It's a shame
Shouldn't have given up to blackmail that easily.
Brendan Eich has stepped down as CEO of Firefox-maker Mozilla Corporation – after it emerged he controversially backed a ballot measure that outlawed same-sex marriage in California. In a blog post on Thursday, Mozilla cofounder and executive chairwoman Mitchell Baker wrote that Eich's decision was voluntary and that he made …
If I may quote George Takei:
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. This man donated money to a campaign designed to keep LGBT people from full equality and to deny our families equal rights under the law. He was free to make that choice, but we are free to hold him accountable. If he'd donated money to White Supremacists to help outlaw interracial marriage, there'd be little outcry over his ouster.
Wow. We do indeed live in politically correct times. Chap sees gay marriage as damaging to traditional marriage, makes donation, sacked. Extreme, extreme, extreme. Though there may be valid arguments on both sides, or you may think just one side, always say no to mindless ideological extremism, and a big fat yes to common sense and moderation, every time. Applies to both sides.
This is how it really went down: Chap sees gay marriage as damaging to traditional marriage, makes donation, gets called out by gay couple years later, gets offered the out of uttering a rather diplomatic apology(*) crafted for him by said gays, refuses to utter any such thing, realises the pressure of public opinion isn't going to let up, resigns.
And honestly, if he can't even bring himself to apologize for the actual practical harm to gays that he helped get enacted into law for half a decade, then he *is acting* like rather a bigot, isn't he?
(*): "I made that contribution without realising some of the practical consequences the measure would have. While I still hold the same opinion in principle, that marriage should be for 1M+1F, I now realise that Proposition 8 did in fact cause some people some actual practical harm, and therefore I apologize for my part in getting Proposition 8 enacted." Or words to that effect, quoting from memory.
I wonder what would have happened if people had stood up and said "hang on a minute" back then.
You can't run a company that pushes itself to the public as a LGBT-friendly place while funding laws that deny that philosophy at the basic level. At least, you can't and expect people to just stand by and say "sounds reasonable".
Though I'm not really that bothered what he's done or what his job I do think his being forced out like this is unfair and unreasonable. I personally am fully supportive of same-sex marriage, and most other reasonable forms of social tolerance towards anything that doesn't cause someone harm but....
"If he'd donated money to White Supremacists to help outlaw interracial marriage, there'd be little outcry over his ouster."
If he'd donated money towards a peaceful PR campaign in support of the above then I would in fact oppose his ousting just as I do in this case. There is a clear and obvious divide between making a donation to a PR campaign and holding a deep conviction on a subject and openly espousing it in your personal and professional life, and forcing it on others through your management and leadership of a business.
There is no evidence that he has done anything apart from possibly hold a personal belief that many, including myself disagree with. He hasn't as far as I can see, spoken openly in support of that belief or involved it in his professional life in any way. We only know about his donation through an oddity of a State law.
In a fair and reasonable society you should, and indeed do, have the right to privately believe in and support whatever peaceful opinion and cause you wish. No matter how misguided, ignorant or just plain stupid that belief may be.
If this were not the case Tom Cruise wouldn't still be famous, and there wouldn't be churches of Scientology springing up all over the place.
Except, of course, that this wasn't one man's 'private' opinion, now, was it? He sent money to another group of like-minded bigots, in order that they may speak and act on his behalf.
That's what his donation was for.
If he had been overheard talking in private to someone at a party, of his anti-equality beliefs, you *might* have a case to complain about person opinion causing him to have to resign, yet the facts are that he actively sought for others to press for social changes that would see his 'private opinion' affect an entire group of people through legislation that would further demonize them.
So, no, you and your apologist buddies are grossly mistaken, perhaps even wilfully so.
Mozilla is positioning itself as some kind of community. Having the same ideals as that community is part of the deal if you are the figurehead of that community.
It's the same if you are the figurehead of a Protestant community, then you cannot be a Roman-Catholic. And if you are the President of a Soccer Club, you better love Soccer above other sports.
Regarding Free Speech, people want him to put his money where his mouth is. That is obviously a consequence of Free Speech, people know where you stand in the debate, and they expect you to live up to it. Or be branded as being hypocritical, and not worth listening to.
"There is no sport named "soccer". It's called FOOTBALL."
'Soccer' is a perfectly acceptable contraction of 'Association Football' which is the sort of football that it is.
I'm all for poking fun at the septics but it's an English word created in England by English people so it's a bit harsh to go off on one when they use it.
Nope, not at all accurate there I'm afraid.
Certainly to be the head of a Protestant community you must be of that faith, but that is because that community will have a rule that stipulates it is so
It is entirely possible however to be the owner/manager/president of a football club and not particular like football since the FA and other football authorities don't require you to like football to be associated with it. You do of course have to be good at being the owner/manager/president or you'll get sacked.
The fans may well mock you for saying you don't like football, should you make it public, but if you do a good job and lead the club to victory they're unlikely to try and force you out.
Mozilla has no explicit rules dictating what the personal beliefs of it's employees and particularly the CEO must be, in fact for it to do so would be ridiculous and as a business possibly illegal (hence why Eich wasn't fired but stepped down).
Everybody here is forgetting that certain communities think that their faith is better than all other ones. Leaders/figureheads/spokespersons or whatnot of those communities must therefore uphold those faiths. You cannot lead a Protestant community and not be a Protestant. Not because of the rules, but because you are a Protestant because you believe there is no better faith.
Same reasoning goes for political parties. The political leader of the Liberals must be a Liberal. It would be unlogical if he's a Social-Democrat, a Communist or a Conservative.
Mozilla also has that kind of community. Maybe not by choice, it could well be accidental. But then, they were happy to use the community, and this is the price they pay.
Free Speech is protecting your right to say what you think is the best faith, political party and whatnot, and to keep the State of your back. And there is a different rule that makes sure that people can create communities that have particular faiths, and keep the State of their backs too.
But there is no rule that forces communities to accept people in that particular community with a faith that differs from theirs.
In soccer terms, people would be fully in their right to ditch the president if he insisted that they would become a gardening club.
@ Sander van der Wal
I'm sorry, but that does not compute. From your argument, if he came out as being a secret Internet Explorer user, then he would have a problem.
As far as I know, Mozilla is a foundation for providing software in the area of web browsers, they are not a foundation for the rights of gay people of marry. The one has nothing to do with the other.
As I said above, I don't agree with Eich on this matter, but that wouldn't make me call for his resignation and it wouldn't make me boycott Mozilla. The one has absolutely nothing to do with the other.
That Mozilla is acting unprofessionally and pretty much forcing him out, that could colour whether I would boycott their products.
And Ok Cupid is not hypocritical?
Despite their opposition to Eich and Mozilla, in its past, OkCupid has not come out as strongly against all gay marriage opponents. According to campaign donation records, the matchmaker’s co-founder, Sam Yagan, donated $500 to the presidential campaign of Barack Obama in 2007 and 2008.
Yagan, who is currently CEO of the Match Group, which owns OkCupid, also donated $500 to former Utah Republican Rep. Chris Cannon in 2004. Cannon voted in favor of a constitutional ban on gay marriage.
Christian Rudder, another OkCupid co-founder, donated $1,000 to Obama’s 2012 campaign.
Obama has said that his views on gay marriage are “constantly evolving” and only officially came out in favor of gay marriage in 2012. Before that, Obama had said he believed marriage was between a man and a woman.
This post has been deleted by its author
///If he'd donated money to White Supremacists ///
If he'd donated money to Nazi Leader etc. etc...
In real, you are free to hold him accountable. But using your "Account Log" in focus of slighting people's life and career and so on, you discover only weakness of your positions and cowardice, faced to legit discussions.
"keep LGBT people from full equality and to deny our families equal rights under the law."
There already was full equality under the law, in terms of civil partnerships, it just so happens that men and women are biologically different and no amount of harassment of people who think marriage recognises that, will change biology.
Now, what a prejudiced nasty person I am, aren't I?
Hold him accountable for what exactly? The free exercise of his right to employment? His right to private political speech? His right to political participation? There was no suggestion his workplace performance was inadequate, only that his personal political views were wrong. Three other employees from Mozilla donated to the Prop 8 campaign, and he was the only one fired.
Take the Universal Declaration of Human rights: for the sake of a few people who want to redefine one term in Article 16, a person who wants to keep the definition used for Article 16 as it is, has had Articles 2, 12, 18, 19, 21 and 23. It's worth noting Article 30: Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
It seems many people believe rights are something only they should enjoy.
NO ONE has ANY right to make someone quit their job because he/she/It disagrees with their opinion. Lifestyles are simply another version of an opinion.
Being forced out of a job because ones believes in the traditional family model is as illegal (or pehaps more so) as being forced out because you are gay. Tit for Tat!
STOP trying to force your viewpoints on other people. If you want consequences keep opening your yap.
You are NOT free to hold anyone "accountable" that is unless you are either God or a Judge.
IF you feel you ARE allowed to hold people accountable dont be surprised if you experience some quid pro quo.
The ones wanting to marry whomever they wanted to marry, or the one who successfully contributed to preventing SOME people from marrying marry whomever they wanted to for half a decade in, what was it, the sixth-largest economy in the world? (Sorry, can't recall for sure, but measured in money or people, California is apparently fricking HUGE.)
"He can promote and donate to a cause that conspires to take away the rights of others"
You can't take away rights someone doesn't have in the first place. I also don't believe in gay "marriage", perhaps I shouldn't be allowed to post here because I disagree with your political agenda which is essentially what the whole gay "marriage" really is?
"You can't take away rights someone doesn't have in the first place."
Blacks didnt have any rights either in many countries, doesnt make that situation a valid or just one.
Marrying black people as a white person was not done either half a century ago, look how we changed! I love the fact that churches are always trying to 'hijack' marriage, even though its a governmental instrument.
"Blacks didnt have any rights either in many countries, doesnt make that situation a valid or just one."
Here we go - the usual attempt to conflate racial issues with gay ones in some feeble attempt to gain gravitas for the latter. Not being able to marry is hardly oppression on the same scale as being forced to work as a slave and don't even attempt to make that connection. Marriage in almost ALL societies in the world , black, white, brown , whatever , is between a man and a woman, not between 2 people of the same sex and thats the way most of us want it to stay and if you don't like that that's just tough fecking luck.
Why should there be a need for a new word -- don't you think Angles and Saxons were gettng married long before they were Christians? Yes, you're right, of course they were. So the concept of marriage is not a Christian invention: It's something that's been present in *human society* much longer, and across far more cultures, than any single religion. So why should Christianity (or any other single religion) get dibs on any particular word?
OK, maybe I was wrong, above, to say it isn't time to coin a new word. Could well happen that it *is* time to do that... For the Jeezmoids.
Oh Jesus, what the hell is wrong with the forumites here? This whole issue has been so dispiriting for the comments it has attracted - apparently the majority of you are raging homophobes.
To move it away from your apparent prejudicial blindspot, imagine there was a guy who gave money to a political campaign to take the the right to vote away from women "because they were too emotional to make sensible judgements". Or to a campaign that declared that Jews were driven by avarice and would put profit above the well being of their fellow man and should therefore not have the right to own or run companies. Or to a campaign that claimed that interracial marriage was damaging to society because it diluted white racial purity and should therefore be banned.
If such a person were promoted to CEO of an organisation and you were a woman/Jew/black person/non bigot would you want him as your boss? If you were a customer would you want to give "him" money? If you were a stakeholder, would you want to build add-ons or supporting tech that enhanced the prospects of his company?
Further, being CEO is rather different to most jobs - he has considerable scope to make hiring and advancement decisions and he is inherently the "face" of the company.
Finally, how the hell do so many people not understand what "freedom of speech" really means? Too many of you seem to believe that it means freedom from any consequences for what you say (and do - he gave thousands of dollars to support these causes!). How can you possibly think that is what it means? Try walking up to your boss and unleashing a bunch of insults and then claiming freedom of speech when he boots you out.
Freedom of speech means that the government will not take action against you for what you say (and even then the legitimate restrictions are legion - national security, safety (fire! in a crowded cinema...), libel, copyright infringement, harassment, even damn noise pollution for starters). It doesn't mean freedom from consequences - you can express your opinion and I can express mine and we can both of course judge each other accordingly. If you try to take away my rights then I can declare that I won't buy your stuff anymore. This is *obvious*.
Hopefully in 15 years you guys will look back on this and wonder how you could ever think that putting an overt homophobe into a CEO role was appropriate. Lord knows your kids will.
Sorry, either you agree with free speech and democracy, or you don't. If you do, you have to accept others will hold views you don't like.
Accusing anyone who doesn't share your viewpoint of being a homophobe is exactly the kind of twisted bigotry the gay community has demonstrated against Eich.
I accept that he has views that I don't like - I simply don't like them (tautological but apparently you missed that?). People doing things to others that I don't like affects how I act towards them. Is this depriving them of their right to freedom of speech?
If you believe so, then either you act exactly the same towards everyone, regardless of what they have said or how they have acted towards you or you are a hypocrite.
I'm accusing anyone who wants to deprive gay people of the rights that straight people enjoy simply because they are gay of being homophobic. Doesn't seem especially twisted?
You would be surprised to know how bigoted gays can be when they hold the power.
Once the head of the Nursing faculty at a local university got appointed she proceeded to stack the faculty with gay-only lecturers. It was quite an eye-opener to observe the blatant discrimination against males and the grooming of any prospective sexual partners by the faculty staff.
It is not just straights who abuse their power when they hold it. It would have been nice to have seen them practice what they preach (non-discrimination and equal rights for all), but sadly absolute power corrupts absolutely and lofty ideals are soon jettisoned when personal gain is at stake.
"You would be surprised to know how bigoted gays can be when they hold the power."
What, no, gay people can be bigoted? Maybe even nasty, inconsiderate, untruthful, racist, shallow, reactionary, jealous, inconsiderate, hypocritical, changeable, smelly ...
It's almost as though they are just normal human beings, how outrageous.
Speaking as a straight man raised in the ultra-liberal UK in the 60s and 70s, just let me say that I watched La Cages aux Folles" (film and stage) *and* Priscilla Queen of the Desert" and therefore understand everything there is to understand about Gay Life.
Please don't move next door to me and fill your garden with lewd statuary.
"Once the head of the Nursing faculty at a local university got appointed she proceeded to stack the faculty with gay-only lecturers. It was quite an eye-opener to observe the blatant discrimination against males and the grooming of any prospective sexual partners by the faculty staff.
It is not just straights who abuse their power when they hold it. It would have been nice to have seen them practice what they preach (non-discrimination and equal rights for all), but sadly absolute power corrupts absolutely and lofty ideals are soon jettisoned when personal gain is at stake."
In my un-named country, the Gay/Lesbian movement have had an almost uninterrupted stranglehold on Minister for Health & Social Services for a very long time. Public health policy reflects this fact.
The anti-discrimination board consists entirely of women and men who have tried to take their legitimate cases to this board all lose.
Welcome to the socialist ideal world, run by the femi-nazis!
I'm accusing anyone who wants to deprive gay people of the rights that straight people enjoy simply because they are gay of being homophobic.
Gay people DO have the same rights as straight people. What you fail to grasp is that, even for straight people, marriage is not a "right". It is a "privilege" that is subject to regulation by the state and can be denied if those regulations are not met.
"Gay people DO have the same rights as straight people."
Except when they are married. The differences vary between jurisdictions but legally married couples generally enjoy rights that are not available to unmarried people. This can be as trivial as no being accorded a courtesy title to which the spouse of a peer or knight would be entitled or as significant as being unable to sponsor a partner for immigration purposes. There are also often severe inequalities around 'next-of-kin' status, which impacts 'unmarried' couples. For example my wife enjoys automatic next-of-kin status, without any addition legal steps, for purposes of inheritance, superannuation, tax, health directives, etc, etc.
Note, the key difference is that heterosexual couples can chose to forgo the privileges of marriage, or not. Homosexual couples do not have that choice. That is unreasonable.
"marriage is not a "right". It is a "privilege" that is subject to regulation by the state"
Apart from age and genetic relationship, what constraints does the state impose on heterosexual marriage?
Perhaps the State should not do marriage at all. Only Civil Partnership. Then the only "Marriage" is within faiths that have such an ceremony or sacrament and according to their own rules.
Civil Partnership can have all the state legal consequences that Civil Marriage has today. In fact the two kinds of Marriage are separate and only confusingly share the same name.
Of course Agnostics and Atheists and others want to be more equal. To eat their cake and have it, which will destroy the Faith based Marriage concept and leave a "Marriage" that is identical to Civil Partnership.
AC: "What you fail to grasp is that, even for straight people, marriage is not a 'right'. It is a 'privilege' that is subject to regulation by the state and can be denied if those regulations are not met."
What *you* fail to grasp is apparently that the state extending this privilege to one group and not the other is denying equal rights to one group; that campaigning for the state to stop doing so and extending the privilege equally to gays and heterosexuals is fighting for equal rights and privileges for all groups; and that contributing to the campaign for something like Proposition 8 IS siding with the group that wants to extend a particular set of rights to one group but not another.
Perhaps you also fail to grasp that extend any particular set of rights to one group but not another is pretty much the very definition of bigotry.
Bottom line: Whether you call it a "right" or a "privilege" doesn't matter: Extending it to some but not others _will_ show you are a bigot.
I'm accusing anyone who wants to deprive gay people of the rights that straight people enjoy simply because they are gay of being homophobic. Doesn't seem especially twisted?
Strangely enough, the majority of my homosexual friends are actually against gay marriage. I suppose that makes them homophobic too?
The guy makes a political donation to a cause which he may or may not have understood, along with 10's of thousands of other people, and in fact a significant percentage of the population of the state of California voted for it - and now everything that the guy has done in his life is thrown away?
According to you, half of the state of California should be forever banned from working for Mozilla, purely based upon the personal political ideas that you think that they have.
There is a word for people that think like that. In help desk tickets it is often encoded 1D10T
Personally, I could care less about gay marriage. It doesn't have any affect or me one way or the other. I think that codifying civil unions make more sense than trying to redefine marriage and forcing the state's will on religious doctrine, but to each their own.
However, to vilify someone based solely upon a political donation or party affiliation is just pain stupid. I can see it now: Candidate A is a liberal, so he must be fiscally irresponsible. Candidate B is a conservative, so he must be a tyrant. Let's go with Candidate C who doesn't have any social inclination or morals so that we don't offend anyone - instead of hiring based upon their knowledge, experience, and ability to do a job.
".....I'm accusing anyone who wants to deprive gay people of the rights that straight people enjoy simply because they are gay of being homophobic......" So you are saying you think the gay people opposed to the idea of gay marriage are homophobic. Oh, you didn't realise there were gay people that opposed gay marriage? Well, that just shows the narrowness of both your circle and your outlook. One amusing incident of your alleged homophobia would have to be Alan Duncan, the first Conservative MP to come out as gay, who is in a civil partnership, and is opposed to gay marriage (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2158416/I-m-gay-man-opposes-gay-marriage-Does-make-ME-bigot--Mr-Cameron.html). It also means - seeing as Prop8 got 52% of the vote - that you are accusing the State of California of being majority homophobic. Oh, and POTUS Obamabi, though he's a politician so he should be expected to change his spots to sort the electorate and photo-op of the day anyway.
It wasn't this man's bigotry in this case. Everyone involved chose to do what they did. He didn't pull some levers that had predetermined consequences, he has certain beliefs that other people don't like, and they kicked up a massive fuss.
Whether those beliefs are right or not is another matter, and until half the commenters here can understand that distinction, then this discussion is going nowhere.
It's possible to not be a homophobe AND be against gay marriage. Extremists just don't understand that.
I would like to support gay marriage - BUT, as someone who worked on a crisis hotline in college and used to be a licensed therapist, I am against gay adoption purely on child psychology principles. However, since the two issues insist on being intertwined, I am against gay marriage.
Is that O.K.? Or am I now branded as a homophobe because I refuse to think of children as property?
I look forward to the downvotes of the angry and intolerant.
"either you agree with free speech and democracy, or you don't"
Hold on are you seriously trying to deny this guy's right to comment here?
Also not for nothing but only banana republics enshrine a totally unabridged right to freedom of speech without consequences - for reasons that would be blatant to most toddlers.
"Sorry, either you agree with free speech and democracy, or you don't. If you do, you have to accept others will hold views you don't like."
I accept that he has views I don't like. That's a bit different from trying to have his views enshrined into law, but that's a quibble--if you don't see the distinction, it's not really worth going into.
He has the right to have views I don't like. I have the right to choose what Web browser I use and what companies I patronize.
It seems strange to me that folks who support his right to his views, don't seem to support my right not to patronize companies whose views I don't like. We all have the right to hold our ideas...but Mozilla doesn't have a right to expect me to use their products!
I don't quite understand the ideal that says people who run a company have a right to whatever views they have but their customers don't have a right to take their custom elsewhere.
"It's free speech until it's used to persecute someone, then it becomes hate speech."
And that works both ways. You seemingly want to have your cake and eat it too. Hate speech? No. It's an opposing view. Yes, there were some proponents of the anti-gay-wedding cause that used hate speech (I don't know of any incidents of Eich's espousing his views in a hateful manner); by the same token there is a lot of the same from Eich's detractors. Is that hate speech too, or is your cognitive dissonance too strong to see the parallels?
The American Idea of Free Speech INCLUDES HATE SPEECH ... Frigging IDIOT.
This is why the Klu Klux Klan is allowed BY LAW to march and PROTEST PUBLICLY!!!!!!!!
This is why there are RADICAL Muslim Clerics preaching their vesion of hate in many Mosques here.
I will defend the First Amendment til death!
EVERYONE GETS TO VOICE AN OPINION EVEN IF YOU DONT LIKE IT!!!!!!!
THAT is free speech, not the censored version in the EU.
This is not a victory. As a gay guy I am in two minds.
Personally I think it is bloody-mindedness to sack someone for political expression, many of the things I have said that could be used against me in future employment if this becomes the norm. Live by the sword you will die by the sword.
I cant see how providing leadership on a browser project threatened my existence. If as CEO of Mozilla he continued to support campaigns against Gay marraige then I think we would have an axe to grind. As CEO he not was picketing gay weddings or soldiers funerals. I am unaware that the GLBT community contributing to Mozilla felt endangered by his appointment. I did hear of a boycott but there is a boycott for every perceived slight nowadays.
I rally against people for expressing antigay sentiments, but I would only have an issue if his beliefs started to bleed into company policy or the company tried to affect public policy against me.
I cant see how equality will work if neither of us can express a personal opinion. I cannot see how he will change his position on marraige now that he been boycotted, I fear it will make him a stronger opponent.
I may not like his opinion but I will fight for his right to express it. - and I thought i was confused before. This is not a victory.
Which browser company and entire staff supports marraige equality? is there a pink standard?
Thank you -- incredibly well presented.
I can only add:
Gays are our children, our siblings, our parents, our neighbors and friends, our customers, our co-workers, our bosses, our fellow tax payers, our service providers, especially our governmental and military service members, putting their lives on the line for all of us, gays are ourselves.
Shame on anyone for thinking gays or anyone should be second class citizens, denied equivalent consideration, equal protection and due process, shame on any of us for inflicting our fears and personal sins onto others.
No more second class citizens, ever, please.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Voltaire
I am no homophobe and I don't agree with Eich's opinions, but they are his opinions and as long as he leaves them by the door and they don't get in the way of him doing his job, then I don't see what business it is of Mozilla's or the community.
Just because we don't believe in gay "marraige" doesn't mean we are homophobes. The intollerance and outright hatred vented by the gay community over this and similar incidents would see people put in jail if they were on the other side of the fence.
By the way, this needs comment: "deprive gay people of the rights that straight people enjoy ". Nobody is depriving homosexuals the right to fall in love with a person of the opposite sex, get married and have children. Just like normal people.
"Just because we don't believe in gay 'marraige' doesn't mean we are homophobes."
No, you're right, it doesn't mean you're homophobes; it just means you're stupid fuckwits who know nothing about society, history, religions, or language. (Or, come to think of it, spelling.)
The pre-Roman Celts in Britain got married. Had nothing to do with Jesus; probably regulated by Teutates, Belenos, or Cernunnos. The Vikings got married too -- again, nothing to do with Jesus; Thor and Odin and so on. So, no one religion has a monopoly on specifying what "marriage" means.
Marriage has always been a *social* concept, throughout human history. And society is changing. (OK, always has, but it sure feels like perhaps it's faster noadays.) One such change is that most cultures (at least Western ones) seem to have collectively decided that it's pretty darn barbaric, nowadays, to deny gays the rights or privileges we allow heteros.
"Nobody is depriving homosexuals the right to fall in love with a person of the opposite sex, get married and have children. Just like normal people."
Ha ha, very funny. Proposition 8 was apparently all about depriving homosexuals the right to fall in love with a person of the sex they're naturally attracted to, get married, and perhaps adopt children. Just the opposite of what the law allowed "normal people".
"If such a person were promoted to CEO of an organisation and you were a woman/Jew/black person/non bigot would you want him as your boss? If you were a customer would you want to give "him" money? If you were a stakeholder, would you want to build add-ons or supporting tech that enhanced the prospects of his company?"
But that costs time and money, whereas an hour embedding a browser detect and pop-up telling users to change browser doesn't really.
Okay, he made a contribution to a campaign that many people considered to be narrow minded and unjust 6 years ago. His statements since suggest a change of heart though only he knows if he's sincere or not.
I do however find it a bit hypocritical to campaign against his appointment as a company CEO when you're quite happy to build your company on the strength of his other works.
'Further, being CEO is rather different to most jobs - he has considerable scope to make hiring and advancement decisions and he is inherently the "face" of the company.' - bolccg
Precisely." So please do show an example where Eich has abused his position or persecuted gays whilst at Mozilla? Oh, you can't, you just want to 'criminalize' him because you want to call him a bigot, in essence throwing away any presumption of innocence. That's like saying that because gay paedophiles abuse little boys we should never allow gays to be doctors or teachers, because they are bound to use their position for sexual gratification - completely irrational and intolerant. I would hope a gay doctor or teacher would be judged on their abilities rather than their sexual preferences, yet it seems you and bolccg are happy to prejudge anyone that does not follow your point of view to the letter. You are more bigoted than the man you are complaining about.
@bolccg your basic view is reasonable, but you promote it using the tools of extremism - labeling Eich an "overt homophobe", denouncing as "raging homophobes" anyone who might be thinking of contradicting you. And comparing Eich to an active antisemite, thus smearing him with all the horrifying historical connotations. So he is labelled, smeared, and condemned, as well as sacked. Debate is shut down because those who might have spoken out do not want similar treatment. You are immutable. You have won.
Extremism begets extremism and fear. Say no to it, and say "yes" to open debate, reasonableness and common sense. Applies to both sides.
I think it's more that he supported an attempt to legislate about an issue that we may or may not agree with in his private life — he felt that his opinion was so valid that it should be illegal to act contrary to it, indeed he was so sure that he put his money where his mouth was.
For the affected group it wasn't just a matter of knowing that some people disagree with you, it was a matter of not legally being able to do what everyone else takes for granted.
It's not his private life though, is it?
I don't vote for politicians whose views I detest.
I won't support a company led by someone whose views I similarly detest.
When that company/organisation has avowed equality policies that its CEO flies in the face of, then they either admit they're hypocrites and their equality policies aren't worth the paper they're written on, or they live up to their ideals.
Mozilla were on the cusp of being judged and found wanting. They realised this. Just in time.
"I don't vote for politicians whose views I detest."
"I won't support a company led by someone whose views I similarly detest."
I vote for politicians based on their *policies and competence*, not based on their *personal views*. There are plenty of politicians who have voted against their own personal views in order to best represent their constituents. Furthermore, how do you truly know what anyone's real view is about anything - you might be voting for someone whose views you really do detest, but not realise.
Similarly, I support a company based on their *product and actions*, not based on the *personal views or even private actions* of any of their employees (CEO or not).
Actions speak louder than words, and I am not the thought police.
What matters here is not the personal views of Mozilla's employees (even the CEO), but rather Mozilla's product and corporate actions. And their corporate actions included written policies in support of gay marriage, and Eich understood this and was prepared to enforce those policies in the company even though they may have not been in line with his personal opinion. I respect any CEO who has the integrity to be honest about their views and yet still act in the best interest of the company and its stockholders even when it's not 100% in line with their personal beliefs.
"I won't support a company led by someone whose views I similarly detest."
Am I to understand from this that you do background checks on the views of the leadership of any company you deal with to ensure they are compatible with yours?
Or are you just jumping on the bandwagon while it's there?
The only area Mozilla have been found wanting, IMHO, is in caving in and releasing that ridiculous statement rather than supporting their outgoing CEO.
If you work for an IT company, but you happen to prefer and use the products of a competitors' company when at home, then should you also resign?
This guy did NOTHING as CEO to further his private cause. He didn't use the power of the company, he didn't sack gay employees, he didn't ban pink screensavers.
If you did a great job at your workplace, and you were sacked by the lefty CEO because he heard you voted Republican/Conservative, would that be fair?
People say he was just exercising free speach. Actually he wasn't, he donated to a cause that successfully stripped (for a time) a persecuted minority of equal rights. His actions had real negative effects on LGBT people. That is why this man, and all others that attempt to force a minority to be second class citizens, are complete and utter bastards who need accept the repercussions for their vile assault on the rights of those they seek to oppress.
If by acting on them they are causing genuine harm to others? Er, yes!
Your right to free speech does not trump my right to equality. This is why we do not have true democracies, because then you have tyranny of the majority and very quickly your society will collapse as all the people you're now legally oppressing no longer feel obliged to follow any of your other laws.
@Nick, have you looked up definitions of democracy lately ? System might not be perfect, but it beats alternatives. What is your your definition of "true democracy" ? AC because it really is risky to question the authorised version of truth, justice and the whatever way these days
A modern democratic government operates on behalf of and is accountable to every citizen, not just those who happened to vote for them. It is the job of that government to come up with the best compromise based on the opinions of the entire electorate. If they need to choose between a policy which is pretty good for a big majority or one that is outstanding for a tiny minority, they should pick the one favouring the majority. However if picking between something which is a minor bonus for the majority but incredibly bad for a minority, they protect the minority.
Basically they weigh up the percentages for and against and the impacts against those groups to come to a compromise. This is the basis of every functioning democracy you see today.
In a true democracy every law or policy is completely based on whatever the majority vote for with no compromises. This means that if, for example, you around in a country that is fairly evenly split between two religions, then whichever one is slightly bigger can write a law allowing them to legally murder anyone from the other religion if they wish. Now generally it's doesn't get that serious but you've only got to look at countries around the world which are 25% Christian, 75% muslim or vice versa to see where one side is basically writing laws to suit their religion.
The problem is people suffer from chronic short-termism, so while they love to get all the benefits by voting for laws which help themselves at the expense of others, long term it actually destroys the country through increased crime from the disenfranchised and potentially civil war. To a large extent a government actually protects the citizens from hurting themselves with their democratic rights through sheer ignorance or greed.
>> In a true democracy every law or policy is completely based on whatever the majority vote for with no compromises.
Says who ? Opinion or from a political theorist ? You seem to understand aspects of modern democracy that Edmund Burke would recognise then come out with that. As for your religious example, I suggest a bit of reading is in order. It depends on the world view of the dominant group. Some groups argue for human rights in legal systems, like the Franciscian monks defending American Indians from slavers, over 400 years ago. BTW, they won, not that it stopped the materialist perpetrators. Some groups do behave in an absolutist way as you describe, but not all. Out of curiosity, why do you consider materialist belief systems non-religious when they are merely non-theistic ?
"True democracy" is the term I have heard used to define what I explained in my previous post, if you want to call it something else then do so but it matters little to the point I was making which was simply that you cannot say that it's acceptable to implement anything a majority has voted for with no regard for the impact on minorities. This is basicaly to counter the arguement that it's fine for someone to support legislation to strip equal rights from minorities.
Some groups do vote for human rights yes, unfortunately historically people seem to have a bit of a difficulty grasping that human rights apply to every human, and not simply those of the sexual orientations/gender/religions/etc that they agree with.
I'm not really sure what you mean by your final question, or at least what its relevance is to my previous comments.
where does it say different things must always be "equal"? This is logical irrationality. How is a family with biological mother and father and multiple children of their own (where the purpose of marriage isn't simply "love", but to create a stable family environment) the same as a same-sex couple?
So you'll generously permit others to hold views contrary to your own, but if they act on them they should be made an outcast? I don't think you've really got the hang of this free speech concept, have you?
Rather conflated your verbs a bit there, didn't you. I learned a long time ago that the verbs "speak" and "act" have widely varying meanings; perhaps it's you that haven't quite got the hang of the concept?
The act I had in mind was the act of speech (although Eich doesn't even seem to have done that, just made what he may well have thought was a small private donation to a political fund). Some people think that holding opinions is one thing but speaking out about them or (horrors) actually encouraging others to support you is wrong. That's not what I consider to be free speech. You may hold different views, as is your right.
It wasn't the act of speech that was the problem, it was the act supporting legislation against a minority in order to enforce his opinions that is the problem. If you're harming someone by removing their legal rights it's no longer simply speech and you will be held accountable for it, as he now has been.
Many changes to law involve shifting the boundaries of what is and is not a legal right. And most legislative changes only affect a minority of people, who may perceive it as harm. And everyone is legally allowed to support legislative reform in accordance with their opinions. And this happens every week and nobody makes a huge fuss about it, unless it happens to be the politically correct litmus test of the day.
For example, I might support a law which would make smoking illegal within some distance of all public hospitals. In effect, I would be supporting legislation which would *remove* the legal rights of the minority who choose to smoke outside public hospitals. Furthermore, stripping them of these rights may "harm" them, because they might be fined if they continue smoking there, or might need to walk further or go to a private hospital instead. My point is not that smoking is the same as gay marriage, but that just because legislation may cause perceived harm to someone or revoke previous legal rights should not make supporting the legislation a thoughtcrime.
Where do you stand on polygamy or polyandry? Do you believe that people should be allowed to marry who they want, even if they are already married? What about consensual incest between adults? I hope you are not one of those 'complete bastards' stripping minorities of their rights. Or are you only such a benighted soul if you donate money to a cause, instead of merely arguing against something?
Thanks for asking, ignoring the inbreeding issue for a moment, I have no issue with polygamy or incest so long as everyone involved has consented. Note that when people are in a position of authority consent (morally) is a hell of a lot more complicated than simply "over 16". Hence why we have an 18 limit for relationships between students and teachers for example.
There would probably be some legal implications, especially surrounding tax, that would need to be sorted out for polygamous marriages but I doubt it would be insurmountable.
WTF is the world coming to, the guy doesn't agree with Gay-Marriage, so what ; is that not part of living in a democratic society, the right to choose. If he doesn't like Gay-Marraige then surely that is his right.
Even the bloody BBC had a reasonable article about it recently, http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22758434.
I really would hate to think that this guy was actually good at his job, because the Mozilla users are actually those who will really lose out.
There is a HUGE difference in this world between 1 : being seen to do the right thing and 2 : actually doing the right thing. Unfortunately the 1st group seems to be growing exponentially.
I don't agree with people that support Gay-Marriage but I do agree and respect their right to their own opinion.
I really despise this bloody namby-pamby approach to everything nowadays. Either you agree with the PC brigade or you are an outcast. It feels as though it won't be long before witchhunts are re-instated.
>tyranny of the majority
And tyranny of the minority is worse. I think I'll play the "think of the children" card. Do you think your minority should have more rights not conform to the majority in a democracy than paedophiles? Maybe I want to practice necrophilia and feel everyone is persecuting me because I'm not allowed to marry a corpse or have a family life with one. Democracy is for the benefit of the majority not something to be dictated to by a bunch of wackos or gays.
As I've said to the other post, the exact issue is respect for the right to people's own opinions. Eich believed that people shouldn't be allowed to exercise their own judgment: he put money towards a successful campaign to make his opinion the law of the land.
Especially for those whose rights were affected by the law, his selection was therefore difficult to make peace with; for some it was evidently unacceptable.
This post has been deleted by its author
By the same token the religious leaders should be put into the same boat, they too try to oppress the non-believers.
By the same token the political leaders should be put into the same boat, they too try to oppress anyone that stands in the way of their personal political objectives.
By the same token the capitilistic leaders should be put into the same boat, they too try to oppress anyone that stands in the way of their personal financial objectives.
There will always be someone that oppresses others for personal gain/desire/belief.
There are even LGBT types that oppress other LGBT types.......Two gays guys at my work would commonly vent their spleen towards the "pansy" kind of gay guys.....
The LGBT community are just like everyone else - except that the others don't get to protest/cry/complain about it.
Hating "pansy" type gay people is an opinion and is free speech.
Attempting to make a law that would require all "pansy" type gay people to be arrested and jailed until they "stop being pansy" is no longer an opinion, it is an assault on their liberties.
One of these can be tolerated, the other can't. Understand the difference?
>Sorry, which legal rights of his are people attempting to revoke? I must have missed that bit.
Article 2 Freedom from Discrimination
Article 19 Freedom of Opinion and Information
You are discriminating against him because he doesn't agree with you
Article 10 Right to Fair Public Hearing
You've hounded him out of a job.
Article 23 Right to Desirable Work and to Join Trade Unions
Article 12 Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
You have failed to separate his personal private views from his ability to perform his job
"The LGBT community are just like everyone else - except that the others don't get to protest/cry/complain about it."
You're doing a pretty good job of crying about it yourself, AC.
You must have been out sick when your classmates studied the Civil Rights Movement, the Women's Suffrage Movement, the Labor Rights efforts, back when strikers were shot down in cold blood, and the Anti-War Movement in the 1960s-70s. Or the very foundations of the Republic in the first place. Everyone gets to protest, Eich included. At this point, the majority of commentards are okay with Eich spending money to achieve his ends, but when the people affected by his actions respond, they get all sensitive. The actions of a CEO, past and present, represent the corporation s/he heads, like it or not. That's just how it works. Stop crying and get over it. The guy's a jerk and he got what he had coming to him.
A man who founded the company, worked his way up and wrote a language that is the most widely used in the web world gets hounded out by a vocal sexual minority for not support an acceptable cause - marriage preservation between a man and a woman. The USA? sounds more like an Orwellian nightmare.
You do realise that it wasn't just the LGBT that were calling for him to go right?
Furthermore this wasn't legislation to allow gay marriage, gay marriage was already legal. This was legislation to ban gay marriage. He wasn't simply stating an opinion, he was attempting to remove legal rights from gay people. That is not an "acceptable cause", that is oppression and he does not deserve any position of authority because of it.
You are a bigot and you're on the wrong side of history. So long as you don't act on your opinions I don't really care that much even if it is a little sad, but attempt to remove any of my legal righs, or try to stop me gaining any remaining equal rights to heterosexuals and I will avoid doing business with you as much as legally possible and actively encourage others to do the same, as has happened against Eich.
"You are a bigot and you're on the wrong side of history."
I hope it's not headed in that direction or there will be no one left to read the history books. Or maybe there will be no one left who can read. You'll all either get shot in the head or raped to death. Then there is the option of life in the secret prisons, but that's a secret. So I really shouldn't be talking about it. Enjoy your meat sandwich.
Unfortunately, the PC Brigade have decided that yes, if you do not agree with public consensus you are a Bigot. It is the strongest tool in their arsenal.
Personally I do not know anyone who is not bigotted in some form or another.
Just as a reminder:
Merriem-Webster dictionary definition
Bigot : A person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)
Since this is neither a Racial nor Religious topic I think it is safe to assume that, in one way or another, we all belong to a "particular" group. LGBT, Train lovers, Hunters, Politician, Atheist etc ..........and that there will always be those who are "bigoted" towards our ideas.
The word bigot therefore has no value other than as a silly tool used by the PC Brigade to denigrate others that don't conform to thier ideas.
PS : There are 2 or more ACs in this thread, I'm the original one.
So, what you are saying, if I understand your subtext, is that there are not enough children to go round?
Good news. Only a decade ago the world was awash in Chinese orphans, a decade before that it was Russian orphans and before that, well, the list went on and on.
Good to know the problem worked itself out.
Shame that all those otherwise fine Gay parents won't be able to nurture and raise them, but there you go. No orphans, no adoptions.
Seems odd though. I'm sure that "Babies having babies" was an ongoing problem in the inner city of NY.
Must have misunderstood.
Until now I'd simply assumed that married Gays were a heaven-sent solution to the problem of Roman Catholic birth control methodologies. Oh Well.
But I know many straight people who've gotten married with the stated intent of never having children, one couple in particular where the husband to be was instructed by his beloved to get a vasectomy prior to the exchange of vows so she could jump his bones repeatedly at will from that day forth without fear of reproduction initiating or the need for dangerous chemicals or wellies.
Clearly the ceremony has a deeper meaning than the (completely unnecessary to judge by the realities of the population of the world) green flag to have children.
Sorry, AC, you are coming across as a stereotypical bigot, using arguments so threadbare one can see through them without trying.
"Name one reason for denying gay marriage that is not based on religion." That's a poor argument as I could pose the ridiculous counter why should it be illegal to murder gays in the street? After all, the sanctity of human life upon which Western societies base the laws of murder are drawn from the religious reverence for human life. Now, it is SOCIALLY-UNACCEPTABLE (and illegal in Western countries at least) to murder someone just because they are gay, but that is down to the same historic religions you are trying to discount as irrelevant. In Islamic countries it is not only thought acceptable to murder gays, it is actively pursued as part of the legal system, so I wouldn't be too quick to rubbish Western religions if I were you.
After all, a marriage is just a ceremony and you still need the legal civic union part (in the UK, provided by the Registrar) to actually gain the legal benefits of a married couple. Gays already had access to civic unions in the UK before Dave Cameron seized upon gay marriage as a means to try and ditch the "nasty Tories" image. Now, I'm not religious, I had a ceremony to suit my wife and then the civic union of signing the Registry, and I could argue the "marriage" ceremony meant nothing to me as I am not a believer, but it was important to my wife. If I had just had the religious ceremony without the Registry signing it would not have been a legal marriage. That extra religious ceremony is important to her and the social group she comes from. So I could quite easily accept that the civic union ceremony already available to gays in the UK prior to the recent change in the law was already practically equal to the marriage I had. The more pertinent question is why do gays think "having to settle" for a civic union in any way at all makes them "second class citizens"? It smacks more of a desire to irritate the religious than an actual desire for a "right".
What, you mean like L Ron Hubbard and the Reverend Moon? Oh wait, we all agreed that they were loonies and A Bad Thing so they don't count.
Well, maybe not all, but everyone who isn't a cultist voted them off the island.
Don't remember people bleating about free speech when Battlefield Earth was hurting my eyeballs. People couldn't say enough unsupported tripe to get it taken out of cinemas.
from Michell Baker:
"Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public"
But when they actually do share their beliefs in public, freedom of speech is not wanted...
"While painful, the events of the last week show exactly why we need the web. So all of us can engage freely in the tough conversations we need to make the world better"
So without free speech it is better?
The guy has an opinion. It's not a fashionable opinion, but it's his opinion. And because a minority with a very loud voice thinks his opinion is wrong, he must go? Democrazy at work...
Wouldn't it be better to let the guy's personal beliefs be his personal beliefs? Eich is not Mozilla, nor is firefox anti-gay because of a $1000 donation way back when to a proposition (and law) that never really stood a chance... Or even let him handle the mudslinging contest privately as a private person, seeing that 6 years ago this was his personal opinion voiced publically?
Just my opinion,
"Eich is not Mozilla"
He is when he's CEO. When you become head of a corporation, all of your acts and beliefs, past and present, are elevated to corporate policy, because you are the head of that corporation. Twas ever thus. Eich should have thought twice before mailing in that $1000 check.
When you become head of a corporation, all of your acts and beliefs, past and present, are elevated to corporate policy, because you are the head of that corporation. Twas ever thus.
No. "twas" never thus.
Some CEOs make their personal beliefs corporate policy, because they're arrogant, self-aggrandising narcissists. These are the ones you notice, because they're the ones putting themselves in the papers. The really good CEOs do what's best for the company; usually without press release or fanfare.
He can have whatever opinion he wants. Privately. As soon as he tries to use his power/money/influence to deny rights to others, however, I will use whatever power/money/influence I have to counter him.
It is just as much a right of free speech to boycott any company that hires him, any product that he works on and to raise a pubic hew and cry against his actions.
Free speech applies to everyone, but actions most definitely have consequences. He chose not only to express speech, he chose to act and the outcry was a consequence of his action.
Do remember that only in corporatist America is money considered speech, the rest of us understand the difference between convincing others with the validity of your argument and putting money towards hiring the best and brightest group dynamics PhDs to put into practice 100 years of applied psychiatry in order to manipulate the world to suit your agenda.
With luck, one day, you (and America) will understand the difference too.
Trevor, don't be a dumbass. Do you or do you not regularly stick your penis into a vagina? If yes, then you are acting out your anit-homosexual bigotry. You need to be more accommodating and take penis into your ass as well. Be careful how you tread. It's a slippery slope.
So, Trevor, thusly it means that whatever we do today, independent of any possible outcome of our future (that which we cannot see!!), in 6 years time it will hold us to ransom?
Nah, I don't think so :) Common Sense dictates that this cannot be, otherwise our fate is predetermined. And even though I'm Dutch, I don't take the Calvinist approach :)
Also, Trevor, this was not about equal rights, but about gay marriage, which is only a small part of equal rights.
And since gay marriage rights should be universal, my statement is meant on a global scale... And on that scale, I think, pro-gay would still be a minority. If it were not a minority, why are they still fighting for their rights? :) Q.E.D.
It's called "tyranny of the minority". A smaller number of influential people can impose their will on society at large, especially if their will is to enforce a now defunct, but previously extant social norm. Poll after poll in first world nations shows majority support for equal rights, including support for gay marriage. Indeed, the bigots are having a harder and harder time getting their way; even notoriously conservative courts are caving to popular pressure and saying that it's illegal to discriminate against gays.
Now, you may personally be a bigot, that's up to you...but the world has moved on. The only bit that should matter to you is whether or not you are willing and able to adapt to the new social reality.
Free speech is exactly that: the freedom to speak your mind and express your opinion.
It does not exempt you from any repercussions of expressing or holding that opinion. It is not a right to legislate against those who do not share your opinion.
Those opposed to his appointment are equally free to express their opinion. Mozilla in turn are entirely free to weigh the implications of his opinion on their company and its perception by the community.
Since people are having a great deal of difficulty with this concept, here it is again:
Eich was NOT persecuted for "having an opinion".
He WAS persecuted because he provided material contributions to a cause that actively and willfully hurt a large class of citizens.
Whether you disagree or agree, at least make an effort to understand the situation first!
"so hurting a larger class of citizens, such as the middle class and poor is also wrong ? So when is the campaign against Aynn Rands disciples beginning ?"
Romney/Ryan (a Rand disciple) were soundly defeated in the 2012 presidential election. Sounds like the campaign was well underway back then.
This post has been deleted by its author
It all smells Soviet times.
Stepped down voluntarily .. yeah, right
Just like in a joke about Mayakovski's famous last words before his suicide.
"Please don't shoot Camrades"
Sad, really ..
I really can't understand what kind of person spends 1000 bucks of their own money trying to implement a law to stop others doing something they themselves can do. If two people want to get married to each other what the hell do I care? It's none of my business. I think you've got to be a bit creepy to want to spend 1000 bucks of your own money on that... Surely there are more pressing causes?
In the end he has every right to do that of course, and those he sought to legislate against have every right to hound him out of his job. So neither side has committed a crime.
"explicitly including LGBT equality and marriage equality"
If Mozilla are treating everyone equally surely that should have said "regardless of their sexual orientation". Smells like bias to me. Better start a hate campaign against Mitchell Baker.
Or maybe time to see sense, show some balance and feel pity for all the haters out there.
... at least according the the US Constitution/1st Amendment (I won't presume to speak for other countries):
THE GOVERNMENT CAN'T STOP YOU FROM SPEAKING!
The rest of us can consider you a Neanderthal, and choose to take our business elsewhere.
You right to speak has no associated right to avoid consequences from anybody other than the government, if that speech is considered offensive.
That's life in the marketplace of ideas.... if I don't like your idea, I can choose to avoid doing business with you, and I can choose to use MY free speech rights to convince others to do the same.
The fact that he is gone is NOT due to PC gone wild, it is due to the cold calculation by Mozilla that he'd pissed off too many people and they needed to make him go away. If this was something less than a groundswell of revulsion, he could have overcome it. Unfortunately for him, there is a very large portion of the populace who have had it with religious (insert insult here) trying to enforce THEIR vision of the universe on everybody else. Well; we're getting tired of being told how we and people we care for should be living our lives, and it is about feckin' time.
What the hell does someones personal beliefs have to do with running a company - as long as he does not inflict them on his employees or colleagues?
It seems that he had to go because it is no longer policically correct or acceptable to disagree with the homosexual /gay agenda.
With all the debate over same sex marriage, the fastest way to get abuse was to state that you disagreed. Then you get accused of being intolerant or bigoted by those who are even less tolerant of different opinions to their own
Eich believed in the anti-gay marriage proposal and exercised his right to free speech by supporting it financially.
A large number of people disagree with him and exercised their right to free speech by publicly informing Mozilla that they will not support a company that supports him.
Eich once again exercised his right by publicly declaring he would step down as he did not want Mozilla to suffer for his beliefs.
Nobody was wrong, everybody was just exercising their rights. Nothing to see here.
the LGBT supporters believe they are born gay, it is not a choice. So not allowing them the right to marry means that some gay people feel forced to choose to be more "socially acceptable" for companionship and marry someone of the opposite sex. This potentially leads to children who, if being gay is hereditary, are more likely to be gay.
Alternatively, allowing gay people to marry would mean a reduction in the possibility that they will successfully breed, thus stamping out the gay gene once and for all.
Therefore trying to force gay people to lead more "socially acceptable" lives is merely perpetuating the "problem", isn't it? Give them equal rights and the problem will solve itself within a few generations.
Anonymous cos I believe that both sides of the argument may dislike some of the above (when I am really just pointing out that some people are stupid and short sighted).
Well, when the Republicans/Democrats:Conservatives/Labour win in, maybe just a few, elections down the road, and remove you from your job because you are a Democrat/Republican:Labourite/Tory supporter, just remember that it was here that you first said that that, in principle, was OK with you.
After all, what's a good piece of vindictive kicking in not got going for it?
"No, being a hateful bigot is the new taboo."
Being hateful and a bigot was always not a good idea. It's not really taboo these days. In fact it's popular. Being monogamous, however, is certainly taboo. They must be insane. How can we trust anyone like that. They are so different, it's DANGEROUS! After all they could be terrorists!
Just to establish a few things: I am a straight man, though actually possibly a bit metrosexual in some ways. I am probably the least homophobic person you will ever meet, and I've worked with many gay people over the years. I don't currently have any gay friends, though not because I've shunned them. I have no fears that any gay person will harm a child or some other idiocy or "come on" to me. Actually I'd be flattered to meet most gay mens' standards, and in the right mood and enough alcohol, might even be open to experimentation, who knows... I have no problem with anyone marrying anyone they want, and like the majority of IT folks that I've met, and people that IMHO have their intelligence on the desirable side of the bell curve, I have a live and let live philosophy--anyone can do anything they want as long as it's consentual and not interfering with others' life choices.
I give Eich kudos for doing what he perceived as the right thing and stepping down. But it's not like the guy launched an anti-gay campaign or tirade. He donated what to him is likely pocket change to an admittedly backwards-thinking reactionary cause. Does he regret it? Who knows. He didn't apologize for it. His money could have been much better spent for sure even if he donated to the Flat Earth foundation. The outcry over this is amazing though. I wonder if he couldn't have just apologized, explained his decision publically, recanted, and donated more money to a more liberal cause, and been forgiven. It would have been kind of a wishy-washy thing to do, but probably would have kept him at the helm of Mozilla, and made him no worse than pretty much every politician that has drawn a breath on this planet.
More insidious though is if he decided to leave Mozilla because he was secretly disgusted by how "pro-gay" they all were and couldn't stand to be at an organization so antithetical to his beliefs. If so, good riddance for sure, though still props for not remaining on and slowly trying to subvert the tolerant spirit at that company.
Wow, thanks for this -- a bit internally conflicted, but spot on and well explored.
There is sanity on this thread after all.
Oh, except for that "excuse me, I must leave through this bottle before we can be physically intimate" crap -- try paying attention to yourself and your partner, with enthusiasm!
> I wonder if he couldn't have just apologized, explained his decision publically, recanted, and donated more money to a more liberal cause, and been forgiven
How naive, haven't you understood yet that the gay activists are a vindictive group of fascists who have held a grudge for 6 years laying in wait for this moment and nothing but complete destruction will do?
Also, by even suggesting that there may be a more liberal cause than theirs you are next on the hit list.
The strange thing in all this is a key data point is being overlooked:
Mozilla has/had five directors. One (apparently) had been planning to leave as soon as the new CEO was selected, leaving four. Two of those resigned as a result of Eich's appointment (granted, one may have been looking for a way out). But that's a significant data point: either 25% or 50% of Mozilla's (remaining) directors didn't want to be directors with him as CEO.
And I think this fracas shows they were right: the man was not a good choice, and failed at controlling the situation as it started to spiral out of control. There were many things he could have done (e.g. appoint an LGBT advisory panel to watch for places where his personal beliefs conflicted with the organization's)., but he failed. So he goes.
Of course, there is also some irony in the fact this week saw the Supreme Court reiterate that money=speech. And if one supports free speech (including giving money to hate groups), how can you not support free speech (including not giving business/money to an organization that hired someone you dislike)?
So who's fault is this? I won't blame Eich for being socially retarded, and I won't blame people for getting annoyed at a "community" organization appointing a social retard as the glorious leader. But I will blame the idiots on the board (that didn't resign in protest) for not understanding that they had picked a potentially controversial character and then failing to stand by their choice when they discovered the mistake.
By the way, one of the reasons anti-gay bigotry is so insidious is that it is indisputably a fact that it has absolutely no impact on anyone except the oppressed class (i.e. gay people). If you are straight (or gay and determinedly single) there is not a shred of difference that it can make to you whether the two similarly-gendered people at the next table/in the next flat/whatever are gay, straight, married, single, or whatever. It's exactly like the nineteenth century anti-Irish bigotry that existed: an Irish labourer and a Cornish labourer looked alike, could sound vaguely similar, and yet one was accepted ("salt of the earth") and the other wasn't.
So to be a 'sewer rat' you don't have to homophobic, or even anti-gay marriage, you just have to be opposed to the victimization of people who *are* opposed to gay marriage.
Just out of interest, if it turned out that Eich was a muslim and is against gay marriage because of his religious beliefs, should he still have been hounded out?
Here we have a community that is always preaching tolerance and their intolerance has just cost a man his job.
Shame on you. Not for your lifestyle (because, really, who cares who you sleep with?) but because you have just proven that you are every bit as willing to discriminate against anyone who disagrees with you just as much as you were once discriminated against.
I support the LGBT community's equal rights and will continue to do so, but this was an example of hypocrisy at its finest.
No, this man cost himself a job by trying to deny others the right and respect to live and love and build families and hold jobs themselves.
And, he resigned, which was the absolute least he could do, considering the ramifications of his hateful bigotry.
"deny others the right and respect to live and love and build families and hold jobs themselves."
Proposition 8 - which he contributed to financially - tried to set in law that marriage was between a man and a woman.
It did not set out to destroy anyone's ability to build a family or have a job.
These sort of over exaggerations do nothing but hurt attempts for true equal rights
"the absolute least he could do"? What would be appropriate penance, might I ask? The man gave a donation to a political cause he believed in - that's how society is supposed to work. The fact that you don't like it, doesn't give you the right to hound him out of a job. It really is disgusting behaviour.
"The man gave a donation to a political cause he believed in - that's how society is supposed to work"
Sure, he's allowed to donate to a cause which seeks to hound people out of their right to marry. And likewise his opponents are allowed to hound him out of a job.
"Sure, he's allowed to donate to a cause which seeks to hound people out of their right to marry. And likewise his opponents are allowed to hound him out of a job.
Brendan Eich donates to a political cause which goes to public vote to become enshrined in law - That is democracy
The law was repealed as it was deemed to be unconstitutional and discriminated against minorities - That is due legal process
Extremist Pro-gay activists deciding that one person needs to suffer and be forced to give up their job. - That is a witch hunt.
And, he resigned, which was the absolute least he could do, considering the ramifications of his hateful bigotry.
And here we have the part of the issue that many gay rights supporters just don't get. The belief that marriage should be one man and one woman is not always 'hateful bigotry'. Sometimes it is, but there are many reasons why people have that view. Perhaps the most widespread is the idea (which I don't agree with, obviously if you look at my other posts) that marriage is a primarily religious institution and that most religions don't allow for it.
Further, the LGBT community is, on the whole, more bigoted towards those of religious bent than religious folks are towards them. If you want to see hateful then walk into a gay bar wearing a tee shirt with a religious slogan on it. You'd be lucky to get out of there without being spit on at the very least, even if you were a staunch ally of the LGBT community (and yes, I do speak from experience -- I was actually spit on twice and punched in the face once, all by different people, before I or any of the group of friends I was with realized why and then spit on again on my way out). Should someone guilty of that sort of behavior be forced out of their job? Because I've got to say that is, in my opinion, far worse than a donation to a political fund.
And to answer the obvious question, at that point in my life I was in the habit of grabbing whatever shirt was on top and not giving it much thought. I didn't even realize what shirt I was wearing.
Here's my bit of free speech.
While I don't have anything against gay people on an individual basis, I am getting really fucked off by rampant gay politics forcing itself onto us almost Nazi fashion.
This is all over a donation by Brendon which was made 6 years ago, not 6 days or 6 weeks ago. I guess if it was made 60 years ago it would be no different for the poilitco gays out there - no pun intended!
If Mozilla is "all inclusive" in it's culture then he should not have been forced into a position where he was made uncomfortable and had to resign - yes I know company culture is bullshit but a company will live or die by it, if they make the world aware of it.
So, a final word to Mozilla. I can only assume by what I've seen in the news that you are pro gay and run scared of the gay politico hence overrunning and overruling all that stand in its path. I can only conclude that you are not all inclusive and open as you claim to be and I will now look at excluding your products from my systems forthwith. This includes removal of Firefox and Thunderbird from these systems. I would go further and suggest to people that they do the same but that's up to them to decide.
And a note to Mozilla and other companies out there. I assume there are more hetrosexual people in this world than there are homosexual people. Caching in financially and culturally in the gay phenomenon may end up hurting your fortunes long term if you bow to their whims.
Aww, and you write that you don't have anything against gay people -- do you even read your own stuff?!?
Ignorance is not an opinion, hateful bigotry deserved to be called out, and what's the matter with gays, eh?
Gays are our children, our siblings, our parents, our neighbors and friends, our customers, our co-workers, our bosses, our fellow tax payers, our service providers, especially our governmental and military service members, putting their lives on the line for all of us, gays are ourselves.
Shame on anyone for thinking gays or anyone should be second class citizens, denied equivalent consideration, equal protection and due process, shame on any of us for inflicting our fears and personal sins onto others.
No more second class citizens, ever, please.
If you read it correctly you will see im against the machine that pushes the gay agenda 24/7. And furthermore have read an article in which one of the early proponents of gay marriage in the US has sided with Eich and holds views akin to mine and says the gay activist movement has now got too much power and is basically abusing its position for its own gains.
Sorry, I don't have his name but a Google News search might turn the article up if you're interesting in seeing all sides of the argument
Personally I don't give a shit if you're straight, gay, lesbian, bi, martian or a tory. I've worked with all (except tories :)) - they all have a head, two arms and two legs which means we were created equal. Equality is what is lacking in this issue about this CEO. It's about a cause hijacking a situation.
The guys name is Andrew Sullivan and here's what was quoted,
Andrew Sullivan, a prominent gay writer and an early, influential proponent of making same-sex marriage legal, expressed outrage over Mr. Eich’s departure on his popular blog, saying the Mozilla chief had been “scalped by some gay activists.”
“If this is the gay rights movement today — hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else — then count me out,”
I suggest you email Mr. Sullivan and label him a bigot like you did me. Have a good day.
Peter, I am always second class. You can shut the fuck up over there in your arm chair. Life is what you make of it. It's not given to you. If you are looking for a government to save you or even bring some form of organisation to the place you live, you are a lazy eater. Food is nice. Enjoy it.
Here's a quote from Barack Obama dated November 2008,
"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage."
And he's still in his job...CEO of the USA.
A guy who's not even in the running as a CEO privately donates to a cause he personally and legally believes in at about the same time (as the above quote) and loses his job as CEO in about a week of taking the position.
southpacificpom, I wouldn’t recognize irony if it walked up to me, shook my hand, and said “How do you do, my name’s Irony.” But this site shows that over the course of 16 years, Obama had stated that he was pro, then contra, then pro again. Was that due to years of wrestling with his conscience? Was that due to political pragmatism? Who can know?
If I’ve correctly understood the point that others have made above, the distinguishing factor between Obama and Eich (other than the ability to launch drone strikes) is that when Obama was contra, he didn’t put his money where his mouth was to support revoking — or in California’s case, re-revoking — a right.
What might be surprising is who was on which side of the 5 to 4 split in the Hollingsworth v. Perry case which ultimately overturned Proposition 8.
Perhaps I should invite you to sunny NZ (declared the most socially advanced country in the world) where I can invite you to meet irony - you might like him/her/it.
But from your points I would declare,
Obama is a politician and pushes his own agendas when it's for his advantage, probably like the gay activists who are pushing their agendas for similar purposes.
Eich maybe planning to launch his own drones (lawyers) toward Mozilla HQ.
I couldn't trust the american justice system any further than I can fire a turd out my anus.
BTW - I saw your name and wondered if you would like some of my vitamin b supplements with added irony...
In the interest of fairness and equality, please fire everyone in your organization and cease doing business with all others who have supported proposition 8. They clearly are not up to your standards.
Alternatively, Mrs. Baker, please expand your definition of "diversity of views" to include traditional ones.
Geary and/or webmail will replace Thunderbird for email. Chrome will replace Firefox as its faster and I don't want to be bombarded with Mozilla sponsored ads which are due in future releases of Firefox.
Mozilla have made a lot of poor decisions in the last few years such as attempting to ditch Thunderbird and, the upcoming ads in Firefox plus this debacle that's surfaced.
I think the Book of Mozilla is soon to be the Book of Revelation.
Except Google, Microsoft and Apple are possibly far more immoral than Mozilla. Mozilla has possibly made a mistake. The other three have consistent clear policies of anti-privacy, dubious corporate pressure and consumer exploitation (respectively).
Of course this is only my opinion. But unlike Eich I can't be sacked for it as corporate greed, ponzi schemes and inept corrupt regulation I had no control over lost me my job and the the entire Department.
So if I donate money to Planned Parenthood, I can be hounded out of my job by right-to-lifers? If I donate to a global-warming skeptic group, I can be hounded as an agent of "ecocide" or even genocide by environmentalists? If I donate to a charter school or charter school initiative, I can be fired because teachers and public employee unions threaten to boycott the company I work for?
There are some truly messianic, lost-all-perspective cryptofascists out there, and Brendan Eich and democratic debate in general was just victimized by them.
Pro-Gay Supporters, Just Imagine This (Somebody Already Mentioned It) - Brendan Eich is a Pro-Marriage Equality Supporter and He donated money in a "Freedom to Marry" kinda organization. That oughta piss off some conservatives, so they boycott him. And then Eich resigned "voluntarily" as his policy doesn't "echoed" with the company! What would be the reaction? I'm pretty sure it'd contain words like, "Bigotry", "Hate", "Discrimination" etc.!
"I'm pretty sure it'd contain words like, "Bigotry", "Hate", "Discrimination" etc"
Yes it would.
Boycotting and campaigning are legitimate methods of protest to enact change. Donating to a campaign is legitimate too. These are simply methods.
However it matters a great deal what is being campaigned for.
As far as I see it a boycott of someone who wants to stamp out the rights of others is morally wrong and I will attack it, perhaps using words like "Bigotry", "Hate", "Discrimination" etc.
Whereas a boycott of someone who wants to defend the rights of others is morally right and I will support it.
There's no contradiction there.
"However it matters a great deal what is being campaigned for."
The most disturbing thing is that you obviously fail to see the dismal immorality of what you just wrote.
As I said in another thread - your type of campaigners are self-serving parasites, only damaging the cause you are ostensibly fighting for.
As for the rest of your post - I wonder if it's an honest mistake or a freudian slip?
"The most disturbing thing is that you obviously fail to see the dismal immorality of what you just wrote."
Perhaps you misunderstand me. I am saying boycott and protest should be allowed whatever the cause.
However I will have personal views as to whether that cause is right or wrong which will determine whether I support or oppose it, but opposing it wouldn't mean preventing them protesting.
"Perhaps you misunderstand me."
Perhaps I do, in which case I apologise.
"However I will have personal views as to whether that cause is right or wrong which will determine whether I support or oppose it."
That's fine. But do you agree that you must lose your job if your personal view and the corresponding support or opposition you express are not deemed to be satisfactory?
Mainly because of their stupid design decisions, all the bugs in their code and their tardiness in addressing important security and privacy issues.
So I guess this doesn't actually make a whole load of difference to how I feel about Mozilla.
But it's a bad precedent - and it would be a bad precedent whatever the political issue was.
I don't blame him for quitting, it was a battle that would have cost him dearly - still, it's disgusting that he was coerced into resigning by a mob who are wholly unaccountable for their actions. "We're just exercising our rights to blah blah blah". No you're not, what you did amounted to a worldwide witchhunt that was beyond disproportionate, and can destroy a person in short order. I believe that pressure groups wield way too much power in this internet-amplified age - they need to be held accountable for that power.
I hope they dont hire a catholic next. Nor a muslim. Or anyone who has contributed anything towards any of them (beware the charities). What other groups disagree with homosexuality? Who else can we rule out of a CEO position?
Personal views and personal beliefs are just that. A company doesnt have beliefs nor views it is a collection of people and all with their own twisted view of the world. If we penalise one for having a view (not for enforcing it on the company) then we may as well penalise everyone for any contribution to any religion/politics or group with any view we disagree with.
.... I don't think anyone can deny that this is the world we live in now? The left dominate the airwaves, the media, government, civil service, NGOs - they pay lipservice to free speech but woe betide you if you say anything to upset them or one of their client groups. If gays want marriage they should go through the normal democratic process to achieve that (they didn't do that here in the UK) and when they do that it is *entirely legitimate* for others to oppose them, as Eich did. Without free speech we have no democracy.
I won't be using firefox in future, not even as a development tool. Will have to figure out other approaches. I don't care to endorse the fascists or their appeasers.
another victory for the gay fascists, who threaten, humilate, and use any tactic they think is legitimate against anyone who doesn't agree with them, i dont care who or what they have sexual relations with, i and many others are sick and fed up with their bullying. disagreeing with any point of view is a personal choice, or has it become compulsory that we must all be in agreement now, we should all be proud and not be made to hide away because we dont agree with what's currently fashionable for PC gestapo.
This post has been deleted by its author
He contributed a measly 1k . With the cash in his pockets, he could have done a lot more. The fact that he quit outright speaks volumes. Whatever. He's probably guilty of a lot worse than sending money to some frivolous campaign, and he knows it.
One would think a person of his stature would realize that being in a region with deep LGBT communities he would have known better. That's probably why they shitcanned him.
I think it's more serious to kill, flog, mutilate, or imprison a person than to merely deny them marriage with whom they want.
So what shall these brave defenders of equality do next? Shall they insist the US and allies stay in Afghanistan until the Taliban is defeated thus prevented from killing more homosexuals? Shall they demand the continuing and deepening of economic sanctions against Iran until they cease the slaughtering as well?
Shall they at least boycott Saudi Arabian oil and all companies who buy it?
Or are quick and easy symbolic wins the only ones they will fight for?
By all means go after those who kill, flog, mutilate, or imprison a person, but saying "boycott islam" is wrong as it is stereotyping a minority in your country. At worse your comment could be seen as an attempt to defend the stamping on the rights of one minority by playing them off against another minority.
Also if someone wants to defend the rights of a minority, such as the right of gays to marriage, that should be encouraged. Please don't try turning it into a bad thing by accusing them of not defending other minority rights elsewhere. There's no requirement that individuals must prioritize what they work for, it's possible for an individual to focus on specific issues even if bigger picture there are more pressing subjects. This is true of all parts of life. Also if you must argue priorities, then rather than criticizing rights campaigners for not prioritizing correctly, wouldn't it be more productive for you to criticize those who stamp on rights instead?
@ Matthew Taylor
"I heartily concur - the gay lobby should have a crack at radical Islam, anything else would be rank hypocrisy."
You are not quite right. This guy only donated to a cause. So all who contribute to islam would need to be opposed. Also anyone who donates to any of their charities or contributes to them regardless of their association. And of course Christians have the same problem. And I am sure many other groups. Probably a majority of people with differing views that someone doesnt agree with.
I too would love to see that show
...for this unique opportunity to witness first hand how a majority invariably starts feeling threatened and oppressed as soon as their ability to threaten and oppress at will any minority (in the name of ferociously preserving their beloved status quo they call "values", "traditions" and "way of life") starts becoming unfashionable. The uniqueness comes not so much from the act itself (which can be broadly experienced live even today in some parts of the world - even Europe), but from the fact that this seem to be happening virtually identically among a mob of feral sports fans and people who are assumed to be "on the favourable side of the bell curve" intellectually, as it has been noted. Sadly, I find that hooking up the evolve-o-meter across the centuries passed since the times of the inquisition, the needle hardly even quivers from zero...
There are two approaches to combatting homophobia (or racism, or any other form of discrimination); firstly, there is argument, where you set out a coherent position and discuss the situation with the homophobe, and convince them they are wrong; the second option is to use the hammer of public opinion to bash at the homophobic, hounding them and damaging their lives. The former is the only way to actually change minds, the latter only causes resentment and deepens the opposition to equality. I'm not saying Eich was a homophobe, though the PC Brigade seem intent on labeling him just that, but do you really think Eich is going away from this thinking "gee, I deserve that, I must change my outlook", or the more likely "what I did was legal, I did not do wrong, why should I accept this"? Driving homophobic thought underground will not eradicate it, it will merely convince homophobes that they are right to fear the gay agenda, that the right to free speech is being unfairly removed. Eich did not make a massive donation to the Klan, he made a small donation in a legal and democratic process, and one that was actually in agreement with the majority of Californians. He was well within his legal rights to do so, it was not an illegal action nor a hate crime, no matter how badly the PC Brigade want to paint it so. Do you want to think what his possible future actions could be should he really make use of his resources? Do you think he is more or less likely to be "anti-gay" now he has been subjected to the hate hammer? Would it not have been a bigger victory to have someone in Eich's position partake in a calm and open public discussion, to have exposed the actual reasons for his donation and his underlying beliefs, and to have won the argument by virtue of intelligence? Or is it just a lot easier and more fun to reach for the hate hammer?
"that the right to free speech is being unfairly removed"
He was and still is free to say anything. His right to free speech has not been taken way. But what he never had was a right to speech without consequence. People are free to take action - within the law - in legitimate protest, through boycotts, against anyone who says something they don't like.
"Eich did not make a massive donation to the Klan, he made a small donation in a legal and democratic process"
To a cause that sought to suppress the rights of others. But yes that's legal and democratic. But so too is a protest response.
"He was well within his legal rights to do so, it was not an illegal action nor a hate crime"
Neither was boycotting his company and getting him fired from his job.
You can say is it was mean of those protesters to get him fired, which is what I think has everyone riled up. Because as an individual we empathize with him for being forced out his job by a nameless mob of protesters. So by all means argue it was mean to do this, but not that it was a violation of his rights.
"Would it not have been a bigger victory to have someone in Eich's position partake in a calm and open public discussion, to have exposed the actual reasons for his donation and his underlying beliefs, and to have won the argument by virtue of intelligence? Or is it just a lot easier and more fun to reach for the hate hammer?"
You could similarly wonder why did Eich donate to a group that seeks to prevent gays from marrying through campaigning? Would it not have been better for him to "partake in a calm and open public discussion and to have won the argument by virtue of intelligence"?
".....You could similarly wonder why did Eich donate to a group that seeks to prevent gays from marrying through campaigning? Would it not have been better for him to "partake in a calm and open public discussion and to have won the argument by virtue of intelligence"?" That's simply avoiding the point. Two wrongs do not make a right even if you want to claim the donation was a "wrong". The whole Caitlin protest simply comes across (IMHO) as vindictive rather than constructive - Eich made the donation six years ago, I cannot find any example of his making any anti-gay statement or action of any form since; Prop8 was overturned and Caitlin and the gay community got what they wanted, gay marriage (and the Green Card that seems to have been their prime motivation). So revisiting the issue now simply looks like spiteful vengeance dressed up as moral superiority. As far as I can discern, Eich had not made any statement or action as a Mozilla employee that could be construed as anti-gay or discriminatory, and he seems to be technically competent, so the whole push to get him bitchslapped out of his job seems to be nothing more than "we're going to hurt you because we can", and if anyone disagrees they get labelled a homophobe too. As I said before, do you really think this intolerance/vindictiveness changed any actual homophobic opinions or just reinforced them?
"You could similarly wonder why did Eich donate to a group that seeks to prevent gays from marrying through campaigning? Would it not have been better for him to "partake in a calm and open public discussion and to have won the argument by virtue of intelligence"?"
You do understand, that it's not the same.
Eich donated to politicians because they may represent his point of view much better.
It is the aim of donations, obviously.
His personal profile was not in a political field.
Politicians are "rented" for that.
His action was not directed to ruin life or career of specific person.
So his "calming" is natural, but further "consequence" were pure bigoting, in real.
one can say exactly the same thing about gay marriage. But no one will.
No one sends SWAT teams to take down "illegal" gay marriages. Anyone "free" to exercise their marriage right after being fired or chased out of a job would bring screaming legions of support while all those defenders of "he can still say what he wants" always forget their position.
... but I'd like to go on record as saying that I also am appalled at the treatment of Eich by Mozilla. However, I am not a "hateful bigot" - I contributed time, effort and money to supporting gay marriage in the UK. I wrote to my (anti-gay marriage) MP numerous times to try to get him to do the right thing *as I saw it*. I helped pay for advertising to support the introduction, despite gay friends expressing their disapproval of the measure. So, again, I am not a hateful bigot, Mr Blaise.
Eich *has* been hounded from a job by a concerted, vocal minority who cannot recognise that an opinion is valid even when you disagree with it, and acting in a small way to support a campaign that runs contrary to your own (and, in this case, many years ago) does not necessarily affect the ability to do a job. I am somewhat ashamed that the people I have supported have acted so intolerantly.
And don't let the door whack you in the behind on your way out.
ProTip: If you must be a queer-basher, keep it to yourself. Or if you do go around showing off socially-unacceptable behaviour in public, then you shouldn't be surprised when you find yourself no longer socially accepted.
"I'm a vegetarian: I DEMAND any meat eating CEOs of any company I might use products of to STEP DOWN IMMEDIATELY!" Several years ago I was witness to a bizarre tempest tantrum by a militant veggie in the frozen aisle of a well-known supermarket chain. The member of the Thought Police was very loudly complaining that having chilled meat products in the same chiller as chilled veggie products was WRONG, trampled her rights and caused her offence. The poor manager was trying to explain to her that the chillier layouts came down from HQ and all his staff did was stack it as they were told to, he was certain no offence was intended and was apologetic for any offence taken, but he was not going to start changing the chiller layout. The militant stamped off, shrieking that she would write to the management, start a campaign, and THEN THE WORLD WOULD BOYCOTT THE CHAIN! Last time I check the chain was still in business so I suppose she just couldn't make out her rights were being trampled enough....
His forced resignation as CEO is a real shame. It is similar to he being forced to resign for supporting gays, but worse, as this is is reverse discrimination of a member of the majority by a very aggresive minority.
Forcing someone out of job for their political / personal views is a bad move no matter the affiliation. The only criterias should have been technical and managerial skills, which he had a lot. The board proved cowardice. Mozilla will pay their mishandling of the online lynching by stagnation or decline, as they will adopt a CEO with better social skills, and less technical skill.
Gay marriage is very much a political issue, because it has no clear "truth", as opposed to sexual liberty. It is generally accepted that what two consenting adults do in the privacy of the bedroom is nobody's business but their own. However marriage is a public institution, strictly correlated with making and raising kids for most of human history. It has little to no sense besides it.
And btw, anybody who watches politics today knows that many people have absolutely NO shame to twist the facts, the truths and throw tantrums for their political ends. Why should we pay the shameless mob any attention?
Just wondering if I'm the only one (in the UK at least) who is seeing the similarity between this and the recent news regarding certain politicians and their vague historical affiliation to PIE (Paedophile Information Exchange)?
Notably in those cases no-one was fired/forced to step down as a result. They simply said, "I regret my vague historical association with this awful organisation" and that was the end of it.
I think in a way that was the opposite: Harriet Harman &al were attacked for being part of an organisation (NCCL) which accepted affiliation from various minority groups who wanted protection for their "rights", whereas Eich is attacked for donating to a cause that was trying to legislate to remove rights from a particular group. The similarity is that the "majority" thought the "minority" rights unacceptable in both cases *at the time* but now PIE is universally recognised as wrong (one hopes) and gay marriage is (largely) recognised as right.
The unpleasant part is that in both cases, people acting according to their consciences *at the time* are now pilloried apparently without much opportunity to make a reasoned argument that they think differently now. As someone once said, let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
Mozilla is not some government department, it's a corporation.
The CEO is free to support whatever political causes he likes.
Anyone else is free to demand he be fired if they don't like that.
The CEO is entitled to resign if he wants to. And the board are entitled to fire him if they want to.
And all the people whining about freedom can organize a boycott to have him restored, if they want to.
All these things that you said are true - everyone has plenty of freedoms and rights. The problems are twofold.
Firstly, there is the problem of conflating someone's private political opinions with their role in an unrelated industry. Brendan Eich didn't publicise his views during the 15 years he was at Mozilla, nor is there any evidence to suggest that he was about to start, having become CEO. His donation was discovered through an investigation. People have a right to private opinions that differ from other people's, and unless Brendan Eich, as CEO of Mozilla, were to begin enacting policies which discriminated against gay people, he has done nothing wrong.
Secondly, evidently the power of the gay lobby is considerable. They seem capricious, and have demonstrated a willingness to use quite disproportionate tactics, yet they are accountable to no-one. This sort of behaviour amouonts to a kind of extra-legal chilling effect on public discourse, and that's no good.
Most of the posters who were trying to push him out made this assumption, but it is rubbish.
I am not anti-gay, but I object to the butchering of the language in the name of "equality". I support the rights of gay people to fair treatment in terms of employment, tax, etc, and I would like to see civil partnership have full parity with marriage in its consequences.
I do not support the right of gay people to call themselves married, any more than I support their right to call themselves heterosexual.
It is possible that Mr Eich is a bigot, but his support for this organisation is not enough to prove it.
Er...it kinda does though, if you think about it.
"Equal, but not as equal as some".
I say let the churches (ie the ecumenical leaders of the religions) make the determination for themselves nd let the law worry about serious stuff that actually matters.
The only reason the church got involved in the first place was as a revenue stream. I was staggered to find out what Roman Catholic churches dun the prospective couple for in New York in this day and age. Serious dosh. Usurious amounts. My advice? Go Lutheran or Episcopalian and save mucho bucks (and cut the ceremony down by an hour too). 8o)
Surely Marriage is a religious institution, grounded in the faith of your choice, and entered into with the understanding and acceptance of the rules and tenets of belief that followers of that faith hold sacred?
A civil partnership is the state's way of providing a universally acceptible, equally financially, socially and legally binding civil contract, just without the requirement to leap through all the hoops associated with the religious doctrine
This gives the option to get hitched regardless if you are e.g. a pork eating Jew, an alcoholic Muslim or a homosexual Christian (to name but a few contrived examples...) thus lowering the potential moral/social dissonance
The average secular power is often relatively easily swayed by public opinion - I understand most religions are somewhat more set in their ways, and very often look askance at certain behaviours, social mores and beliefs and see them as taboo for their adherents
Are we now in danger of ditching homophobia for religious intolerance by the back door?
This post has been deleted by a moderator
"No, they wanted to be able to adopt children...And why do they want these children? I have been asking myself that. Is it to indoctrinate them into being gay?"
I don't know. If we are going to interfere though lets ask why do you want to have children? Is it to raise them in the ways of the bigot?
"They aren't citizens at all, but parasites, mouthy, spiteful, ungrateful parasites."
It's unfair to label all gays such. That is the logic error everybody does when they label gypsies as stealers, gays as full of venereal diseases, Muslims as terrorists, and so on. Some of them are, but not a majority. It is true however that those who created this scandal are ungrateful, egotistical, small minded people. But not all gays.
"why do they want these children? I have been asking myself that. Is it to indoctrinate them into being gay? Is it to sexually groom them?"
That's an evil thing to say. It assumes people who declare a positive human endeavour (adoption) are lying to their teeth to be able to rape small kids. It is like saying that a man who wants to be the natural father of a girl really intends to rape her when she grows. Evil. I would say they have the parenthood instinct like all of us do. However, I do agree that it is deeply wrong for a gay couple to raise kids, as they will be very bad role models:
- first, whatever gays say, homosexuality is still a sexual perversion, unhealthy to society. It is safe to say that children raised by gays would lean more towards LGBT behaviour than classic kids.
- there is a balance between male/female psychology and emotions which is learned from a father and a mother. Male/Male or female/female parents will not transmit this important balance.
"This whole argument isn't about marriage but about adoption. Here in France, homosexuals haven't been stopped from doing anything with anyone they pleased, but that wasn't enough for them. No, they wanted to be able to adopt children. They could have children if they wanted to have sex with a member of the opposite sex, but they want it all."
Everyone has an equal opportunity to become unequal to someone or some organization. If you don’t like your boss talk with him/her. If you don’t share their views quit if it is a major issue to you. We all make choices. We all change in some way over time. My views have changed over the years. Mainly because I’m open minded and I’m willing to listen to all points of view. Should someone quit their job over something 10 years ago? From what I understand he wasn’t a new hire. We can live and work together and share different views. Maybe working in such an organization would help him over time understand how important equality is. Mozilla is the perfect place for him. I’m sure of one thing. He will be careful who he give his money to in the future.
I have friends and business customers that are far left and far right. Doesn’t mean I’m going to banish them if I don’t share their view. I use it as an opportunity to bring people together. A major problem is when the far right or left only talk to like minded people. We need to mix left and right as much as we can. In the end the world would be a better place. I embrace people that do not share my views.
Pushing people away only makes issues worse.
Since none of us ever met either person, it is impossible to say. It might be that both were actually really nice people to be with, with lots of good stories and a sense of humour.
I'm very much of the opinion that there are no evil people, just evil acts committed by people that are just the same as you and me (any act can be seen as evil from a certain perspective - just look at the comments by some people about others who keep cats ...)
It seems as though the gay community want to be able to get married to get access to the same benefits/tax breaks etc as heterosexual couples.
The issue I have with that is that those benefits are designed and geared towards making it easier to start a family, which is something that gay couples can't do because of er...science. Then there is a whole separate argument about the impact on children growing up with no male/female role model in the household, and then going out into a world filled with both men/women and having only experience with one gender.
So the gay community are essentially demanding something which wasn't designed for them. I am fully aware that heterosexual couples who don't have kids can do this too, but that's more of a bug in the system.
I'm not religious and don't object to homosexuality in any way, but gay people getting married is like deaf people buying iPods.
I guess my point is that there is a legitimate debate to be had about gay marriage which has nothing to do with homosexuality, which any reasonable person would agree is completely fine.
The gay community try to side-step this debate by portraying anybody who tries to start it as bigoted/homophobic etc, and persecuting them until they shut up.
Science has actually made it possible for homosexual couples to have children. I'm not sure what the situation is in the USA, but over here in the UK it is not uncommon for homosexual couples to have children via IVF and donor gametes (and uteri if the couple are males). Alternatively, many homosexual couples choose to adopt and/or foster children, thus creating a "family" (a term for which there is no actual definition).*
* Though that does remember of a time I was scribing for a student in an exam. The question was "Define 'family'" The answer she gave, quite seriously (I had to write it down) was "a mother, a father, two children and a dog". I'm not sure how legible my writing was, since I had one hand stuffed in my mouth trying not to laugh!
The Bible & Torah should be banned!
Here are several really loving excerpts from the Torah; the first five books of the Old Testament in the bible -- perhaps read to the congregation on Friday night at a synagogue or a Sunday morning church in the meadow.
1. Kill any friends or family that worship a god that is different than your own. Deuteronomy 13:6-10
2. Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you. Deuteronomy 13:12-16
3. Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own. Deuteronomy 17:2-7.
Rabbinical / Priestly rules:
Leviticus 21:17-18 … “No one who is blind or lame or has a defect or any blemish may approach to offer the bread of his God.”
Leviticus 18:22 … “You are not to go to bed with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination ….”
Rabbis; the pope and churches fully aware that Leviticus 18:22 applies to rabbis and priests … refuse to remove this stigma maliciously persecuting gays. Kids are being bullied into suicide …!
For what it's worth, I'm sure "Omnomnom-ism" is a fine, upstanding and inclusive religion
What I was endeavouring to suggest, however, was that a good many other religious institutions aren't so inclusive and some even define themselves by what they allow or expect their adherents to do or ways in which they are expected to behave
You or I may not agree with them, but as such we are not forced by secular legistlation to think/behave accordingly
What we appear to have here is a small group using secular pressure to pick and choose which bits of any given established religion they wish to adopt without the inconvenient bits that say they should think/behave accordingly, rather than, as I suspect you have sensibly done, creating a religion of their own that fits what they want and believe in, and doesn't fly in the face of the majority of other adherents who are not like-minded
Brendan has done more to help this world than most will ever know. He has some personal opinions that don't fit perfectly with his corporation's PR releases. So what?
And it's a very big mistake to cave to this pressure, and I doubt he was the person that caved.
My sincerest appologies, "they do not know what they do".
shoulda just been against free speech and privacy, two actual constitutional amendments. then he'd have been ignored by the manufactured outrage.
make up some "new" right to sell politicians who actively curtail the first 5 or so amendments, and everything's golden.
Nevermind that your "new" right disappears at the next politicians' whims and you can't do squat since you sold every right that would have allowed effective redress.
many prop 8 fans are against gay marriage solely because if it is gay then it isn't marriage
it's nothing about rights but about controlling language because then you control talking and thought. it is not evolution of language but engineering of language
i'm not against legal recognition of gay unions with the same rights as marriage.
but I am against being made to call it marriage
can I work for Mozilla or am i a bigot?
This post has been deleted by its author
Look at this piece of work,
Wow, they are not happy with one head. They now want the lot and no doubt will still be unhappy.
Perhaps Slate should fire the writer of this article but of course he's got journalistic freedom, albeit with a gay activist slant that's as subtle as a nuclear bomb. I guess if the activists start pissing off these named companies then I would bet those companies might lobby to overturn some of the overturned anti-gay marriage rulings in the US.
Be careful what u wish for...
I think you might be doing the author a disservice?
If you read some of his other articles on Slate, he seems to actually support diversity of opinions, to an extent, indeed, that would probably make him quite unpopular with some parts of the gay activist lobby, and in the article you refer to, he seems to be pointing out some of the inanities inherent in the apparent witch hunting that is underpinning the current fracas.
His last sentence is the key, but like most reasoned articles, the already converted will have soaked up what they wanted to see and hear, and the rest will have vanished into ill disciplined minds' commonplace mental vacuum that is tl;dr
Having said that, some of the accompanying comments illustrate his point nicely, being well worthy of anyone who might in another time and place have aspired to employment by the Checka and its successor, the GPU. At least most of them had the excuse of being uneducated and illiterate
"I think you might be doing the author a disservice?"
Did he have to make a list of contributing companies even more public?
Even though he stated those lists showed individual contributions from company employees he lumped them together in the tables to show the companies with total contributions against it. Why not list the individuals so it was easier to see the "bigots"?
Perhaps it would have been good to see those that contributed to the anti prop8 campaign too - its called balanced journalism. Although give him credit he did post a link to the info but for the purposes of fairness he should have included that data in the main body of his article.
Correct, the last sentence is the key but it's styled more as a "shit or get off the pot" call to arms. While his points pose questions for both sides, his portrayal is very much one sided. A bit too much "shock jock" journalism as I saw it but, we all see things differently.
If we are get rid of these "bigots" then lets do the fair thing and get those that contributed to both sides fired.
I'm pretty hard-pressed to continue to support Mozilla right now as I really think that all this was unnecessary.
I don't think or know if Eich tried to force his beliefs on anyone at Mozilla. If he had, then fire him. But 2008 was years ago. His support of that cause had/has nothing to do with his ability to work, code or contribute to the world. His support of that cause was actually the prevailing view of the majority at *that time*.
It's not right imo to hound him on his views just because they differ from a select few or the apparent majority *today*.
What will tomorrow bring?
That someone got (subtly) forced out of his job/position not for his competence or lack of, but because of what beliefs he espouses is beyond the pale...
What amazes me is that the same lobby crying intolerance and throwing stones at the man are themselves (by logic reasoning) intolerant, since they can't accept the fact that he doesn't share their view. Tolerance goes both ways not just one.
Guess it's time for the devs to say fork it (bad pun) and head off to some new place more concerned about their products than what some lobby thinks of them.
Mozilla, a place where everyone's views are welcome, unless your views are different than ours (or some lobby, or some flavour of the week PC'ness, or anything not related to web browsers).
From the BBC - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-26868536
Mozilla users acessing OkCupid....
"Hello there, Mozilla Firefox user. Pardon this interruption of your OkCupid experience.
"Mozilla's new CEO, Brendan Eich, is an opponent of equal rights for gay couples. We would therefore prefer that our users not use Mozilla software to access OkCupid."
If this is true...?
What do you think of Brendan now?
It appears the gay activists have been pawns in a game of Internet chess,
Sam Yagan (okcupid) seems not to be on the gay side after all. Apparently he seems also to have made a donation in 2007-2008 Obama campaign when Obama was in anti-gay marriage mode.
Also, why does Mozilla do business in Israel when that country is anti-gay?
This post has been deleted by its author
I realise I'm coming to this party very late, but I feel the need to add my thoughts.
The word bigot has been thrown around a bit too lightly on this thread. It suggests that people who do not support gay marriage are driven by thoughtless intolerance. I think it's more accurate to see this as a clash of cultures, each of which has a different intellectual heritage. Indeed, if you are someone who is truly tolerant, you will recognise the strengths and weaknesses of both the pro- and anti- arguments.
There is a line of thought that it's OK for Eich to hold an opinion, but not to act on it. I must disagree. Eich's actions were entirely legal and democratic. Eich pledged some money to a cause which was being openly and democratically debated. That cause was eventually defeated. That seems to me to be free speech and democracy in action.
It's only because of such free speech that LGBT people have won various freedoms and rights in recent years. If in the 1950s a CEO had argued for gay rights, would it have been acceptable for traditionalists to have that CEO ousted? Anyone who supports the ousting of Eich is effectively arguing against the right of minorities to engage in democratic debate. Is that really what anyone wants?
I agree that people have the right to judge Eich in any way they wish, and have the right to boycott companies for any reason. However, his ousting strikes me as being needlessly vindictive. The pro gay marriage lobby won. Why not just celebrate that and move on? Why this need to persecute and punish those who have a different view?
Ultimately though I don't think this is a question about Mozilla's relationship with its customers, but instead about the relationship between Mozilla and its employees (in this case, Eich). Employees should have a right to a private life. If an employee complies with their company's policies when at work, then anything that they do in their personal life should be irrelevant: any beliefs they hold, any opinions they express, any actions they take. Otherwise, there is a creeping totalitarianism at play, where employees must never express any opinion which contradicts (now or in the future) their employer's position.
Mozilla should have responded to these criticisms by issuing a short statement that the CEO's private opinions are his own concern.
I think there is a broader question about the extent to which companies are getting involved in social and political issues which may put them at odds with their own employees. Perhaps they should just focus on delivering great products and services and leave the politics at the door?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021