people find offensive about a plump juicy chicken breast tucked between two buttered buns?

Were English teachers put off by the restaurant chain’s grammatically challenged bovine pitchmen?Did the waffle fries and banana pudding milkshakes exceed the nutritional limits deemed acceptable by the federal government?

The answer, dear readers, is no. It seems Principal Val Wyatt’s ban has less to do with poultry and more to do with politics.

“With their political stance on gay rights and because the students of Ventura High School and their parents would be at the event, I didn’t want them on campus,” Wyatt told the Ventura County Star.

It was a sentiment supported by Trudy Tuttle Ariaga, superintendent of the Ventura Unified School District.

“We value inclusivity and diversity on our campus, and all our events and activities are going to adhere to our mission,” Ariaga told CBS News in Los Angeles.

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment

16 responses to “Oklahoma City High School Bans Firefox from Student Computers Because of Mozilla’s Support for Gay Marriage. (Not So.)”

  1. I have used Firefox. When i did I had no idea that they had any social agenda, still don’t. I quit for the reasons Theodore suggests. I currently use Safari and am unaware that they have any social agenda. Sometimes I use Chrome, ditto.

  2. There may be browsers with smaller memory footprints but that alone
    hardly qualifies them as better. I was using Netscape Navigator and
    Opera when Firefox was still an unborn child. I watched how Firefox
    clawed market share from IE and established itself as the upstart David
    who would bring down Goliath.

    Sadly, before that could happen,
    Firefox went mainstream and succumbed to the compromises of middle-age.
    Now far divorced from its revolutionary roots, the one remaining and
    saving grace which keeps it as my default browser are the Firefox
    add-ons. I suspect this is true for many other power-users as well.
    There is simply no alternative to a well-managed Firefox with
    carefully-chosen add-ons. Chrome comes closest but still falls behind
    when we compare the sheer number and quality of the add-ons.

  3. There are many sides to this. (For the record, from the facts I’ve heard, I think the decision was silly.)

    1. Was Chick-fil-a chosen to send a message? There is no indication here it was. However a military officer did that. He selected this co for his on-base retirement lunch, and then made sure everyone knew the reason was his animosity toward gays. His commander said no dice. That isn’t a message you can send in a diverse workplace, no matter how you send the message.

    2. Does the choice disrespect an ongoing protest? Lets say that a local restaurant had done something and a large number of students were boycotting the restaurant. If there were lots of restaurants to chose from, selecting that one as the one only to provide food for an event would disrespect the students, regardless of your opinion of the reason for the boycott.

    CFA allowed itself to become a symbol of anti-gay bias. This means that some people use the co as symbol. CFA wisely went back to focusing on food, so the symbolic message of choosing CFS is passing, but it still may exist.

    Symbols matter. That’s how our brain works.

  4. It depends on the message. My local pool sold CFA sandwiches at swim meets because the sandwiches were packaged well so that they remained semi-edible and the price point was right. No problem.

    Let’s say an organization sold ABC pizza at a fundraiser. No problem.

    Now let’s say they announce that they chose ABC Pizza because they approve of that co’s drive to abolish the Red Cross, Salvation Army and ASPCA. Now it’s not just pizza. It’s now messages and symbols. I would not support that fund raiser.

  5. Change the labels.

    Let’s say ABC Pizza donated 1% of its profits to Planned Parenthood. They made sure everyone knew it so as to get more business from supporters of PP.

    Now a high school is holding a fund raiser. There are several local pizza places to choose from, but for whatever reason, the students choose ABC Pizza. The HS principal steps in and says “Bad choice. Pick one of the other pizza places that won’t offend a big chunk of students.”

    Will you tell me with a straight face that you would mock and condemn this principal? Tell me that you would have no problem with the school supporting a business that financially supports a cause you find deeply offensive. Tell me that you would say “It’s just pizza.”

    As I said earlier, in this case I do not think cancelling CFA was necessary or reasonable. CFA no longer donates money to the more objectionable anti-gay charities and they intentionally pulled back from becoming a symbol of anti-gay bias. I don’t have any problem patronizing them (apart from the grease). But symbols have meaning. Picking a company for a fund raiser that a lot of your students currently boycott is an uncool move. In that situation, picking a different company is reasonable.

  6. For many, the objection was that the company donated money to anti-gay groups that were seen as bringing direct harm to gay people. Thus, patronizing CFA meant financial benefit to causes people refused to support. CFA later announced that they no longer donated to those charities.

    Would you patronize a business that donated a percentage of profits to Planned Parenthood?

    Do you avoid purchasing from companies that have been exposed for using child labor overseas?

    It’s the same thing. When making commercial choices, most of us will occasionally run into practices that we prefer not to support, even though we know that taking our $10 purchase somewhere else is a meaningless drop in the bucket.

    The fact that you and I would differ on which practices we draw the line at doesn’t mean that we can’t respect that each of us must make our own moral choices.

  7. You’re getting waaaaayyyyyy off the mark here. We’re talking about the government action (public school) based on anger about a corporate business owner’s completely legal political donations. As I said, what’s sauce for the politically correct goose, should also be sauce for the traditionalist gander.

  8. This already happens all the time with computer products, among other things. So far as I know, no school district has refused to buy them. But, based on the behavior in Ventura, CA, they certainly should be free to do so — and to punish the business’ owners for having political views they dislike. Sauce. Goose. Gander.

  9. We are on the same page then. The school’s actions should be religiously neutral – neither favoring nor dis-favoring a company based on religion. If chick fil a was chosen because the sandwiches are semi-tasty, affordable and keep well in the foil bags, then this choice is perfectly reasonable. (which I personally think is the case).

    If the students made a big deal about selecting a given product to show one group of students how unwelcome they are, then it could be right for the principal to step in in some way, altho perhaps not by de-selecting the vendor.

  10. Based on what the superintendent of schools said the press, it sounds as if the decision was based entirely on the private political activities of Chick Fil-As owner.

  11. In other words, we agree. We both as times consider moral choices when making purchase decisions. At other times, quality and price are primary drivers. Were aren’t that different