Some Mozilla Employees Demand New CEO Step Down

_xeno_ (155264) writes "Mozilla recently named a new CEO, Brendan Eich, and as commentators in that article noted, there could be some backlash over his private contributions to political campaigns. Well, it turns out that they were correct, and despite a statement from Brendan Eich pledging to continue Mozilla's inclusiveness, some Mozilla employees are calling for him to step down. Should private beliefs be enough to prevent someone from heading a project they helped found?"

Comments

No

[HornWumpus]

The employees should make sure the door doesn't hit them on the ass on their way out. Modern day McCarthy's.

Re:No

[msauve]

If employees can justify asking the boss to leave because of his personal beliefs, then they should respect the opposite and support the boss when he similarly asks them to leave for theirs.

Re:No

[almitydave]

Well, employment law prevents discriminatory hiring/firing practices (based on religious and many other factors), and if the guy is qualified for the role, his beliefs and political advocacy are irrelevant, as are those of the employees who disagree with those beliefs. People who preach tolerance need to be tolerant, and if he practices what he preaches in his linked blog post, there shouldn't be a problem.

We've had blacklisting based on political associations before, and I thought we all agreed it's a bad thing?

Re:No

[unixisc]

It is always conditionally agreed. People agree that blacklisting based on political associations is a bad thing, except when it comes to blacklisting people that they disagree with

Re:No

[machineghost]

We've had blacklisting based on political associations before, and I thought we all agreed it's a bad thing?

Yeah, we all agreed it's bad. Like remember when the world blacklisted apartheid South Africa and its supporters? That was terrible wasn't it?

Re:No

[DaHat]

Correct, remember the other side though.

While employment law prohibits (not prevents) discriminatory hiring/firing practices... some of these employees have likely crossed a line outside of any kind of protection... in that they are effectively being insubordinate of the current management and in most cases is a fire-able offense.

Just like in a civil war, if you are unable to stay neutral, best choose your side carefully, because if you back the wrong side you will probably be in a world of pain when it's all done.

Re:No

[machineghost]

That logic totally holds up; after all, the responsibilities of the CEO of a company are identical to the average employee in that company, right?

Re:No

[sjames]

The boss doesn't ask employees to leave. The employee just gets to work one day and find their desk on the front lawn.

Re:No

[msauve]

Yes, they have similar responsibilities to their employer (to make a bona fide effort do do the work they were hired for), and also similar rights to their own personal beliefs.

Re:No

[hubie]

Just like Jon Stewart said about entitlements (in context of the Megyn Kelly maternity leave comments):

Here's the thing about entitlements. They're really only entitlements when they're something other people want. When it's something you want, they're a hallmark of a civilized society, the foundation of a great people. I just had a baby and found out maternity leave strengthens society. But since I still have a job, unemployment benefits are clearly socialism.

Re:No

[Ash Vince]

Well, employment law prevents discriminatory hiring/firing practices (based on religious and many other factors), and if the guy is qualified for the role, his beliefs and political advocacy are irrelevant, as are those of the employees who disagree with those beliefs. People who preach tolerance need to be tolerant, and if he practices what he preaches in his linked blog post, there shouldn't be a problem.

We've had blacklisting based on political associations before, and I thought we all agreed it's a bad thing?

You would be entirely right were it not for one incredibly important detail: His entire business is based around people working for him for free on an open source product that could be forked. If you are in that position you have to be slightly more concious of how the people you represent feel than if you are actually paying them. Mozilla is basically a charity, not a commercial corporation in the normal profit making, shareholder's holding the real power sense so it is bound by different rules even if it might actually have corporate legal status.

Re:No

[amiga3D]

And they turn around and file lawsuits too.

Re:No

[amiga3D]

That's right, some issues are more equal than others.

Re:No

[msauve]

"People agree that blacklisting based on political associations is a bad thing, except when it comes to blacklisting people that they disagree with"

Exactly. McAvoy exhibits the highest level of hypocrisy:

McAvoy added that he feels fortunate to work at a company like Mozilla, "where I can say that without fear of retribution."

...plainly admitting that he's glad they respect his right to hold and voice his own beliefs, while simultaneously encouraging them to not respect those he doesn't agree with (which, BTW, were in the majority).

Re:No

[OneAhead]

Thank goodness these days are over and public figures who are trying to counteract America's slow slide into plutocracy aren't met with a hysterical "eeeeek socialism!!!" anymore...

Re:No

[andymadigan]

Mozilla can absolutely fire them, but how much talent are they willing to shed so that this guy can be CEO? In Silicon Valley, a lot of these people can probably walk across the street and get a new job, even if their explicit reason for leaving the last one was that the new CEO supported Prop 8. Mozilla's board has got to be thinking about how much damage could be done before this guy has really even started.

Re:No

[lgw]

Depends where you work. I've been at a major corporation where the CEO got the "everyone who works here raise your hand ... not so fast!" treatment from the board. Twice now, come to think of it.

And at every big corp I've worked at, you couldn't just fire anyone on a whim, you always had to go through HR, regardless of who you were. Sometimes even for the CEO it's easier just to ask someone to leave.

Re:No

[lgw]

Well, employment law prevents discriminatory hiring/firing practices (based on religious and many other factors), and if the guy is qualified for the role, his beliefs and political advocacy are irrelevant, as are those of the employees who disagree with those beliefs. People who preach tolerance need to be tolerant, and if he practices what he preaches in his linked blog post, there shouldn't be a problem.

We've had blacklisting based on political associations before, and I thought we all agreed it's a bad thing?

Being conservative is not a protected class. It's not that rare at certain kinds of companies for people to be shown the door if they're "outed" as a conservative (possibly the most famous being the editor of Playgirl).

For the most part, when people preach "tolerance" they mean "believe everything on my checklist exactly like I do without question", as the word "tolerance" is just a tribal identification signal, not an actual belief. That's really common these days, and I'm really tired of being told I'm a bigot for advocating acceptance of many cultural views!

Re:No

[sjames]

When the boss asks you to leave there is a very strong implicit (so I don't have to fill out the paperwork to fire you). When employees ask the boss to leave, there's the implicit (or I might ask again if you don't fire me first). There is a distinct difference in the balance of power.

Re:No

[lgw]

Sure, there's an imbalance, but it's far worse is when the boss is also the owner. When the boss is just another employee of the owners, the imbalance is much smaller (heck, a fired of mine who was manager almost got fired himself for asking one of his reports to resign without filling out the paperwork first!). I've also seen managers told "no" when they wanted to fire someone, and I've seen a manager nearly get fired when all the engineers in her group threatened to leave, and a couple of them had left.

Either way, we've gone over the top in America in our intolerance of opposing political religious beliefs! WTF does it matter what you co-workers' belief on gay marriage or abortion is, if you're writing software?!?

Re:No

[WillyWanker]

Which, mind you, is perfectly legal in most states, for a boss to fire you due to your personal beliefs -- or any reason really that doesn't put you into a protected class.

Re:No

[s.petry]

Well, "Average Joe" does not normally receive a Golden Parachute when hired. I'm not saying Mozilla's boss did, just countering your generalization with a different generalization which is fair.

Re:No

[AuMatar]

Depends on if you care. Most likely these employees are talented programmers, and the hiring environment is good right now. For those who have a bit of money set aside losing their job is an inconvenience at worst, a nice vacation at best. Especially if they were smart enough to start shipping resumes as they took their stand.

Re:No

[colfer]

I think most of the work is done by Mozilla's own paid engineers, except on community projects like Seamonkey and, now, Thunderbird. I could be wrong.

Re:No

[AlphaWolf_HK]

The thing is, they're in a bit of a sticky situation.

- If Mozilla lets him go, they'll get backlash from libertarians, conservatives, and tea party types. The civil libertarians aren't (typically) anti-gay, but they generally don't respond well to calls for boycotts over something somebody said as their affinity for freedom of expression takes precedence.
- If Mozilla keeps him, they'll get backlash from the gay lobby (for lack of a better term.)

Neither is a particularly good thing to have, though (and here's where the irony is) staying their existing course would be safest *if* the gay lobby does an all out assault on this one. Recall chic-fil-a who actually saw record revenues from backlash during that incident. Similar things have also happened to other businesses who have snubbed their nose at the gay lobby; the only ones that don't continue are the ones that succumb to e.g. the death threats. This sort of plays into the theory of there being no such thing as bad publicity, which tends to be true in most cases.

Ironically, if the gay lobby just does a quiet boycott (i.e. they switch browsers without any fanfare) then they might actually succeed.

As for me, I really like the Firefox browser, I feel it is a lot more flexible, even if a tad buggy compared to chrome, and IE is a joke. One thing's for sure in any case: It's nice having a choice between two really good browsers. I feel the same way about Linux Mint, by the way, whose founder made a bunch of anti-semitic remarks (I myself believe Israel is in the right on that one.) I also loved the movie Ender's Game; really well done, and it didn't contain any gay related themes in it, either for or against.

Re:No

[squiggleslash]

Are you seriously suggesting there has ever been a time in history where someone's actions have played no role in deciding whether they're qualified for a specific job?

Yes, it was absurd and evil to disqualify communists from being actors or screenwriters. Would it also have been absurd and evil to disqualify someone from being head of the CIA because of past, undisclaimed, material support for the CCCP?

Allowed HTML

1. • URLs http://example.com/ will auto-link a URL Important Stuff Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) Slow Down Cowboy! Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment. It's been 3 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator. If you are having a problem with accounts or comment posting, please yell for help. So here is your nontroversy of the afternoon: Donald Trump is furious that Barack Obama has mentioned the possibility of a terrorist nuclear attack on Manhattan, because, as he told Fox Newsâ(TM)s Greta Van Susteren today, the President âoejust put a big target on Manhattan.â Damn you, Obama! If only you had kept Manhattan a secret, no terrorist ever would have thought to attack it, and the city would remain safe from terrorist attacks, just like it was during George W. Bushâ(TM)s blemish-free reign. Read more at http://wonkette.com/#m4TQ3Etgd... Slow Down Cowboy! Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment. It's been 4 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator.

Re:No

[ultranova]

That's right, some issues are more equal than others.

Neo-Nazis are equal to everyone else. But an organization that appoints one as its leader is still implying a lot of unpleasant things about itself, and shouldn't except them to go unchallenged by the members.

Re:No

[AmiMoJo]

It's more like the boss begs the employees to stay. Moz needs good people and with its insanely short release cycle can't afford to lose several important employees at once.

Re:No

[amiga3D]

He's a Neo-Nazi? Damn, I missed that part.

Re:No

[0xdeadbeef]

Yet you know there are only two outcomes for this:

Eich steps down and some people claim it was the employees standing up for what's right that made it happen, while other's whine about "McCarthyism" and "insubordination", but mostly it was the unflattering press attention that did it.

or

Eich doesn't quit and nothing happens to those who asked him to quit. Some of them quit, because they're mad, but there really isn't any negative consequence for any of them, because no one important will risk alienating the overwhelming majority of young talent by defending homophobia.

Re:No

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

At the same time, good luck doing that as the PR backlash would be tremendous. So they are in practice safe. Probably.

They are safe until Russia decides to invade the rest of the Ubraine. Then it's over.

Re:No

[jxander]

Their release cycle isn't THAT sho-

Hold on, I've gotta update before it will let me finish this comment.

Re:No

[bill_mcgonigle]

I think it's because this issue in particular is equated with fundamental freedom

Actually it's civil privilege. Fundamental freedom involves *not* having the State decide who may marry whom (as is the natural state of things). The next six oppressed groups in line aren't feeling the freedom quite yet.

Was Eich bigoted or extremely libertarian in his opposition? Could be either. The trick with demanding a particular political position on an issue is knowing first whether a political solution is even feasible or desirable.

Re:No

[Bing Tsher E]

I hate to break it to you but such a persecution complex is nothing but a sign of mental illness.

In the days of the USSR, the ruling political leaders often labeled their opponents as 'mentally ill.' A lot of people ended up in the Gulag that way. Do you really want to start that shit up?

Re:No

[TsuruchiBrian]

Supporting prop 8 makes you a bigot. If the janitor is a bigot it's probably ok as long as he leaves his retarded bigotry at home. If he brings it to work, then his boss needs to be involved to discipline or fire him. It's more important to make sure that the top guy isn't a bigot, or stupid, or crazy, etc

Re:No

[TsuruchiBrian]

A new earth creationist can be a perfectly good evolutionary biologist if they are able to put their personal beliefs aside and do their job presuming that evolution was true while at work.

However, I don't think it's unreasonable to suspect that a person who truly believes in evolution as a valid scientific principle is going to be more likely to do a better job than a person who doesn't.

I don't think it's unreasonable to suspect that a person who supports prop 8 is a bigot. I have family that supported prop 8. They are nice, well intentioned people who happen to be bigots. I would say that not being a bigot is an important quality for a CEO (i.e. the leader of a company).

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be more worried as an employee who left because Eich was made CEO. If you're going to leave your job because you have a chip on your shoulder about Prop 8, even though the guy you're working for has been a CTO for years and never showed any signs of biggotry at work, then I wouldn't trust you with my important project and would only hire you if I was desperate. Sometimes taking a moral stance has consequences, especially when you're not even trying to meet people halfway or take the higher moral ground.

Re:No

[sjames]

My co-worker? It doesn't matter one whit. He doesn't write my annual review or determine if I get the week off or if I get a raise. He can hate me and my opinion all he wants.

My boss? A mere difference of opinion is fine as long as we can be adult about it. If he has publicly called for me and people like me to be stripped of rights and made second class citizens AND put his personal money into helping to make that happen, anyone with half a brain should be able to figure out that there's a high potential for a problem there.

Re:No

[sjames]

The proposition was a pre-empitve effort to make sure gay marriage remained forbidden no matter how the courts might decide. It would be a huge stretch to imagine he supported it because it wouldn't be fair to some other group if we didn't continue to deny gay rights.

On the more general principle, I agree that the government shouldn't be deciding who can or cannot marry.

Re:No

[TsuruchiBrian]

The fact that you think think this is a complex issue doesn't make it complex.

Re:No

[msauve]

QED

Re:No

[TsuruchiBrian]

What part of this is complex? What are the nuances of prop 8? Why might a reasonable person without retarded religious baggage support discriminating against people based on their sexuality?

Please enlighten me.

Re:No

[Wallick]

If employees can justify asking the boss to leave because of his personal beliefs, then they should respect the opposite and support the boss when he similarly asks them to leave for theirs.

It doesn't matter what his personal beliefs are, what matters is that he financially supported a law that would have forced others to conform to his personal beliefs. If your religion dictates that you shouldn't eat pork, or not to marry certain types of people, or to clip off parts of your son's penis, and you want to live your life by those principles it doesn't affect me so knock yourself out. All I ask is for mutual tolerance (people often overlook the fact that tolerance must be mutual or else it doesn't really work). And if someone does try to force those beliefs on me, I will confront them about it. And then they can ironically criticize me for being intolerant.

Re:No

[Pseudonym]

Neo-Godwin's Law!

Re:No

[phantomfive]

I think his point is that people are saying, "As an employee of Mozilla, I believe X," which is something that can get you fired. Not because of X, but because you might be trick people into thinking you represent the company or something like that.

I don't know if it should be that way, but plenty of companies have prohibitions on that sort of thing.

Re:No

[lgw]

I'm used to bosses who aren't even vaguely of the same culture as me. God inly knows what we'd disagree on. Doesn't matter to me in the least. I had one boss who demonstrated in the workplace that he was racist in his work-related policies, so I left that job. See the difference?

I have a very high respect for anyone's right to indulge in any political speech they desire. Freedom of offensive and objectionable speech is the only true freedom. Take that away and you'll eventually be left with nothing. And that includes the "hecklers veto" and other such measures, not just government prevention. Just don't carry your prejudices over into (demonstrated, not imagined-it-might-happen-one-day) hiring and promotion policies, and I have no grounds to object.

But this "he has no right to be the boss if his views are objectionable" BS screams intolerance. Different people have different values. Isn't that neat? What a boring old world it would be if we were all the same.

Re:No

[DNS-and-BIND]

McCarthy? You know, when I was young, we were taught that McCarthy was chasing ghosts, it was all paranoia, and there were no Communists in the State Department.

Today we know precisely the opposite: there really were Communists, they really did want to overthrow the US government, and McCarthy was right the whole time. This needs to be repeated again and again until the memory hole is filled and we finally get the truth.

Re:No

[lgw]

There are no more conservatives being fired for their opinions than there are anyone else being fired for their views

So that makes it OK then? It's not persecution if we put the Jews and the Gays and the Gypsies in the Camps, right, as long as it's equitable?

Discriminating against someone in the workplace for their political views as expressed outside the workplace is fucking wrong, full stop.

Re:No

[BradMajors]

Being conservative is not a protected class. It's not that rare at certain kinds of companies for people to be shown the door if they're "outed" as a conservative (possibly the most famous being the editor of Playgirl).

Mozilla is in California. In California it is illegal to discriminate based upon political activities.

Re:No

[Darinbob]

So you're saying that open minded people need to be open minded about people who are close minded? I'm glad my mind is open so it can explode safely.

Re:No

[lgw]

I haven't read what Eich wrote because to me it's irrelevant. It's not like I'll be turning to him for moral guidance. But how do you feel about the Dalai Lama? Most of his life has been spent advocating compassion for others, and I'm certain he's spent more time contemplating moral issues than AC has. Yet he objects to gay sex if your a member of his religion. Shall he be ostracized by his fellow man? The Chinese Government have certainly tried its best to make it so.

(If you're wondering how he reconciles that view: he also believes that there's no One True Religion, so each person should find one that's a match for him, and further I think he's OK with celibate gays being Buddhists, though I can't find that directly in his writings)

Re:No

[LordLimecat]

If they let him go Mozilla will get backlash from the conservatives you mentioned AND from anyone who gives a crap about free speech.

Its not strictly "censorship", but its hard to take a company's commitment to "openness" seriously when they go on a witchhunt because of how someone voted politically.

Re:No

[LordLimecat]

Like thats even remotely a good comparison. Marriage has been pretty statically defined for an incredibly long time across a lot of cultures, and suddenly this guy is practicing apartheid for voting with the majority that that definition shouldnt change?

Wow, slashdotters DO have perspective issues.

Re:No

[LordLimecat]

There are no more conservatives being fired for their opinions than there are anyone else being fired for their views.

Ive seen slashdotters harp on "equivalence fallacies" so many times when it favors a liberal position to do so, so I dont think I can let that statement just rest.

I have seen a LOT of people go absolutely balistic (ie, call for firing / resignation) when it turns out that a conservative's views partly stem from their religious affiliation. I have NOT seen the same thing when it turns out that a liberal's come from atheism or anything else.

Like it or not, there IS a difference.

Re:No

[sjames]

Free speech can have consequences. I do not suggest jailing him, fining him, or any other such thing. I haven't suggested firing him either. I have suggested that it may be arguable that a person who campaigns to strip rights from a particular group of people is intrinsically unfit to lead that group of people.

Considering he has given money to the cause, it is closer to me arguing that "he has no right to be the boss if his ACTIONS are objectionable".

He didn't just say he doesn't think gays should be able to marry. He actually took steps to try to make that happen.

Re:No

[squiggleslash]

Reposted due to moderation abuse. See you in metamod.

This isn't about his "private beliefs", it's about his open funding for a hate campaign. The article is deliberately inflammatory, portraying this as being about a CEO's personal beliefs, but it's actually 100% about his actions.

CEOs are major figureheads, and their actions reflect on the businesses they run. You rule yourself out of qualification for certain jobs if you act in certain ways, such as actively supporting discrimination against many of the people you supposedly potentially lead.

And right now we have the usual suspects who've latched on to the fact that many people still hate gays as an excuse to bash homosexuals when they have the audacity to to stand up for themselves, who are proposing that this has something to do with this guy's personal beliefs.

If he'd donated money to a group proposing ending women's suffrage, we wouldn't be having this debate. The guy wouldn't be CEO.

If he'd donated money to a group proposing the re-institution of slavery for any black enfranchised as a consequence of the Civil War, we wouldn't be having this debate. The guy wouldn't be CEO.

But this is "OK", because he wants gays treated abusively?

No fucking way. If the Mozilla Foundation wants him to be a CTO, or a programmer, or a coffee maker, or a team leader, or a division head, or whatever, that's fine. But he's not suitable for the role of CEO. End of story. He's not qualified to lead.

Re:No

[lgw]

What I see is two groups each trying to "strip rights" from each other. Tribal warfare in the modern age. But still far preferable to actual violence.

Re:No

[lgw]

An important issue here is whether the church should be compelled to recognize or perform gay marriage. Some people think that's not the issue at all, of course, but you can't have a "right" to coerce someone else to perform a service on your behalf. If you're baffled why anyone conflates the two, look to the eHarmony verdict. The religious right found that deeply troubling, along with the current supreme court case (another "requirement to perform and act against conscience" issue), and I can't say they're just paranoid.

I think the whole marriage problem comes from a fundamental failure to separate church and state. We have good laws for business partnerships (and their break-ups), that can easily be extended to civil unions of any kind (by adding hospital visitation rights and the like). "Marriage" to me is a social act that people should be free to choose to recognize or not in each case without any legal significance. But anything that leads to more kids being raised by committed couples is needed in my book, whatever people want to call it.

Re:No

[sjames]

Please look up potential.

Now, consider, in an atnmosphere of discrimination and something as important as employment, how that potential might affect you.

Re:No

[sjames]

The CEO has the right to not be asked to step down? Does he have the right to use the N word in the office as well? To a black employee's face?

Re:No

[sjames]

Why is the church involved here? Did someone ask the pope to step down?

We COULD extend civil unions to provide all of the protections as that which is commonly called marriage, but have utterly failed to do so, even on tax forms.

The relationship known as marriage can be and often enough is commenced through a justice of the peace and a marriage license from the state. That makes it a matter of law and the state (not that I think the state has any right to issue a license for marriage).

If you prefer and you can get the political traction for it, strip the state of the power to license (and by extension refuse to license) a civil union that acts just like a marriage in every way except for not involving clergy. Instead, the state is mandated to acknowledge any civil union. Get all instances of the word marriage changed to civil-union in all laws. Grant the presumption that a church marriage constitutes a civil union for legal purposes.

Really, the whole gay marriage movement is just a step in that direction, saying that the state has no legitimate right to deny marriage (or civil union if you prefer). In part they have kept the issue narrow to dodge the wing nuts prattling on about people marring potted plants and such.

Don't be surprised though if for decades later, people still refer to it as 'getting married'.

Re:No

[Jaysyn]

Recall chic-fil-a who actually saw record revenues from backlash during that incident.

For two months. Then the zombies were led by the nose to the next crisis & forgot about old Dan. Now Mr. Cathy is saying he wishes he kept his bigotry to himself.

http://www.al.com/living/index...

As usual, dollars eventually take precedent over bigotry.

Re:No

[TheSeatOfMyPants]

People who preach tolerance need to be tolerant ...

So by your logic, if I believed in white people 'tolerating' the presence of black people in the same schools, in the same restrooms, using the same parts of the bus, etc. then I automatically should've been equally "tolerant" of (that is, refrain from objecting to) the actions of the bigots that did their best to strip black people of that right? Or that anyone that felt physically disabled kids should be "tolerated" in regular classrooms would be hypocritical if they "tolerated" the efforts of non-disabled parents to force them into "special" schools rather than speaking out against them?

Besides that, most advocates realized years ago that "tolerance" isn't a good goal, as it still implies stereotyping & openly hating an entire group is peachy-keen, and that the group should have to hope others "let" them do things rather than having the same right to do them. That's when they switched over to showing gay people are just regular individuals, just as worthy/unworthy of respect & acceptance as the next human being -- and, once that idea started taking root, why they began pushing for equal civil rights.

So "tolerance" basically is a red herring at this point. I don't "tolerate" my longtime gay friend or lesbian cousin, I love them as the big brother I wish I'd had and the 'girl' I grew up playing with. They deserve the same rights & respect that I have simply by default -- including being able to go to work without having a leader that tried to make them second-class citizens. (Wanting to do it, or believing it should be the case, is one thing; actively trying to make it happen seems a whole lot more hostile.)

Re:No

[NoImNotNineVolt]

How insightful. Thank you for your illuminating commentary. It's all so crystal clear now.

Re:No

[bluefoxlucid]

Marriage equality is actually a form of oppression.

In the beginning, it was decided that women should stay at home, make babies, raise children, behave. Men go to work. A man, married, with a stay-at-home wife, filing jointly, with children, pays roughly half as much in taxes and gets a few thousand credited off for dependents. First-class citizens.

If they decide to not work, they don't get those few thousand credited off. It's something like $3500 first kid, $5000 second kid, $5500 third kid. Yeah we only give you $500 of aid when you add #3. Second-class citizens.

If that bitch dares to go out and get a job, the incomes combine. Married filing separately loses you all kinds of tax benefits that you get filing single, so you want to file jointly. Filing jointly with twice the income gets you taxed pretty much the same rate as filing single with half the income: those tax benefits for being married are revoked. But at least you have a dependent to file (spouse, even working), bringing the tax rate down. Third-class citizens.

Being a single male, I pay the same tax rate except without a dependent spouse. I pay more taxes even though I have less money. Fourth-class citizen.

Gays used to be in this boat. Now, however, they get married and get to file as either single-income married filing jointly (second-class citizens) or dual-income married filing jointly with an extra dependent (third-class citizens).

Now that gays are third-class citizens instead of fourth-class citizens, the government collects less in taxes from gays. Because the government collects less in taxes from gays, they must collect more in taxes from elsewhere. Thus they must increase the general tax rate slightly to make up (or take more debt, but that's unsustainable eventually). Because such an increase is partially discounted for married-filing-jointly (i.e. if you raise taxes 1%, it only goes up on them 0.5%-0.75%), it affects us single people more.

In other words: the tax burden is now reduced on gays, and increased on single people. The share of taxes being paid by this group is less, and the share of taxes being paid by this other group is more.

That's why gay marriage makes no sense. Marriage has always been a social and economical vehicle to enforce gender roles and societal ideals: it provides a strong tax benefit for nuclear families in which the woman stays home and makes babies while the man works. Childless couples are leeching off that, and dual-income families are punished by revoking that tax benefit. The purpose of marriage is not to provide rights; it's to abuse gays, single people, dual-income families, and childless couples by increasing their tax burden above that of nuclear families.

When am I, as a single male, going to get equality?

Re:No

[AmiMoJo]

- If Mozilla keeps him, they'll get backlash from the gay lobby (for lack of a better term.)

I don't know about the US but here most people find those kinds of view abhorrent and would feel disgust at this guy's views.

Re:No

[bluefoxlucid]

I think this looks fair: https://twitter.com/omgbounces...

Re:No

[GameboyRMH]

Neither is a particularly good thing to have, though (and here's where the irony is) staying their existing course would be safest *if* the gay lobby does an all out assault on this one. Recall chic-fil-a who actually saw record revenues from backlash during that incident.

Misleading. Chick-Fil-A did set a profit record on a day of counter-protest, but they caved to the "gay lobby" soon after. So they won a battle but lost the war...hard.

Re:No

[GameboyRMH]

For the most part, when people preach "tolerance" they mean "believe everything on my checklist exactly like I do without question", as the word "tolerance" is just a tribal identification signal, not an actual belief. That's really common these days, and I'm really tired of being told I'm a bigot for advocating acceptance of many cultural views!

Wrong. This follows the same logic as the WBC's calls for tolerant people to tolerate their intolerance.

Tolerance means being against discrimination based on traits people cannot control (including religion). There's your answer. It's not the same as the machinist's definition. It's not "just a tribal identification signal."

Re:No

[T.E.D.]

- If Mozilla keeps him, they'll get backlash from the gay lobby (for lack of a better term.)

Hmmm. What could a better term for "people who care about fair treatment of their fellow human being" possibly be?

How about most Americans?

Re:No

[howaboutthisone]

They're in a sticky situation if they bend to the will of others. It means they have no principles to stand on. Chick-fila and Hobby Lobby are two companies that openly tell the "gay lobby" to pound sand, and they're both doing fine. They stand on their principles. And just how big do you think the "gay lobby" is? Sure, they're vocal, but they're not that big. And some gay people might switch browsers, but so what? Not everyone has to like them, and not every company is going to be openly embracing of everything that they're about. They'll get over it.

Re:No

[TsuruchiBrian]

What does this have to do with the constitution?

Re:No

[T.E.D.]

Marriage has been pretty statically defined for an incredibly long time across a lot of cultures

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought we were talking about the modern love-based marriages we have redefined for ourselves sometime around the early 20th Century.

I didn't realize he was arguing for marriages between one man and as many wives as he can support, as long as they are all female and over the age of 8. Marriages where there is effectively a property transfer of female progeny and other goods or chattel between one man and one of his adult peers. Marriages that are entirely about maintaining the man's household and giving him some heirs to carry that on after he's gone. Marriages that have nothing whatsoever to do with love, and in fact all parties concerned are expected (and in the man's case encouraged) to seek love elsewhere, with whatever partner of whatever gender they chose. You know, traditional marriage.

Re:No

[TsuruchiBrian]

We could also ban black people from getting married. This would also lessen the tax burden for non-blacks. Is this really a good reason to do it? The fact that it would effect taxes doesn't automatically make prop 8 a "complex issue". Taxes are complicated by themselves and whether gay people can get married doesn't make that any more or less complex.

Re:No

[TsuruchiBrian]

So hypothetically, if he was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, and believed black people were inferior, you think that this shouldn't have any bearing on whether he can do his job properly and therefore should not be considered in deciding if he should be the CEO of a company?

Re:No

[TsuruchiBrian]

I don't need to give you any reason for my choices. I am entitled to choose to dislike (even hate) Queers of both sexes - that's my right.

Yes it is, and it is my right to be able to call you a retarded bigot.

What the hell gives YOU the right to tell me I have to like butt fuckers and bean flickers?

The first amendment

Re:No

[LordLimecat]

Im not clear why its the government's job to provide benefits just because two people love each other. There are pretty clear reasons (you touched on some of them) why traditional marriage gets the benefits it does which dont tend to apply to homosexual marriage any more than they apply to singles.

Re:No

[TsuruchiBrian]

And this would be relevant if there were some reason that allowing gay people to adopt children was a problem...

I suppose there were probably some people that supported the right of inter racial couples to marry, except for the implications this might have on any children they might decide to have or adopt.

I think a better approach would be to assume people are capable of being good parents regardless of their race, gender, or sexual preference, until they prove otherwise.

Re:No

[TsuruchiBrian]

I forgot which part of the constitution forbids me from calling retarded religious beliefs what they are... please remind me.

Re:No

[T.E.D.]

You don't have to be clear on why. Its is a fact that it does (hundreds of them in fact), and has since essentially the mid-20th century. If you don't like this situation, you are free to rail against it (good luck with that). But in the meantime it is morally incumbent on us to be fair about it.

And traditional marriage has been outlawed in this country for quite a while. If you want to argue for polygamy and disenfranchisement of women go right ahead, but please do it somewhere far enough from me that I'm not liable to get caught in the crossfire. :-)

Re:No

[wytcld]

Being conservative is not a protected class. It's not that rare at certain kinds of companies for people to be shown the door if they're "outed" as a conservative (possibly the most famous being the editor of Playgirl).

References please. Considering that 90%+ of those in the executive suites at larger corporations are card-carrying Republicans getting their news from Murdoch-owned organs, the "not that rare" and "certain kinds of companies" means what? That you know of one example - the editor or Playgirl? That the kind of company is one that is aiming a product towards relatively liberated, sexual women who conservatives, by and large, hate, and so having a known conservative as editor is going to be bad for circulation?

Would a seller of vegan foods find it advisable to fire an executive who is discovered to run a factory hog farm on the side? Sure, the executive is within rights. But isn't that a threat to sales?

Re:No

[bluefoxlucid]

You asked why a reasonable person might support banning gay marriage. The above explanation is reasonable.

The fact that it would 'effect'(sic) taxes does make prop 8 a "complex issue" in this case. Most importantly: it would increase discriminatory taxes against another social class.

Also important: the purpose of the current tax structure is to encourage the nuclear family, heterosexual unions which breed and raise juvenile humans, by decreasing the financial burden on these families to allow for preparation to raise a child. This preparation comes in the form of more money so as to afford to purchase a house on a single income, to afford to take out savings, to afford better health care to support prenatal and juvenile care, and so on; as well as more income (by lower taxes) to afford the continuing cost of raising juvenile humans. Affording the same benefit to homosexuals achieves the goal of giving them welfare money for leisure spending.

Consider: if I want to race cars, I need to obtain my own money independently to upgrade my car into stock or modified-stock or racer class. If I want to play piano, I have to buy a piano with my own money. Why should families get special privileged money because they want to raise children? Why shouldn't they have to work and earn their own money? Why must I subsidize their personal lives? And why, now, must I also bear the additional burden of subsidizing gays?

I would rather pay my money for a piano than pay my money into taxes acting as a charity fund for gay people to buy pianos.

We've gone exactly backwards legalizing gay marriage.

Re:No

[TsuruchiBrian]

You asked why a reasonable person might support banning gay marriage. The above explanation is reasonable.

Only in the same sense of "reasonable" that it would be for a white person to support taxing black people 100% to lessen the tax burden of themselves. This however isn't my first definition of reasonable. I would rather categorize it as selfishness / lack of empathy / lack of a sense of justice and fairness.

The fact that it would 'effect'(sic) taxes does make prop 8 a "complex issue" in this case. Most importantly: it would increase discriminatory taxes against another social class.

So let's say we live in a society where black people are discriminated against (e.g. taxes at 100%). Do you think a reasonable solution is to also start discriminating against chinese people (e.g. lowering both minorities tax burdens to say 50%) in order to lessen the burden of black people (while still keeping the taxes on everybody else at 0%)?

Also important: the purpose of the current tax structure is to encourage the nuclear family, heterosexual unions which breed and raise juvenile humans, by decreasing the financial burden on these families to allow for preparation to raise a child. This preparation comes in the form of more money so as to afford to purchase a house on a single income, to afford to take out savings, to afford better health care to support prenatal and juvenile care, and so on; as well as more income (by lower taxes) to afford the continuing cost of raising juvenile humans. Affording the same benefit to homosexuals achieves the goal of giving them welfare money for leisure spending.

I actually don't support these tax incentives, but lets say for the sake of argument that I did. If this were the case, why not give this incentive to only people with children, gay or straight? Why is it that only heterosexual couples both with and without children are given this tax break. This really doesn;t make any sense if the goal is to incentivize procreation (which I don;t think we necessarily need or want to do).

Yes I suppose some people might find this rather complicated because it involves numbers and arithmetic and this is the United States. I personally don't find it very complicated in these examples (though I admit actual tax law is a giant clusterfuck of complexity). That said, prop 8 actually changes the law, introducing more complexity.

Consider: if I want to race cars, I need to obtain my own money independently to upgrade my car into stock or modified-stock or racer class. If I want to play piano, I have to buy a piano with my own money. Why should families get special privileged money because they want to raise children? Why shouldn't they have to work and earn their own money? Why must I subsidize their personal lives? And why, now, must I also bear the additional burden of subsidizing gays?

In my opinion you shouldn't. But that should have nothing to do with whether gay people should be allowed to marry. If you really felt so strongly against subsidies, you could fight against subsidies while fighting for equal rights. Fighting for inequality in order to indirectly fight subsidies is misdirected.

I would rather pay my money for a piano than pay my money into taxes acting as a charity fund for gay people to buy pianos.

I find it a bit of a double standard that you don't seem to have so much of a problem subsidizing straight people. It's not like only straight people are capable of having children. Straight couples, straight singles, gay couples, and gay singles are all biologically capable of having children, and do in practice.

Re:No

[bluefoxlucid]

So let's say we live in a society where black people are discriminated against (e.g. taxes at 100%). Do you think a reasonable solution is to also start discriminating against chinese people

It's more like white people are taxed 20%, black people are taxed 50%, chinese people are taxed 50%, and we make black people pay 20% taxes. Well, now instead of paying 50/120 of every tax dollar collected, chinese people are paying 50/90. Thus we've raised the taxes on chinese people.

I find it a bit of a double standard that you don't seem to have so much of a problem subsidizing straight people.

And this is where you expose yourself as having the analytical mind of a goldfish, since you responded to the exact opposite assertion above.

The argument is simple: we've "corrected" inequality by being more equal to one group, and less equal to another. We're putting gays into an expanding privileged group, and making the other unprivileged group pay for that. (Everyone else is paying for it, really, but the unprivileged are paying the most, proportionally)

That's exactly backwards. We're making a situation worse instead of better. We should make the situation better.

As far as technicalities go, by the way, people have always argued that gays have always had the right to get all the same protections under law by getting a "civil union". The entire dispute is over whether the legal structure is called by one word or two.

Re:No

[dgatwood]

The boss doesn't ask employees to leave. The employee just gets to work one day and find their desk on the front lawn.

You mean we get to keep the desk? If I had known that, I'd have gotten myself fired a long time ago!

Re:No

[TsuruchiBrian]

It's more like white people are taxed 20%, black people are taxed 50%, chinese people are taxed 50%, and we make black people pay 20% taxes. Well, now instead of paying 50/120 of every tax dollar collected, chinese people are paying 50/90. Thus we've raised the taxes on chinese people.

Even if you feel this is a more accurate analogy, why support any inequality at all? (even if it helps some other discriminated class)

And this is where you expose yourself as having the analytical mind of a goldfish, since you responded to the exact opposite assertion above.

Or you just don't understand what I'm saying

The argument is simple: we've "corrected" inequality by being more equal to one group, and less equal to another. We're putting gays into an expanding privileged group, and making the other unprivileged group pay for that. (Everyone else is paying for it, really, but the unprivileged are paying the most, proportionally)

So why not remove privileged groups entirely rather than just making them smaller by unfairly disqualifying one particular group?

That's exactly backwards. We're making a situation worse instead of better. We should make the situation better.

We should make things better not worse? I agree with that. I don't see how making it so gay people can't get married achieves that more than making it so black people can't get married.

As far as technicalities go, by the way, people have always argued that gays have always had the right to get all the same protections under law by getting a "civil union". The entire dispute is over whether the legal structure is called by one word or two.

Civil unions are defined differently by each state. In many, if not most or all, states civil unions only offer some of the same legal rights as marriage not all of them. The fact that they are different titles leaves the door open for there to be differences, in the same way that having separate drinking fountains leaves the door open for them to be different.

If I were to try to say black people were not human, but rather "humanoid", and promised that "humanoids" would have all the same rights and protections as traditional humans, should black people be OK with this?

Re:No

[sjames]

Not at all. I'm pointing out what happens in real life. That is the IBM firing ritual (and no, I don't approve of it).

Re:No

[sjames]

Since I'm not gay, none relevant to this discussion. If I were gay and living in Ca, the right of association had prop 8 gone through.

Re:No

[lgw]

I see you aren't interested in actually discussing this. I can differentiate political speech outside the workplace and behavior inside the workplace. Why can't you?

Re:No

[bluefoxlucid]

Maybe black people are humanoid. Homo sapiens negroid, instead of homo sapiens caucasoid. It's like canus lupus versus canus lupus familiaris. I'm not sure how that's relevant to a society.

I just realized the repeat argument you're making is also a false equivalence: you're comparing what people are (black, white) with how people behave (heterosexual, homosexual). NAMBLA argues for pedophile rights; I haven't seen a rights movement for horse fuckers, but I could theorize one.

Also you take a default favorable position: society has decided that blacks get rights. At the time, this was controversial. We also have animal rights movements, which are whacko: they're food and we kill them, but there are people who demand we make it illegal to murder animals. In some countries, it's illegal to murder cows for roughly the same reason it's illegal to murder blacks here. Elephants, as well, in societies which believe elephants are of sapient-level intelligence and thus have the rights of people.

You also seem to argue that the rights gap created by marriage itself is wrong. Therefor, we should not be allowing people to get married. At all. Legalizing gay marriage is, in your own broken analogy, like legalizing blacks to murder other blacks in the 1920s: whites had the right to hang blacks at will, so making it okay for blacks to hang other blacks would make their rights equal.

Re:No

[mrchaotica]

Grant the presumption that a church marriage constitutes a civil union for legal purposes.

Or better yet, don't.

The most appropriate thing for the government to say, Constitutionally speaking, is something like "Oh, you had some sort of religious ceremony? That's fine, but it's completely irrelevant."

Re:No

[lgw]

Why is the church involved here? Did someone ask the pope to step down?

Seriously, it's the eHarmony verdict. Maybe you don't know that one? eHarmony is a somewhat-religious online dating service that only does hetreo matchups. They claim the highest marriage rate of any online service. They were sued to force them to do same-sex matchups. The CEO said basically "look, our service isn't a scam, we have real knowhow here around how we do matchups, and we have nothing to contribute for same-sex matchups". But they were forced to provide such a service anyhow. And of course no one used it, not even the person who started the lawsuit. It was just a culture war.

The religious right took this to heart. "We can now be compelled by the state against our conscience or even ability to perform services for gays that we perform for church members." Churches that don't marry gays are (IMO legitimately) worried about being forced by law to do so.

The other concern on the right, which the left doesn't seem to grok, is that "we have this proven system for transmitting culture to future generations, and a way of rewarding socially people who comply with that". They see gay marriage as stripping the incentive to do it right. As a conservative engineer I take their point: I distrust unproven new systems even though I can't see any problems with them on paper. But IMO anything that results in children raised by committed couples is a good thing, so hopefully it all works out that way.

Re:No

[bhiestand]

My boss? A mere difference of opinion is fine as long as we can be adult about it. If he has publicly called for me and people like me to be stripped of rights and made second class citizens AND put his personal money into helping to make that happen, anyone with half a brain should be able to figure out that there's a high potential for a problem there.

Maybe I'm missing something, but my understanding is that he did not publicly call for anything. He privately donated money to campaigns (which I despise), but TFA and this thread make no mention of any other activity.

I have worked for extremely conservative organizations while donating to the ACLU, FSF, Planned Parenthood, Courage Campaign, and many others. Should they have had the right to fire me if those donations became public knowledge?

Re:No

[TsuruchiBrian]

I just realized the repeat argument you're making is also a false equivalence: you're comparing what people are (black, white) with how people behave (heterosexual, homosexual). NAMBLA argues for pedophile rights; I haven't seen a rights movement for horse fuckers, but I could theorize one.

Being homosexual is not just how you behave. It is who you are attracted to (something not under ones control). I didn't decide to be attracted to women. I don't know if people are born that way, but I am pretty sure it is not under people's control either way.

And yes I do think pedophiles should have rights too. They shouldn't have the right to marry or molest kids (because they are minors and under the age of consent). And I think we definitely need to prevent them from exercising their preferences as it harms other people. For the same reason that people are not allowed to marry people against their will. Gay adults who get married are both willing participants and legally able to consent and enter into a contract and no one is harmed. I think it is much more fair to equate gay marriage with straight marriage than with pedophilia or child marriage.

Also you take a default favorable position: society has decided that blacks get rights. At the time, this was controversial. We also have animal rights movements, which are whacko: they're food and we kill them, but there are people who demand we make it illegal to murder animals. In some countries, it's illegal to murder cows for roughly the same reason it's illegal to murder blacks here. Elephants, as well, in societies which believe elephants are of sapient-level intelligence and thus have the rights of people.

I agree that animals aren't entitled to the same rights because they are not people. Even someone from the past who doesn't believe blacks are people would probably agree with me that all people deserve the same rights, we just disagree on whether certain things count as people. Are you really taking the position that gays are not real people? Or are you taking the position that not all people deserve equal rights? My position is that all people deserve equal rights under the law and that gays are people and animals are not.

You also seem to argue that the rights gap created by marriage itself is wrong. Therefor, we should not be allowing people to get married. At all.

I agree that the definitely rights gap created by marriage itself is wrong (and I just got married). And I support removing the government sanction from marriage. I don't mind if people conduct their own private marriage ceremonies.

Legalizing gay marriage is, in your own broken analogy, like legalizing blacks to murder other blacks in the 1920s: whites had the right to hang blacks at will, so making it okay for blacks to hang other blacks would make their rights equal

Obviously not. Whites having the right to life and blacks not having this right is clearly not equal, especially considering that being black or white is not a choice.

I support having equal rights for everybody. Prop 8 is a law *making* it illegal for gays to marry. I don't support government endorsed marriage. This doesn't mean that Prop 8 is a good step in that direction. If I wanted to make marijuana legal, making it only legal for white people is not a good step in that direction because it both violates the constitution's equal protection clause and I also find it morally reprehensible. I would rather marijuana be illegal for everyone than to have it be only legal to a particular group (even though I support marijuana legalization).

Being married is a choice. While I dislike the idea of married people being in a privileged class above single people, it's not as if people have no control over whether they are married or single. People really do not have a choice over whether their own sexual preference. So I would list my priorities this way.

Re:No

[AdamWill]

It has been pointed out in other sub-threads, but not this one: this is not a question of personal beliefs, but financial support of active legal discrimination.

"I think it's wrong for two people of the same sex to get married" is a personal belief.
Contributing to a campaign to pass a law to have that belief enforced by the state is not a personal belief.

Re:No

[bluefoxlucid]

I try to argue against institutions I oppose rather than arguing for the broadening of those institutions.

Re:No

[almitydave]

... I automatically should've been equally "tolerant" of (that is, refrain from objecting to) the actions of the bigots...

Not refrain from objecting to his actions, refrain from objecting to his being a CEO of a tech company. All these objections about his views and how they relate to his qualification as CEO would be completely valid if he were a CEO of an organization that advocated for gay rights, but there's nothing inherent in what Mozilla does that necessitates a different viewpoint. It's like saying "someone who believes in Palestinian statehood shouldn't be CEO of a tech company that employs Jews" or "someone who opposes abortion shouldn't be CEO of a tech company that employs women who may have had an abortion." My point is it's not relevant.

They deserve the same rights & respect that I have simply by default -- including being able to go to work without having a leader that tried to make them second-class citizens.

It should be obvious to everyone that the supporters of Prop 8 don't see it this way, because they don't see "gay marriage" as the same thing as "marriage". They don't recognize it as a form of an existing right, but a different and newly claimed right, that the state shouldn't recognize due to the nature of marriage and the state's role in protecting and promoting that institution. The crux of the issue is whether it's a right or not, and the side advocating for it hasn't demonstrated to the other side why it is. People that supported Prop 8 aren't necessarily bigots, homophobes, or any of the nasty labels that get tossed around so much (although I'm sure many of them were).

For an analogy to interracial marriage: if you believe it's bad because members of race X are inherently of less worth, then you're racist. If you believe it's bad because for some other reason it would be detrimental to society, you aren't necessarily racist. In the case of interracial marriage, though, there's nothing about race that's relevant to the institution, even as it was practiced in segregated regions. Sex, however, is relevant to marriage; this is why I think the comparisons to the civil rights crusade of the '60s are not apt - serious opponents of Prop 8 aren't really claiming that gay people are "less human." I'm a little too young to have been around during the civil rights era, though, so if anyone knows of arguments made during that time that are more applicable I'm open to correction.

(Wanting to do it, or believing it should be the case, is one thing; actively trying to make it happen seems a whole lot more hostile.)

It shouldn't seem more hostile - if someone has an opinion on how some aspect of society should function, I expect them to advocate publicly for that position, be they the Klan, neo-Nazis, NAMBLA, Christians, the "gay lobby", or anyone else. It's not somehow "worse" for someone to try to enact the social changes they think should be made.

Re:No

[TsuruchiBrian]

So if a bill came up banning marriage for black people, would you support it? It does shrink the institution of marriage.

Re:No

[bluefoxlucid]

Hold on. I'm immediately considering this. It would be amusing to see the fall-out, but I can't imagine a realistic scenario leading to this eventuality. If I were to bring up a bill banning blacks from marrying, I would probably promote it loudly en farce: I'd talk a lot about how blacks are being afforded large gains in society by taking advantage of marriage benefits to redistribute money from white families to black families, an abhorrent socialist practice. I think I could create some serious ripples in public debate, since the counter-arguments would all bring rebuttals which are fully logical and yet sharply critical of the institution of marriage in general.

But no real politician would pull a bill out like this with that kind of strategy. They all push legislation in earnest, while arguing dishonestly; they don't push legislation simply to create public attention that they can expand from to highlight a different issue.

Re:No

[TsuruchiBrian]

I don't think any politician in the current US climate would push this, and I'm not asking you if you would support it disingenuously. But if you had the power to take away the right of blacks to marry, and this was not going to affect of other races to marry, would you do it? Or is destroying marriage one piece at a time more important than fairness to people of different colors for you?

Re:No

[TsuruchiBrian]

In the very same text you cited...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Furthermore, the thing about "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" has no bearing on being entitled to a job at a private (i.e. not affiliated with any government) company. Nor does it obligate anyone to respect your idiotic religious beliefs. It just means that congress (and the states due to Gitlow v. New York) can't pass a law discriminating based on religion.

It may actually be illegal to fire or not hire people based on their retarded religious beliefs, but it's because of anti-discrimination laws, not because of the 1st amendment or anything else in the constitution.

The only thing in the first amendment that is relevant to this discussion is that it affirms my right to accuse people of having retarded religious views, and for those people to say whatever they want in defense and accuse me of whatever they want.

Re:No

[sjames]

You can't seem to distinguish an opinion vs an actual attempt to enshrine that opinion in law.

Since it's easier to see, do you think it would be unacceptable to ask him to step down if he contributed to a KKK bill to revoke the right for black people to marry?

Re:No

[sjames]

Did you have direct authority over people who would have reason to believe that those donations indicated your personal prejudice against them?

Re:No

[sjames]

For the record, I do not support the eHarmony decision on the grounds that sexual orientation of the customer directly impacted their provision of service. That is, they would have to do more than simply not being bigots to provide the service.

Nevertheless, it is notable that eHarmony is not a church. They cited no religious reasons for objection.

I doubt very much any prosecutor anywhere would touch the prosecution of a minister for not violating the beliefs of his church with a 10 foot pole. (at least in the case of a mainstream religion)

Re:No

[devent]

I agree fully. I was just commenting on the current news and that some people here on Slashdot take offense that the employees of Mozilla have asked Eich to step down.

Re:No

[lgw]

Well, we'll see how the Hobby Lobby case goes. Hopefully that will provide some reassurance.

Re:No

[lgw]

Yes, yes I do consider that unacceptable. Free political speech is really quite important to me, and you can't have it if people are targeted for retaliation (even if not by the government) for their political expression. Because nothing is different between that and the early civil right supporters aside from our opinions on whether they were correct in their beliefs. If we don't have true freedom of quite objectionable political speech, we don't have democracy.

Re:No

[sjames]

So what about other people's right to express their view on his political opinion? It's not like they had any actual power to fire him. Why don't you support THEIR right to free speech?

Re:No

[TsuruchiBrian]

Beyond that, one word cannot have two different meanings.

Clearly you have never looked through a dictionary. If you had, you'd see that most words actually have several definitions.

Trying to have marriage mean two different things as any scientist will tell you is simply stupid and selfish.

If you knew anything about science, you'd know that science does not have any bearing on marriage nor etymology.

Re:No

[sergueyz]

Because right now it seems that gay people are in greater mental risk than normal people. pubmed.

Given that homosexuality is related to prenatal stress (pbmed and see this for more links and information), it is not astonishing at all.

This is same discrimination as applied by insurance companies.

Re:No

[TsuruchiBrian]

I was referring to discrimination against gay people by the government. Even if this one study turns out to be true, a higher incidence of mental health problems in a group is not a reasonable reason to ban marriage for that group. You could test levels of mental illness in different races and I guarantee there will be differences. This does not mean we should ban marriage or any other rights to groups that score lower.

The fact that insurance companies use these sorts of statistics to determine insurance premiums, is not comparable to discrimination when it comes from the government, and when it affects your rights as a citizen.

Re:No

[sergueyz]

Ah, I see.

I think that marriage is a bond between man and women just by definition of it. So I see at least one reason to ban marriage between gay people.

Call it differently, I (and many others) will have no reason to oppose. Like, for example, civil union. E.g., marriage assumes civil union, but civil union can be between gay people, triples, teams of eight and so on.

As there is mostly heterosexual couples in the world, I think we have very valid reason to call this very common case of civil union by using special term. Let's use the term marriage. I think that provides you with the reason to stick with this term for this specific case and other terms for other cases.

Government discriminates people from top to bottom for various reasons, from age to the gender, to the wealth to the height. I do not see the reason to discriminate gay people in their discrimination by government.

Re:No

[TsuruchiBrian]

I think that marriage is a bond between man and women just by definition of it. So I see at least one reason to ban marriage between gay people.

And you are free to think that. However, it is actually unconstitutional for the legal definition of marriage to apply differently to different people. The 14th amendment's equal protection clause does not allow the government to give different groups of people different rights.

Call it differently, I (and many others) will have no reason to oppose. Like, for example, civil union. E.g., marriage assumes civil union, but civil union can be between gay people, triples, teams of eight and so on.

This is the same argument made for "separate but equal" during the times when we had Jim Crow laws in this country. It became very apparent that when things are separate, it can be almost taken for granted that they will not be equal. And in practice, now where states provide civil unions (each defining their own rules), there are differences between marriage and civil union.

As there is mostly heterosexual couples in the world, I think we have very valid reason to call this very common case of civil union by using special term. Let's use the term marriage. I think that provides you with the reason to stick with this term for this specific case and other terms for other cases.

Most marriages are not mixed race either. Maybe we should have a special legal term for mixed race marriages. Maybe we should have a special term for marriages between blind people. Maybe we should have a special term for marriages between atheists. The only reason I have ever heard that people wanted seek a special term for marriage between homosexuals, is because they feel this type of "marriage" is somehow less than a marriage between a man and a woman, and they don't want this type of inferior relationship to pollute the term they use for their own marriage. This same argument could be made in the same way for marriages between people of other races. It is your right to feel this way, but it is not something that a nation with a guarantee of equal protection under the law can foster in good conscience.

Government discriminates people from top to bottom for various reasons, from age to the gender, to the wealth to the height. I do not see the reason to discriminate gay people in their discrimination by government.

So by this logic, do you think it would be ok to ban marriage for black people? After all, the government discriminates against lots of different groups based on age, wealth and height, it is only fair that black people are also discriminated against.

Re:No

[sergueyz]

I would like to see that constitution, actually.

I think you are mistaken.

If we define marriage as a bond between man and weterosexual guys are no more legible to enter marriage than homosexual guys. So there is no discrimination at all.

So by this logic, do you think it would be ok to ban marriage for black people?

I, for example, cannot work for CIA. I am Russian. I am OK with that, even understanding that such work would create many opportunities for me. But to drive my point, I'd like to ask you to stop your jihad on ban to gay marriage and fight for my right to work as the top officer of CIA and NSA.

Please, I beg you!

Re:No

[TsuruchiBrian]

I would like to see that constitution, actually.
I think you are mistaken.

It is the 14th amendment is the part of the constitution that guarantees equal protection under the law, and a series of supreme court rulings decided that the bill of rights is also enforceable on the states.

DOMA has been deemed unconstitutional, effectively banning the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman at the federal level.

The last step (which may take a few years) is for the supreme court to declare state bans on same sex marriage unconstitutional (most obviously because it violates the 14th amendment, but it probably violates other sections as well).

If we define marriage as a bond between man and weterosexual guys are no more legible to enter marriage than homosexual guys. So there is no discrimination at all.

And if we define marriage as between people of the same race, you could say that there is no discrimination because white people are no more eligible to enter marriage as black people, they just need to marry their own kind. This is a very narrow view of discrimination. For one thing this is still discriminatory because it makes it so that a white person can marry another white person, but a black person can not. This is discrimination based on race. By the same token, a ban on gay marriage is a form of gender discrimination. It makes it so that a woman has the right to marry a man, but a man does not.

I, for example, cannot work for CIA. I am Russian. I am OK with that, even understanding that such work would create many opportunities for me. But to drive my point, I'd like to ask you to stop your jihad on ban to gay marriage and fight for my right to work as the top officer of CIA and NSA.

You actually can work for the CIA and NSA if you become a US citizen and get a security clearance.

And I would like to reiterate my question of whether you think it is ok to ban marriage between black people? If not, why not?

Re:No

[bhiestand]

Did you have direct authority over people who would have reason to believe that those donations indicated your personal prejudice against them?

At some, I had direct authority over people. And those progressive organizations were in pretty strong legal+ethical conflict with the organizations I have worked for.

Some of the people I directly supervised were extremely conservative... they would likely [wrongly] consider my funding of Prop 8 opposition a direct attack on their religious freedom. I know my moral stance is the right one, but I am glad we had a culture of "what you do in your off hours is fine as long as you don't involve our organization"

Re:No

[jwhitener]

Many of those employment discrimination laws are based on what society considers to be legitimate factors (race, religion, etc..).

No matter if a belief is based in religion, if it is bigoted, or racist, or illegal, it would not be covered under employment discrimination laws.

I can certainly decide not to hire someone if they are a card carrying member of the KKK, and face no legal challenges. The question here, is whether history will decide that being against marriage equality was bigotry or not. I suspect that history books will look back at this period of time and label people against equal treatment as no different than the people who opposed black/white marriages.

Re:No

[bill_mcgonigle]

Which is, in actuality, entirely compatible with Prop 8, which had nothing to do with the act of getting married but with whether the state would recognize that marriage and consequently grant special privileges because of it (such as beneficial tax rates).

But that's actually a well-discussed libertarian strategy - the gay rights folks are excellent political activists and if they were denied marriage flatly by the State then they may see their way clear to end State-regulated marriage. The Poly activists are expecially interested in this approach because they think they are far too small a minority to ever have their rights respected.

I'm neither agreeing with it nor disagreeing with it, nor suggesting we have any idea what Eich was thinking.

Re:No

[sjames]

Possibly so, but if so, it is a rather unethical approach.

Personally, I believe the state's only place in the matter is an obligation to recognize any sort of union that would affect inheritance (particularly if someone dies intestate) next of kin for medical purposes, etc.

Re:No

[uninformedLuddite]

Like remember when the world blacklisted apartheid South Africa and its supporters? That was terrible wasn't it?

If you take into account that SA got a murderous criminal terrorist leader as its reward then yes.

Re:No

[uninformedLuddite]

Yes on both counts. It is not a troll. Do some research.

No....

[the eric conspiracy]

Not sure about private beliefs being enough reason but that whole Javascript thing?

Hell YES.

That has inflicted more pain on the web than anything else INCLUDING the BLINK tag!

Re:No....

[Lazere]

Woah there sparky. We all know Javascript is bad, but comparing it to the blink tag? That's just offensive.

Re:No....

[Krishnoid]

I believe there's pretty much a single person who has the "right" to cast a stone in this whole situation.

Re:No....

[Raseri]

Ok, but what does that have to do with JavaScript?

Re:No....

[ericloewe]

Blink is pretty bad. Blink plus marquee is nightmare fuel.

Re:No....

[steelfood]

Ok... how about... the marquee tag!

Re:No....

[l0ungeb0y]

That has inflicted more pain on the web than anything else INCLUDING the BLINK tag!

Well considering just about every site out there uses JS in their UI and an increasing number are using Javascript for the back-end as well, why do you still come around to the Interweb of Pain?

Re:No....

[shutdown -p now]

JS is a superset of the blink tag. In fact, unlike blink, JS still works in all modern browsers to achieve the same effect.

So, GP is spot on.

Re:No....

[Darinbob]

True, we should not have been so quick to insult the blink tag.

Re:No....

[Phroggy]

After Firefox dropped support for the blink style, I implemented a workaround in JavaScript. It's not as elegant as I'd like, but it's functional.

Re:No....

[bluefoxlucid]

Yeah but that guy is a known functional retard. He espouses that it is harmful for you to partake of certain services if the service provider doesn't offer certain other services. Like it's harmful for you to use online banking if they don't give you the source code to their Web server--not because it may have security flaws or anything, but because you're using something that's "not free".

It's like saying I should shut off my water service because the state doesn't give me a pump I can install in my house.

Tarzan need antecedent

[Millennium]

What do you mean by "that"? Whose comments are you talking about?

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[Mitchell314]

When he said Pluto wasn't a real planet. Some countries put you to death for that shit.

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[pixelpusher220]

Pretty sure AC means the Tweets from the rank and file saying the new boss should to step down. It's fair to expect some blowback for that, but the new boss also needs to understand if he's toxic to the people who will be making him succeed or fail as well.

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[epyT-R]

or maybe those people need to grow spines and realize that work is not the same thing as a party, where they get to choose who they associate with. As long as he treats them no differently than other employees, the problem lies squarely with the complainers.

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[epyT-R]

Take what shit? He hasn't mistreated them. He hasn't even had the opportunity to do so yet. I guarantee that there are people you are working with right now that have made personal decisions that you would not agree with. That's not oppression.

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[terbeaux]

His presence negatively affects public perception of the business. If they were publicly traded then the share holders could vote him out based on that alone. Bigots are bad for business image.

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[pixelpusher220]

Nobody said it was oppression, they are freely speaking their minds. Nothing wrong with it at all. Both sides should probably expect holding and expressing their views may have unintended consequences, but nobody is remotely claiming they are being oppressed.

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[ultranova]

or maybe those people need to grow spines and realize that work is not the same thing as a party, where they get to choose who they associate with.

And maybe that says a lot about how (in)compatible the concept of employment in its current form - obey your master or starve - is with the concept of free society. "Know your place, shut your face" exposes the corporate structure as what it really is: a vestige of the age of dictators owning their dominion and ruling it by divine right. It needs to be torn down and rebuilt in the form of modern democracy, both for moral reasons and because its inherent inefficiency, irrationality and instability are the ultimate reason for our current economic troubles.

Hierarchical model of masters and servants has been discredited long ago. Even in corporate world it's those who don't think in terms of underlings and bosses but partners who receive the fullest share of people's abilities. Sadly, the sheer amount of people with a pathological fixation on wielding power over others to back their "alpha (fe)male" status keeps the market from competing them out of business, so it'll take a legal reform to fix the problem.

But fix it we must. As the world moves from Industrial Age to Information Age, an economy that treats people as a machines who's qualities superfluous to their current task must be suppressed or at least hidden is going to be hopelessly outmatched by any who don't. And an organization that doesn't listen to its rank and file when choosing its leader doesn't deserve to - and in the economy to come, won't for long - exist.

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[HatofPig]

Hierarchical model of masters and servants has been discredited long ago.

Nice switcheroo. Organizing people hierarchically is not a discredited notion. Having masters and servents is. In real life,we play pre-defined roles in larger groups and even dress differently depending on what our role is. That's how civilization functions. Your boss doesn't legally own you, and have full control over your person 24/7.

We can have creativity, expression, and mutal respect within hiearchies, and often with them we can rise or fall within organizing structure. This is Slashdot, aren't you familier with computer programming? Structures matter, hierarchies are as elemental to structures as hydrogen is to chemistry. If they weren't hippies would rule the world.

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[shutdown -p now]

In US, a CEO being publicly atheist will very likely affect the public perception of the business negatively. Does that make it a valid concern? Should it be? I don't think so. As a CEO, he is hired to do a specific job, and his private political views have nothing to do with that job. It would be a different matter if he was giving public speeches or otherwise trying to associate his name with the anti-gay-marriage cause, but as it is, all that is there is a donation that is only public because the law requires it to be, and he didn't advertise it in any way. This makes it a very different situation from, say, Orson Scott Card.

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[Pseudonym]

To be fair, it didn't work. So it's only attempted oppression.

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[FrozenGeek]

No, his presence negatively affects some people's perceptions of the business but it probably has a positive affect on others. No idea how it balances out.

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[FrozenGeek]

Further, if the shareholders want to turf him, then they reasonably need to turf everyone involved in hiring him as those folks knew, or should have known, about his support of the proposition.

Re: Tarzan need antecedent

[crdotson]

Well, except that you couldn't just find another dictator and quit your previous dictator. Otherwise, exactly the same.

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[sumdumass]

That doesn't show he treated anyone differently. It only shows he gave money to a cause.

In order for anyone to treat anyone or any thing, they have tl do something specific to them/it. He has done nothing to anyone in his capacity of employmeny differently

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[Jane Q. Public]

This.

Above all, I think they need to remember they are employees.

Eich's beliefs mean nothing, as long as he doesn't practice them at work. Just as the employee's sexual orientation means nothing, as long as he doesn't practice it at work.

A lot of people today need to pull their noses out of everybody else's asses, and everybody else's business, and start living their own lives for a change.

And yes, if an employee of mine made public comments about not wanting me as CEO because of my politics, I would show him the door in an instant. He could take his stuff home with him right then, and not come back... just wait to get his final paycheck in the mail.

That's not discrimination... that's just low tolerance for bullshit. It has nothing to do with the employee's own politics. Only with the fact that he was objecting -- publicly -- ABOUT his boss's politics, whatever they happen to be.

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[Jane Q. Public]

"Hierarchical model of masters and servants has been discredited long ago... an economy that treats people as a machines who's qualities superfluous to their current task must be suppressed or at least hidden is going to be hopelessly outmatched by any who don't."

As long as you live in an economy of scarcity that's the way it's going to be. Change that to an economy of abundance, and THEN everything changes. If you can figure out a way to do that, more power to you. But fantasizing about it probably isn't helping.

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[noh8rz10]

who is this guy? what does he believe? why is it bad? who did he donate to? I have zero information. you call him a bigot buy whyy?

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[rtb61]

So your saying victims or prejudice should just suck it up and not complain because those who exercise prejudice and attempt to force their preferences upon others through law and distortion of democracy via money have a right to tell them to STFU bend over and take it. I thought that bending over and taking was the problem in the first place.

Right to strike, its fair and reasonable, right to strike for political and social reasons, somehow trickier. Lets see, the ceo uses his income to impact and attempt to control the lives of others to force them to adhere to his preferences, those who share his workplace and are the victims of those machination do not want to support his income opportunities to attack them. It would seem the right to strike for political and social reasons is very much down to the political and social reason. In this case it would seem reasonable. He is using his income role to attack them and they are using their income role to defend against that attack, whether or not they the engage in the specifically attacked behaviours, they find that kind of attack threatening.

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[Darinbob]

It's a "community". Traditionally that means everyone is a member of it, whether you like them or not. Ok, traditionally that also means that there are occasionally pograms to get rid of some you don't like, but generally speaking most communities have grown beyond that instead of demanding that all their neighbors and colleagues have purity of thought. Except maybe in some countries that were formed by drawing lines on a map after WWI that later disintegrated. But often people have learned to work together towards common goa... Oh forget it, I'm kidding nobody but myself.

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[Darinbob]

It's short sighted ultimately to think that you can demand your boss match your political and religious views. Because the same can happen the other way even more easily, the boss can demand that employees have a particular mindset as well, lay people off for being in the wrong party or being raised in the wrong religion, etc.

It's short sighted to demand political correctness because it never lasts and will only come back to bite people over time. As soon at one mental litmus test becomes accepted it opens the door for other litmus tests.

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[Anonymous Coward]

That is a big leap in logic though. Knowing only that someone donated to prop 8 and nothing else really does not say much about whether or not they are bigoted. There were many gay people who were on the fence over the issue, others who wanted to just separate civil union from religious marriage and so forth.

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[phantomfive]

Apparently he supported Proposition 8, which limited gay marriage.

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[Darinbob]

You're arguing about a dictatorial hierarchy which is not the issue you were responding to. This CEO has not proven to be overbearing yet and has not said "know your place or shut up". It's a job, you make a product, you work together with your coworkers no matter what their political views are even if they're the CEO. Nothing about that hinted at hierarchy. If you think hierarchy is bad then yes it can be fixed, but it's not fixed by demanding that CEOs step down because they aren't politically correct, you could end up with a replacement that votes in the twitter-approved way but who is domineering and a task master and enforces the hierarchy stringently.

Re: Tarzan need antecedent

[VTBlue]

I think the outrage becomes slightly more relevant because Mozilla is a non-profit organization. There are a whole host of "values" that color the perceptions of organizational donors, supporters, and employees. The last few years, political activism in the tech world on social issues has increased a lot. A decade ago, this CEO would not have faced much scrutiny, but today organizational leaders face numerous litmus tests both from the left and right, especially if the organization is non-profit. It speaks to the polarization in our politics, because the issue of gay marriage has nothing to do with the mission of Mozilla Foundation.

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[hairyfeet]

Would you say the same if he had given money to a group that supports the return of Jim Crow? What about if he gave to one of the groups that promote holocaust denial?

Hate is hate and bigots are bigots and to me this smells of "acceptable targets" and "protected classes". If it is fine to give to groups that deny rights to gays it should be equally accepted to give money to those against rights for jews and blacks,if you support one but not the other then I'm afraid you are a hypocrite.

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this falls into the same category as the old saying, "If you owe the bank $100 that's your problem. If you owe the bank $100 million, that's the bank's problem."

If one employee is mouthing off about his politics, he can show him the door. If a sizable percentage of the employees are calling for him to resign, that strategy doesn't really work. The market for software developers is ridiculous right now. An ex-Firefox developer who left as a result of ideological reasons would have job offers before he'd cleaned out his desk.

Also, a CEO is still beholden to his board. And if his beliefs are so odious that his being CEO causes employees to leave, the project to be forked and people who believe strongly in the issue to boycott the product, the board will likely cave and get rid of him. Like it or not, many CEO positions are very political and beliefs are very relative in a political context.

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[Aryden]

Though I do not entirely disagree, one also has to consider what happens when he is faced with making a choice, does he side with his personal beliefs or.....

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[Sudline]

That is mainly this polemic that creates a negative feeling. Nobody care about what donation someone has made.

Re: Tarzan need antecedent

[loufoque]

Most of them are open-source hippies ill-suited for working in an enterprise environment.

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[SuricouRaven]

Not legally, no. But for many people, they might as well. No job can mean no house, and in the US it can mean loss of health insurance too - and with such high unemployment, for many professions workers are easily replaced. So better do whatever the boss asks.

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[SuricouRaven]

Which prohibited gay marriage. Specifically it put a legal definition of marriage in the state constitution which defined marriage as one-man-one-woman. It also prohibited the government from recognising any relationship 'substantially similar' to marriage to make sure no-one could recognise civil unions for same-sex couples.

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[DrXym]

Freely speaking your mind about your boss on Twitter will get your ass fired in a lot of companies.

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[phantomfive]

I'm not sure where that 'substantially similar' idea is coming from. I can't find a reference to it anywhere. (though to be honest I really don't care about prop 8 anymore)

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[Dave Emami]

Would you say the same if he had given money to a group that supports the return of Jim Crow? What about if he gave to one of the groups that promote holocaust denial?

Well, I've worked with someone who denies the Holodomor (the Ukraine famine) and Stalin's other mass-murders, which are on par with the Holocaust. I would never have dreamed of suggesting he be fired for his views, and would have vocally defended him if someone else did -- and I'm about as anti-Communist as you can get.

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[hairyfeet]

There is a difference between saying something and putting your money where your mouth is and spending your money to try to push an agenda. A more pat comparison would be if the person you worked with sent money to a group that pushed for denial of the Holodomor and the continued denial of rights to the survivors.

There is a BIG difference between having an opinion and trying to use the power of the state to force your beliefs on others. Personally I think the state should have ZERO interest in it one way or another, no tax breaks for married people, no advantages one way or another, but as long as the state makes one set of laws for married and one set for single then I don't see how anyone can say its anything but a civil rights issue.

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[TheRaven64]

Zero-information summary, but according to Wikipedia he donated $1000 to the campaign against California Prop 8 (to legalise gay marriage). The main controversy, as far as I can see, was that the donation had his employer's name attached in the public database. This is something of a concern for a potential CEO: I'd say that you're free to privately hold whatever idiotic opinions you want (as long as they don't impact your ability to run the company), but when you make pubic statements that are, implicitly or explicitly, tied to the company that you represent then you have to be a lot more careful.

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[TheRaven64]

Would you have been fine with it if he had donated money to a campaign to promote that belief? Probably, that comes under the heading of free speech. What about if that donation had had your company name attached? Maybe not so much, because that's linking you and your employer to that belief. What about if his job was to be the public face of the company (i.e. the CEO)? Maybe even less, because now the company (and, indirectly, you) are endorsing those beliefs.

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[Dave Emami]

Would you have been fine with it if he had donated money to a campaign to promote that belief?

I didn't say I was fine with his belief, I said that I wouldn't have wanted him to be fired because of it. Nor would I want him to be fired for donating to promote it.

What about if that donation had had your company name attached? Maybe not so much, because that's linking you and your employer to that belief. What about if his job was to be the public face of the company (i.e. the CEO)? Maybe even less, because now the company (and, indirectly, you) are endorsing those beliefs.

If he donated it in the company's name, that would be different, but to my understanding Eich made his donations in his own name, not in Mozilla's name. The contribution database merely notes that Mozilla was his employer at the time. So, for the equivalent question, if I were still at the same company as the coworker I mentioned, and he were promoted to CEO, I would not protest it. Nor would I protest if, as CEO, he continued to make such donations in his name. The important distinction is whether or not the views are being espoused by the person on his own, or by the company -- and I mean literally, officially in the company's name, not some vague "associated with the company because he works there in an important position" sort of thing.

Incidentally, I've been in the "leadership might do things I dislike" position, too. Back when I was part of the team of a startup whose CEO was a Scientologist, a coworker and I insisted that our contracts include clauses that the company not use "Hubbard Management Technology" (look it up, it's hilarious, sad, and offensive at the same time), and that if the company gave money to or bought anything from WISE (a Scientology business group) that it would have to make matching contributions to the EFF.

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[SuricouRaven]

On closer checking, Prop 8 didn't include that bit. It's a clause in similar amendments in several other states. Fifteen of them, of which five use the phrase 'substantially similar' or 'substantially equivilent.' There's a list on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[noh8rz10]

My understanding is it was a private db and somebody leaked the contents

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[mdragan]

I think you are turning the story on it's head. It is Brendan Eich who attempted to impose his own moral views on people that he had no connection with, other than the fact that they lived in the same state. So why would the people at Mozilla think he would be more considerate to them? Why would they trust him with power and responsability?

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[mdragan]

Eich's beliefs mean nothing

No, but his actions of agression, based on those beliefs, towards people who didn't do him any harm, kind of speak against his ability to lead.

And yes, if an employee of mine made public comments about not wanting me as CEO because of my politics, I would show him the door in an instant.

Good, do that, but remember that you are also just an employee and can get the boot just as well for firing people just because they don't like you or agree with you. If you can't take criticism, you will be either fired or left to rule over cowards.

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[jjn1056]

WTF how is this somehow modded insightful?

Its not a matter of 'demanding my boss' anything. And its not about 'political correctness' or whatever that means nowadays. Lots of shit in life is ambiguous and arbitrary. The trousers of time have many pant legs to fall down, and quite often they are all more or less equal. But there are occasions when history will take sides. And this guy is on the wrong side of history. My guess is the parent poster is as well.

I've traveled around the world and lived as the natives do in lots of places. As in Rome, yeah? But you can hide intollerance under 'all opinions are equal' crap. There is a difference between matters of opinion and matters of ethics.

In terms of what can I expect from a boss, well I would say Mozilla is not just some company, its a big part of an ethical movement around open source / free software and about empowering people with information and technology. Many, many people who are part of that movement share other similar values around notions of diversity and tolerance for difference. I personally do find it distressing that the CEO of this company clearly doesn't share all those values. However I'd be willing personally to find some common ground if possible, on the hopes of influencing him over time. But I can't expect that over everyone.

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[jjn1056]

Eich's beliefs mean nothing, as long as he doesn't practice them at work.

Generally I find that intolerant, bigoted people find ways to practice their intolerance and bigotry all the time. I've never met a KKK member that said "Hey I only wear the sheet at night! When I am at work its all, 'Kumbaya man!'".

Just as the employee's sexual orientation means nothing, as long as he doesn't practice it at work.

There's a big difference between a leader of a company with power, wealth and influence and a general employee. One has a megaphone that they can use to promote their ideology, the other doesn't. Even if they are careful to give the appearance of separation, ultimately that megaphone is there.

What if this guy was like a Nazi, would you say the same thing? My guess is, no you would not.

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[Eunuchswear]

Only with the fact that he was objecting -- publicly -- ABOUT his boss's politics, whatever they happen to be.

You seem to think you are the feudal lord rather than one signatory to a contract. Does the contract you signed with your employee say that he doesn't have the right to discuss your politics?

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[Richy_T]

Of course you should have a right to strike. And your employer should have the right to no longer require your services.

Re: Tarzan need antecedent

[donscarletti]

No, that's gun possession. In the "rest of the world" we still have plenty of country's that hang you for sodomy.

Anyway, if folks think fornicators should be flogged and those who practice fellacio and cunnilingus even in marriage should be imprisoned and a widower's marriage to his late wife's sister should be null and void, it is still a political matter. Just because you or I think something is incorrect or unimportant does not make it not an issue.

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[fche]

Luckily, Mozilla is not in the business of handing out marriage certificates, so the CEO's opinions on that narrow issue don't affect what the company does.

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[Jane Q. Public]

"No, but his actions of agression, based on those beliefs, towards people who didn't do him any harm, kind of speak against his ability to lead."

Many people would consider a public statement that your new CEO should step down constitutes "harm".

"Good, do that, but remember that you are also just an employee and can get the boot just as well for firing people just because they don't like you or agree with you. If you can't take criticism, you will be either fired or left to rule over cowards."

You don't get it. It isn't a matter of people not liking me or not agreeing with me. As I stated earlier: it's low tolerance for bullshit. Why should I tolerate an employee who berates me in public, for whatever reason? He's not a "whistleblower". He's not outing me for breaking the law or unethical business practices. So why should I put up with it?

I will put it a different way: if I were a Democrat (I'm not) and you were a Republican (I have no idea), would I -- should I -- tolerate you, as an employee, making a public statement that I should step down because of my politics?

Guess what? I'd let you go whether you thought I should be able to or not. It's just bad judgment. Why should I tolerate employees who display such bad judgment? Why should I tolerate employees who try to make me look bad in public, when I haven't done anything illegal? Etc. It just isn't going to happen.

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[Jane Q. Public]

"You seem to think you are the feudal lord rather than one signatory to a contract."

Making bad judgment calls is perfectly justifiable grounds for termination. Even in states that are pretty strict about such things.

Making loud public pronouncements about your company and your disagreements about how it works would be considered by many -- if not most -- companies to be very, very bad judgment. The guy isn't a whistleblower. He isn't outing a spy or a crook. He just made public statements about his boss's fitness for duty due to his private political views.

Yep. I'd shitcan him on the spot. He certainly has a right to an opinion, and he certainly has a right to free speech. But he doesn't have a "right" to work for me. That requires enough mutual respect to refrain from public soapboxing.

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[bhiestand]

Only with the fact that he was objecting -- publicly -- ABOUT his boss's politics, whatever they happen to be.

You seem to think you are the feudal lord rather than one signatory to a contract. Does the contract you signed with your employee say that he doesn't have the right to discuss your politics?

Really? I think you're misrepresenting the GP.

And yes, if an employee of mine made public comments about not wanting me as CEO because of my politics, I would show him the door in an instant.

While I wouldn't agree with instant/automatic firing, this is about bringing politics to your workplace. And that's fair. If I work 9-5, and at 5:01 start telling customers that my CEO should be fired because he's a pinko commie, I would expect to be told to find a new job. Employees publicly calling for their CEO's resignation because of their [legal] political activities are childish at best.

For the record, I also feel management should be fired if they attempt to fire employees for political activities during their off hours.

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[sumdumass]

Actually, he attempted to stop people from imposing their moral views on him. The morals were already engrained by law. The people trying to change the law are the one who took the action of imposing.

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[rtb61]

Employer has no rights (other than those of any other individual), the employer must operate within the regulations set by law, that is to balance the theft of ownership and their privilege of having access to workers in a shared human society. Employers who do not understand that, only have the right to a legal defence during prosecution and prior to imprisonment, when society no longer requires the employers services.

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[Eunuchswear]

If I work 9-5, and at 5:01 start telling customers that my CEO should be fired because he's a pinko commie, I would expect to be told to find a new job

I also feel management should be fired if they attempt to fire employees for political activities during their off hours.

Telling people that your CEO should be fired because he's a pink commie after 5:01 is political activities during their off hours.

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[Eunuchswear]

Yep. I'd shitcan him on the spot. He certainly has a right to an opinion, and he certainly has a right to free speech. But he doesn't have a "right" to work for me.

You don't have the right to break a contract except as allowed by law and the contract itself (and then only of the contract is legal).

Attempting to fire an employee for using his free speech rights outside company hours would get you in a shitload of trouble in my country.

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[bhiestand]

If I work 9-5, and at 5:01 start telling customers that my CEO should be fired because he's a pinko commie, I would expect to be told to find a new job

I also feel management should be fired if they attempt to fire employees for political activities during their off hours.

Telling people that your CEO should be fired because he's a pink commie after 5:01 is political activities during their off hours.

It's also a political activity, yes, but I think it goes well beyond that. I can't find the right words at the moment, but I'm sure you can see the difference. If the CEO was also the mayor, an employee running a campaign to defeat him in the election would be fine. The employee running a campaign to turn public support against the CEO in an effort to get him fired/pressured to step down? Not okay.

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[cas2000]

That's not discrimination... that's just low tolerance for bullshit. It has nothing to do with the employee's own politics. Only with the fact that he was objecting -- publicly -- ABOUT his boss's politics, whatever they happen to be.

yeah, uppity employees need to be put in their place! can't have them expressing opinions that their bosses don't like, especially in public. they need to learn to shut up and keep their heads down. it's just a shame that it's not legal to whip them any more, all you can do these days is fire them.

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[Jane Q. Public]

"You don't have the right to break a contract except as allowed by law and the contract itself (and then only of the contract is legal)."

In most states of the U.S., both employer and employee have the right to terminate the employment for any reason that does not violate civil rights laws, unless your contract says otherwise. That leaves a nearly infinite range of reasons. "I don't like the way you smile" is a perfectly legitimate and legal reason.

"Attempting to fire an employee for using his free speech rights outside company hours would get you in a shitload of trouble in my country."

In some circumstances it could in the U.S. too, but not most circumstances. Publicly denouncing your boss would usually be considered a valid reason for termination because it indicates a lack of the minimum mutual respect that would be necessary for comfortable working conditions.

Re:Tarzan need antecedent

[soccerisgod]

How would a law allowing same-sex couples to marry have had any effect on him? Such law would not have forced him to marry a man, would it? So what the hell are you drivelling on about?

First amendment only applies to our friends

[Just Some Guy]

First, I'm absolutely 100% against Prop 8. I'm not gay; I just don't think I should have a say in the relationship between two consenting adults.

That said, I'm absolutely 100% for Eich's right to have an opinion I disagree with. If he were acting on his opinion in an official capacity, sure, release the dogs of PR war. But if he maintains a nondiscriminatory policy, even if he may personally not like it, then that's about all you have the right to ask of him.

Remember, sometime it'll be our turn to have an unpopular opinion. Would it be OK for our companies to fire us for them, even if we don't bring them into our workplaces? That's not a society I'd like to live in.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[amicusNYCL]

No one is threatening to fire Eich. The employees disagree with his position and are asking him to step down. It is their right to do so. It is his right to choose not to do so. If he doesn't, it is their right to quit. No one's rights are being infringed upon in this particular situation. Employees disagree with his views towards gay marriage, and so they don't want to work for him. That sounds reasonable to me.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[Just Some Guy]

I agree. I was answering the question in the summary, "should private beliefs be enough to prevent someone from heading a project they helped found?"

Of course not. Unless those beliefs become workplace actions, they should not affect someone's employment.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[machineghost]

So what if that unpopular opinion was that blacks are dirty monkey people who are inferior to the glorious white man ... but he promises not to discriminate against anyone? Does he still have the "right" to run the company despite his "unpopular opinion"?

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[DaHat]

The employees disagree with his position and are asking him to step down. It is their right to do so.

They are also taking a great risk in doing so.

In some companies, what these employees are doing would be considered insubordination and could easily get them fired for cause... if Eich doesn't do so, he will demonstrate rather well that he is the bigger person.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[almitydave]

It doesn't sound reasonable to me. Do you agree with every political, philosophical, or religious opinion of all your superiors? Do you refuse to work for anyone who disagrees with you? Do you ask everyone above or below you in the hierarchy to step down if they hold an opinion you don't like?

I understand that gay marriage is a contentious issue right now, and it's far from settled (and probably won't ever be). People on every side of it need to extend toward their ideological opponents the same courtesies they expect themselves - that's how it has to work in a free and equitable society.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[Just Some Guy]

Yes, although he should anticipate being watched like a freaking hawk for any transgressions. According to The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:

Today, according to the U. S. Government Manual of 1998-99, the EEOC enforces laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age in hiring, promoting, firing, setting wages, testing, training, apprenticeship, and all other terms and conditions of employment. Race, color, sex, creed, and age are now protected classes.

Ironically, your straw man's right to be a racist prick is protected by the law. Note that he has no right to bring his prejudices into the workplace.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[Lazere]

Yes, he does. And you have the right not to work for or use any of the products of that company. As long as he isn't actually discriminating against anybody, no laws are being broken. I may not agree with the position, but it's not my business as long as he doesn't discriminate.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[amicusNYCL]

Do you agree with every political, philosophical, or religious opinion of all your superiors?

From what I've heard expressed, generally yes, I do.

Do you refuse to work for anyone who disagrees with you?

If it is an issue that is important enough to me, sure. For example, if I am interviewing with a company and I find out that the CEO is actively supporting a campaign to restrict the human rights of a large class of people, then that would be enough to get me to not want to enrich that person.

Do you ask everyone above or below you in the hierarchy to step down if they hold an opinion you don't like?

Just a simple difference in opinion? No, I wouldn't, but I don't think we're talking about a simple difference of opinion here.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[pixelpusher220]

Would it be OK for our companies to fire us for them, even if we don't bring them into our workplaces?

Perfectly legal in many places already. First Amendment applies to the government, not private employers.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[amicusNYCL]

Insubordination is willfully disobeying a superior. Assuming these people are still doing their jobs, asking the CEO to step down is not insubordination.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[hondo77]

Somehow... birth control (which was already widely available prior to Obamacare) is now a civil right to receive for free and from your employer.

No. A couple of businesses want to be exempted from part of a federal law because they claim their religion forbids it. Birth control being a civil right isn't even remotely the issue.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[TheGratefulNet]

they already fire us for views or ideas that the corpspeak gods don't like.

they ask us to pea in a bottle before they let us start a new job. this is mostly due to conservative views held by c-levels in such companies. its them forcing their views on us!

why can't we turn it around?

as soon as they stop invading our privacy, we could stop inquiring about theirs.

but as it stands right now, companies do 'background checks' at various levels and even credit history checks. they look all over your history for reasons to dismiss you or reject hiring you.

the c-levels should be held to the same standard, or even higher.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[Just Some Guy]

It could be argued, yes, but down that path lies madness: "my boss campaigned heavily for Obama. I don't believe he will treat me, an open Republican, fairly."

Again, I disagree with Eich. I'm am not defending his (to me) awful opinions. But I've known plenty of people with shitty opinions who nonetheless treated those around them with dignity and respect. If he acts on his beliefs, then it's time to react.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[Just Some Guy]

According to the EEOC, that's not even remotely OK, even for private employers.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[Just Some Guy]

I think it'll reach the same level of "settled" as interracial marriage. A few holdouts will still bitch about it or turn up their noses, but everyone else will wonder what the big deal was about and get on with their own lives.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[swillden]

I don't think we're talking about a simple difference of opinion here.

That's your opinion.

Okay, I'm being a little snarky, but, seriously, if it's not a difference of opinion what is it? We're talking about an issue about which the nation is pretty deeply divided, and it's not really a boolean question, either. There is a whole range of opinions. The implication of your statements is that you consider opposition to gay marriage such a hateful position that those who hold it must be bad people, with whom you cannot associate in any capacity, even if the association has nothing to do with that question. That means that you consider a majority of Americans to be said "bad people". Perhaps you should reconsider your various relationships with all of them? Perhaps you shouldn't be a resident of the United States (assuming you are) since the majority nationwide opposes gay marriage?

FWIW, I opposed prop 8 and think the fight against gay marriage is silly and doomed, because there's simply no justification for it under the 14th amendment. Personally, I'd rather just get government out of the business of recognizing marriage in any form, but if we're not going to do that there's no way to refuse homosexual marriage. Nor polygamy, for that matter.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[amicusNYCL]

Somehow... birth control (which was already widely available prior to Obamacare) is now a civil right to receive for free and from your employer.

First, there has been no decision on that case, only arguments. As to whether contraception is a civil rights issue, it sounds like that depends which gender you are. The female justices supported the right of employees to receive contraception through insurance, while the male justices were more skeptical.

Don't forget, just this week we had a case before the Supreme Court over the question over whether the government has the authority to compel private individuals to violate their religious beliefs and directly pay for medications which in their views (rightly or wrongly) cause abortions.

Based on how you phrased that, it is obvious where your own personal bias lies. So, allow me to point out that no, the government is not currently compelling employers to pay for medication. The corporation has the choice to not provide insurance for their employees, and instead pay the fine. The justices noted that this is their choice, and that in fact the fine is less than the cost of insurance.

You've called them "private individuals", but that is not correct. The owners of the company have no requirement to provide insurance. The actual company as a legal entity does. One of the justices rightly asked the question of how the religion of a company can be determined.

They also pointed to the case of an Amish farmer suing the government because he did not want to pay social security taxes for his employees, because paying taxes violated his religious beliefs. He did not win that case. Religious beliefs do not trump everything else. I can start a religion that believes that black people should be eradicated from the planet, but that does not give me the right to murder people. A person who owns a corporation is free to believe that contraception is a sin, but that does not make them exempt from providing insurance to their employees or paying a fine. That's the way it is. If they have a problem with that, then there are several countries where religion and law are the same, they can move there. In my country, religion is not law.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[almitydave]

those who are against the right of free individuals to seek out their own happiness in a relationship WILL find themselves on the wrong side of history, just like those who thought it was 'against god' to let blacks and whites marry.

I hear this "will be on the wrong side of history" comment a lot - are you actually claiming to know the future? Or are you merely expressing your belief that your ideas will prevail? If so, good for you, you should believe in your cause; but presumptuousness is not an argument.

this is not debatable. its equal rights and we should not be spending so much time on such a simple and obvious thing.

Clearly, it is debatable and non-obvious, since there is currently a massive social debate on the topic and not everyone immediately agrees with your view.

its only non-obvious to those brainwashed by religion. and FUCK THEM! their views are usually on the wrong side of history, as well!

A curious statement when many of the leading advocates of the causes you mentioned earlier did so because of their religious beliefs. It's almost like... not all religious people are the same.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[Anonymous Coward]

I like my company and I want it to reflect my values.

If it ceases to reflect my values, I will take my talent elsewhere.

I'm sure Eich will be glad to fill my position with a straight, white, male.

It's not like they are overrepresented in the industry, and its not like hiring more straight white males will act against making more diverse corporations by pushing away anyone who isn't a straight white male clone.

oh, wait, in fact, it WILL do exactly that.

Time to dust off the resume if I can't convince my company to not put bigots at the helm.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[cbhacking]

I don't *ask* about the political opinions of my superiors. If they *told* me they contributed to Prop 8, though, yeah I'd have a bloody big problem with that!

Also, "agree" and "disagree" are not a simple binary state. For example, I don't agree with the religious views of some of my friends. That's OK, we don't talk religion. Now, if I found out they were funding efforts to inject religious beliefs into public school curriculum, yeah, *THAT* would be a problem. (It seems unlikely they would, from the little we've talked about the subject, though I've never asked).

There are lots of things way less important to me than marriage equality (I'm straight, but a lot of my friends are not). I will be a lot more upset over somebody publicly and financially avowing support for a policy like Prop 8 than I will be over, say, a similar level support for bank bailouts (which I also disagree with, but which there's at least some argument to be made for)

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[Millennium]

No one is threatening to fire him, but very few people have the power to actually do that. By calling him unfit to lead, they're essentially doing the equivalent.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[AK Marc]

That said, I'm absolutely 100% for Eich's right to have an opinion I disagree with. If he were acting on his opinion in an official capacity, sure, release the dogs of PR war. But if he maintains a nondiscriminatory policy, even if he may personally not like it, then that's about all you have the right to ask of him..

And what about the right of the workers at his company to voice their disapproval over his actions? Don't they have at least the same right to speak about the CEO's actions?

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[amiga3D]

I gotta agree in this situation. If they don't like him and he wont leave they should quit. It's a free country.....mostly....well it used to be.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[machineghost]

Yes, he does. And you have the right not to work for or use any of the products of that company. As long as he isn't actually discriminating against anybody, no laws are being broken.

Totally with you so far.

I may not agree with the position, but it's not my business as long as he doesn't discriminate.

Right, but he already has discriminated: he threw several thousand dollars to try and prevent LBGT people from having equal rights. I strongly disagree with that position, and I absolutely think it's my business to care. If the head of Taco Bell suddenly started donating to "BlacksAreMonkeys.com", I'd absolutely boycott Taco Bell. And if I worked for Taco Bell I certainly might tweet my displeasure, (assuming I didn't outright quit).

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[DaHat]

Assuming these people are still doing their jobs, asking the CEO to step down is not insubordination.

Depends on what the context of their job is.

While my job involves writing specs & code and a whole litany of other 'deliverables'... I am also a representative of the company both while on and off the clock, and am expected (and instructed) to act accordingly.

Advocating against the legitimate leadership of the organization, be it military or corporate is not generally a good way to represent the larger unit... especially when the folks at the top have disciplinary options that were part of the agreement when joining.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[AK Marc]

One of the reasons the Nazis are pulled into every discussion is that they are a "good" example of "bad". If your boss was a neo-Nazi, and he donated to anti-minority groups, would that matter to you?

The issue is simple to some people. Do you believe in human rights, or are you a bigot? That is something some people can't handle. Just because you can doesn't mean they are wrong. It just means you have no empathy.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[sjames]

You are speaking of a mere difference of opinion. If the boss actively campaigned to strip Republicans of their rights, then yes, it would be quite similar.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[Lawrence_Bird]

this is an example of anti-tolerance. It is unfortunate that the LGBT community, at Mozilla in particular, is acting this way. The guy donated to a Prop 8 pac. That is his private affair and his private life. These same people need to get over themself and calling anyone who opposes (on whatever grounds) gay marriage as "hateful". Yes, perhaps some are. But the fact that somebody has a different opinion on a moral or social issue does not make them hateful. That kind of approach does not help your cause.

And for the record, I don't give a fuck who marries who or what. Marriage is strictly a matter for your church of record to confer, not the government(s).

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[AK Marc]

So you would work for the man and do what you can to support him in the workplace? Or would it hurt your morale in some manner to be beholder to such a person?

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[AK Marc]

And you object to the right of the workers to hold an opinion?

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[HornWumpus]

What if you found his name on the prop 8 donor list that prop 8 opponents shystered out of the court system? Like this dude.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[pixelpusher220]

From the EEOC's website:

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.

It does NOT cover you holding and expressing views you're employer dislikes.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[DaHat]

Start with an ad hominem, then go to a non-sequitur . Wow.

It's ok if you are unwilling or unable to reply, though it's a shame you didn't even want to try to respond with anything more coherent than a bit of crying.

When your boss prohibits you from having a firearm in your own home, then you can cry about it.

So... the right to keep and bear arms only applies in the home? You may want to check with a number of courts who have said otherwise, repeatedly.

Again, I call 'chilling effect' for the banning of a legal object by my employer while on the job site... vs your beef of a future employer who may have acted in their own private capacity at an earlier time somehow disqualifying them for the job down the line and unrelated to the work.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[DaHat]

and he donated to anti-minority groups

Which anti-minority group? For that matter... which minority? Virtually any group can be called 'a minority' compared to some others.

Do you believe in human rights, or are you a bigot?

That is a false choice. Different people have different views on what a human right is.

Many on the left say women should have unfettered access to abortion... are those who disagree bigots?

Many on the right think that individuals should have unfettered access to firearms... are those who disagree bigots?

If so... guess what that makes all of us?

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[amicusNYCL]

Okay, I'm being a little snarky, but, seriously, if it's not a difference of opinion what is it?

I said a "simple" difference of opinion. This is a difference of opinion, but not a simple one. It sounds like the person I was responding to was trying to break down what I said into the smallest possible unit, if I would refuse to work with anyone who I disagreed with on any minor issue.

That means that you consider a majority of Americans to be said "bad people".

I'm not sure if it's a majority, but I do have a fundamental problem with anyone who puts their own religious freedom in front of anyone else's rights.

Perhaps you should reconsider your various relationships with all of them?

I am.

Perhaps you shouldn't be a resident of the United States

I've considered it. I have a plan that entails just that.

since the majority nationwide opposes gay marriage?

That is no longer true.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[xevioso]

These are the whimpering cries of a conservative watching the world change around him, unable to have any control over it. It's kindof sad, really.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[xevioso]

The ability of people to "handle" the simplifying of the issue down to the two ideas you have described has no bearing of the truth of those statements. I firmly believe that allowing gays to marry is supporting human rights, and attempting to deny it is bigotry. Whether people can "handle" that or not has no bearing on it's truth.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[DaHat]

Holding opinion != advocating opinion

If the (now) CEO had simply held his opinion that he was opposed to same sex marriage... no one at Mozilla or elsewhere would know... but because he dared to put his money where his quiet mouth was... he is to be damned!

So too goes for those employees who think that he is unfit to serve... those who stay silent are ok... but those who speak out in opposition to him publically are to be damned!

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[DaHat]

Well until the Supreme Court says employers can shove their religious beliefs onto their employees.

Somehow I doubt SCOTUS saying that Hobby Lobby paying for 16 different birth control drugs but not having to pay for 4 others will constitute shoving 'their religious beliefs onto their employees'.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[TheGratefulNet]

I'm 'claiming' to see strong parallels here with those who can't allow others to just live their lives the way they want, all the whole not harming YOU at all.

no doubt at all that this is the same exact thing as women's rights and racial rights. no difference at all. how could it? how could you defend your position that this is, somehow, 'not the same' as these long-ago fought for an won rights?

btw, the only ones who don't want to see equal rights are those that were told 'god hates gays'. there is just NO other reason. can you state an intelligent reason why you think that person A marrying person B (and you are not A or B) at all affects YOUR life? why do you insist on telling others what they can do with their lives? its none of your damned business.

there are no reasons other than 'god'. if you have any, spill the beans now or just shut the fuck up.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[amicusNYCL]

So you read from my statement that I don't think the federal government has any role in compelling an employer to provide much of anything to their employees other than wages & benefits that have been negotiated between the employer and employee? Wow, I didn't think I was being that transparent.

No, I read that you have major problems when the federal government "compels" a "private individual" to "violate their religious beliefs." That's not what the case is about, the case is about whether the government can require a corporation to provide insurance that covers contraception. See how I stated that without saying anything about violating religious beliefs, and how I accurately described it as a corporation and not a private individual? It's not like the government is forcing everyone to take contraception, is it? Not that having everyone on contraception would be a terrible thing.

You are attempting to split hairs. The penalty/tax is there to compel more and more businesses to provide coverage (and said medication), and over time will likely go up to compel more employers to pick the cheaper of the two options.

That is speculation. It's no more likely to go up then it is likely to go down.

Today, one also highlighted that if an employer can be compelled today to provide certain (what the employer deems to be) abortion inducing drugs, what stops the government from also compelling outright abortion coverage?

The fact that the FDA regulates the devices in question, and that they are not covered by abortion laws and regulations, indicates that those medications and devices are not considered to constitute abortion. It doesn't really matter what the employer thinks they do.

Again you try to split hairs... lemme guess, you are also one of the 'corporations are not people' type?

When a corporation can be murdered, or jailed for murder, then I'll agree that a corporation is a person.

The company on it's own is little more than an empty legal entity or person... only through it's owners giving it direction does it have any meaning or substantive form be it selling potatoes or hobby supplies. When mandates come in against this legal person, it is the natural persons who are ultimately responsible for ensuring that things happen on behalf of the legal person.

I know that, I am simply aware of the rhetoric. This is an issue of companies supplying insurance to their employees. But the way people describe it, the evil federal government is compelling upon pain of very nasty things that private individuals must violate all of their most closely held and sacred religious beliefs. The discussion could do without the rhetoric. The question is whether an employer has to provide insurance that covers medication that, for whatever reason, the employer does not want to pay for. Religion has zero basis on the actual issue. It doesn't matter why they don't want to pay for it. Saying it's a religious belief does not automatically elevate it up to some mythical righteous level.

So you are ok with what amounts to religious discrimination against employers... quite clearly... but what about discrimination against employees?

Religion has a special place in my heart. In general, my opinion of an individual is inversely proportional to how religious they are (this doesn't apply to every religion, only the ones who have earned it). I wasn't born this way though, this feature of me has been very carefully molded and crafted by many groups and politicians over the last 3 or 4 decades. I see what happens in the name of religion, and I strongly oppose it. Religion, like sex, should happen behind closed doors and out of the sight and reach of the government. The inverse is true as well. Government should happen out of the sight and reach of religion.

works hard to live a 'live and let live' sort of life

I absolutely believe in the golden rule. Why do you think I have such a negative opinion about religion?

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[cascadingstylesheet]

No one is threatening to fire Eich. The employees disagree with his position and are asking him to step down. It is their right to do so. It is his right to choose not to do so. If he doesn't, it is their right to quit. No one's rights are being infringed upon in this particular situation. Employees disagree with his views towards gay marriage, and so they don't want to work for him. That sounds reasonable to me.

"His views towards gay marriage" == "Obama's official views until early 2012"

So ... was Obama a horrid bigot?

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[AK Marc]

Which anti-minority group?

Knowing there's be a smartass/jackass out there, I gave a specific example. Rather than picking some comments out of context and ripping them apart, address the example I gave:

If your boss was a neo-Nazi, and he donated to anti-minority groups, would that matter to you?

Go on, answer that question. Would it matter if he gave money to the IRA or al Qadea?

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[Flammon]

When you say 'right', I think you mean freedom. Do you?

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[Smauler]

there are no reasons other than 'god'. if you have any, spill the beans now or just shut the fuck up.

You could argue the same about homosexual incestuous marriage. There is no logical reason for two brothers or two sisters not to get married to each other. If you think there's any good reason for that to be illegal, please share.

I'm not equating homosexuality with incest here. I'm just pointing out that making it legal isn't going to happen any time soon, despite the commonly made arguments that people's sexual preference is their own business.

ps. I am pro gay marriage.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[Fringe]

It's not a "right" in the Constitution or Bill Of Rights. Just because you are intolerant of dissenting views doesn't mean you should co-opt the language and use bombastic terms. Or is the left emulating Rush Limbaugh now?

(And no, I'm not against gay marriage. I came out for it, in a Catholic magazine, probably 22 years ago, as a way to finally force a separation of Church and state. Your religious (or pagan or whatever) marriage should have no relationship to your taxes.)

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[sjames]

Marriage involves a LOT more than taxes. It decides things like inheritance, visiting rights in the hospital, and important medical decisions. It also impacts testimony in court.

Just because the Constitution doesn't explicitly grant the right to a gay marriage doesn't mean it's not a right.

I personally believe black people are human beings with rights and a soul. You're damned right I am intolerant of the contrary view.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[Bing Tsher E]

The horrors! You mean it won't be a wedge issue any longer? It won't be an opening for loud public advocacy and promotion of a lifestyle?

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[sjames]

If you can find any evidence that he is actively contributing to the abolition of marriage for anyone, we can revisit this. Otherwise, it sounds like a big stretch.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[LordLimecat]

Its my right to request that my boss step down for voting democrat, and then post how wonderful it is that I have free speech; doing so would make me a hypocrite though.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[Zontar The Mindless]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Hey, what kinda Commie propaganda you tryin' to spread there, buddy? Isn't that from Das Kapital?

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[Zontar The Mindless]

I can very possibly just fix that for ya...

It mostly depends on just how awesome the first generation of kids from gay marriages turn out to be.

See? I can do the "frame the question in such a way as to prejudice the response" thing, too.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[swillden]

I'm not sure if it's a majority, but I do have a fundamental problem with anyone who puts their own religious freedom in front of anyone else's rights.

I'm not really interested in debating this deeply, so I'll let you have the last word, but the above is a remarkably shallow characterization of the views of many of the opponents of gay marriage. In general, I find that is the way that most really strongly held views on common disputes arise: by not only failing to understand the other's position, but actually misinterpreting it, effectively setting up a strawman which is simple and hateful enough to be easily despised.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[cbhacking]

I still wouldn't like it. That would decrease the extent of the problem I had with it, though. Nobody said anything in TFA, so I assumed (apparently, incorrectly) that it had been the choice of "this dude" to make the donation known.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[kangsterizer]

At Mozilla there's one difference tho, you don't enrich the CEO *that* much. There's no stock actions. He did not get a package. All he gets is a slightly higher salary than you do.
If anything, you work to the benefit of the Mozilla Foundation (which owns Mozilla Corporation - and Eich is CEO of that.)

Their recruiting ad is in fact mirroring this with "Don't work for the man, work for mankind."

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[madbrain]

I must have missed the part where Obama donated to the "Yes on Prop 8" campaign.

Not did he call on anyone to vote for Proposition 8.

Obama's rhethoric was certainly very inconsistent at the time, though.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[qbast]

Or maybe Eich is not a drama queen with huge chip on his shoulder and he will simply hire the best qualified person he can find for the job.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[qbast]

They are trying to create enough of public shitstorm to pressure board of directors to fire Eich. Not all that much different.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[Sarius64]

Yeah, I see jack shit from these people about restoring property, rights, and livelihoods stolen by the U.S. Government from poligamous families over the past 100 years. But your butthurt matters more, I guess.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[cyborg_zx]

I personally believe black people are human beings with rights and a soul. You're damned right I am intolerant of the contrary view.

I don't believe they have souls. But then again I don't believe anyone does.

Just because the Constitution doesn't explicitly grant the right to a gay marriage doesn't mean it's not a right.

Has anyone bothered to sit down and actually think about what marriage is? It is effectively a familial contract. Modern notions about love nonwithstanding that was the point for its creation - social control.

Why not strip the term of its special priviledge, lawyer up, form any contract you like and then proceed to bump uglies in any configuration you choose?

Oh right, because of irrational attachment to the word.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[Lazere]

I'm not saying you don't have the right to boycott or that the developers don't have the right to ask he step down. Personally, I hope he does step down, but he absolutely has the right not to. How well Mozilla survives if he doesn't is another discussion altogether.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[Lazere]

Hmmm. The moral argument is one I hadn't thought of. That makes a lot of sense. Thank you.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[NoImNotNineVolt]

That means that you consider a majority of Americans to be said "bad people". Perhaps you should reconsider your various relationships with all of them? Perhaps you shouldn't be a resident of the United States (assuming you are) since the majority nationwide opposes gay marriage?

s/gay marriage/civil rights for blacks/

That's what you'll sound like in a few years. Telling Rosa Parks to sit down and shut up; Telling Dr. King that if he doesn't like it, maybe he should move to Africa.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[Sarius64]

I'm sure we'll see the LGBT support for Brown v. Buhman any day now. * crickets *

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Much like we saw the black community stand up for gay rights.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[GameboyRMH]

Wrong. You're using the machinist's definition of tolerance. See this post to learn the meaning in the political context:

http://slashdot.org/comments.p....

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[GameboyRMH]

I enjoy the hell out of that kind of thing >:)

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[sjames]

Because your contract doesn't make a hospital consider you next of kin for medical decision and visitation. It would also have some implications for retirement benefits, taxes, on and on and on.

Of course, fell free to get the necessary changes in law put in place, but be prepared to deal with wingnuts quacking about people marrying pets and such.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[AdamWill]

Marriage is not a right, no. But the right not to be discriminated against by the state *is* a right.

No-one has a right to demand that the state (federal government, state government) be in the business of defining marriage and granting particular privileges to people it considers to be 'married' at all. It wouldn't be a violation of anyone's constitutional rights if the federal government, or a particular state government, just got out of the business of marriage entirely.

But as long as governments choose to recognize a state called 'marriage' and grant particular benefits to people they consider to be 'married', people absolutely *do* have a right for that to be implemented in a non-discriminatory way.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[AdamWill]

He contributed to the campaign for Proposition 8. The text of Proposition 8 was this:

"Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

The state of affairs prior to Prop 8 was that the state supreme court had determined that marriage between two partners of the same sex was valid and recognized in California. Thus Prop 8 was, very clearly, precisely and inarguably, a measure that specifically abolished marriage for people of the same-sex.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[almitydave]

I'm 'claiming' to see strong parallels here with those who can't allow others to just live their lives the way they want, all the while not harming YOU at all.

no doubt at all that this is the same exact thing as women's rights and racial rights. no difference at all. how could it? how could you defend your position that this is, somehow, 'not the same' as these long-ago fought for and won rights?

btw, the only ones who don't want to see equal rights are those that were told 'god hates gays'. there is just NO other reason. can you state an intelligent reason why you think that person A marrying person B (and you are not A or B) at all affects YOUR life? why do you insist on telling others what they can do with their lives? its none of your damned business.

there are no reasons other than 'god'. if you have any, spill the beans now or just shut the fuck up.

You've come this far without ever encountering a non-religious argument against gay marriage? I'll assume you're not trolling and take your claim at face value.

There are lots of arguments, and a google search for "secular opposition to gay marriage" will yield many results. The short answer is that the state has no compelling interest in sanctioning gay marriage, it affects society in a significant way, and since I'm a part of society, it affects me. I encourage you to read this column. It lays out the arguments in a clear and concise way.

Gay marriage is totally unrelated to suffrage, and comparisons to interracial marriage don't quite work (for the reasons laid out in the above article).

And let me just say as a religious person, "God says so" is NEVER a sufficient reason for legislation.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[vakuona]

Sometimes I think "bigot" is the new "communist". Anyone who disagrees with the now accepted position is a bigot (which incidentally means you can't have a reasoned discussion with them).

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[AK Marc]

I haven't seen that. How much was "stolen" by the US government since 1914? Or was it 150 years ago, and stolen from a church, not "families"?

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[AK Marc]

Why would you expect you could have a reasoned discussion with a bigot? Bigotism is unreasonable.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[vakuona]

And so you prove my point.

Anyone who calls the person they are debating with a bigot doesn't really want a debate or a discussion.

Are gay people who oppose polygamy and polyandry bigots?

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[Sarius64]

Oh, so churches are not made of people, either? What else can you rationalize? Also, there's plenty of modern cases. Google is your friend.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[sjames]

I should have capitalized ANYONE as in a complete abolution of marriage, not a selective banning for some.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[AK Marc]

So the one that uses the word "bigot" is a bigot against bigots? When you use such definitions and such tautologies, then yes, nobody who uses the word "bigot" wants to have a discussion with you. Of course, nobody wants to have a discussion with you.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[AK Marc]

from https://www.google.com/#q=us+c..., the closest to what you are asserting is http://www.latinopost.com/arti... where someone had his ranch seized where he was raping his children, and a polygamist. Is that all you got? Rapist child abusers who also happen to be polygamists should have a polygamy shield?

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[sjames]

In Ca where this happened, they did indeed have that right.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[vakuona]

I just commented on your use of the word bigot. I am having "fun" reading the comments. I couldn't care less what the CEO of Mozilla says or thinks and what causes he chooses to donate to. It's not going to stop using the Mozilla browser any less than the fact that Tim Cook is (allegedly) gay could cause me to abandon Apple products (it won't).

So I guess that make me rather tolerant, or maybe just indifferent. But I don't go around calling people bigots. Maybe I just have better manners. Or maybe I don't think hiding behind a keyboard gives me license to be uncivil.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[AdamWill]

Ah, ISWYM. Sorry, Slashdot threading always makes it tricky to figure context :/

Now I see the context, I agree with you, and nothing in the debate seems to have suggested that's his position.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[cascadingstylesheet]

Obama's rhethoric was certainly very inconsistent at the time, though.

Obama's official position was that marriage is for a man and a woman. (Same as Bill Clinton's position when he was president, by the way.)

So, was Obama a hideous bigot?

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[Sarius64]

Oh, we're playing that game?

Obvious Jürgen Bartsch and Luis Alfredo Garavito Cubillos meet your stellar standards for homosexual heroes?

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[AK Marc]

So your non sequitur is there to indicate you agree that you were lying in indicating that seizures for polygamy (and nothing else) is a common and recent thing. Glad to hear your concession and apology. At least the closest to one you are capable of.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[cyborg_zx]

Because your contract doesn't make a hospital consider you next of kin for medical decision and visitation. It would also have some implications for retirement benefits, taxes, on and on and on.

All I'm hearing is "the current legal framework isn't setup to deal with this so it isn't setup to deal with this."

Of course, fell free to get the necessary changes in law put in place, but be prepared to deal with wingnuts quacking about people marrying pets and such.

Last time I checked this was happening with gay marriage anyway. Not that I expect such an outcome but separation of marriage and state is really the only way to allow people the freedom to arrange their lives the way they see fit.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[Lawrence_Bird]

I'm glad you can link to a post with your own definition of tolerance!

noun
noun: tolerance

        1.
        the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.

a slightly more authoritative definition of the word. But being tolerant, I'm fine with you using whatever definition you want.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[Sarius64]

No concession or apology. Just your inability to admit that some magical fairy makes it okay for two men to be married, but not three.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[AK Marc]

Now you are lying again. I never said anything about my opinion on polygamy. I just stated that the "real" reason the government doesn't like it is that, taken to extremes, would cause a collapse of the legal system. If everyone was married to everyone else, how would taxes work? How do you decide the head of household for the IRS, if the married troupe includes more than one household? You don't address any of the reasons, then lie about my position.

But that's all there to hide your initial lies. You stated that in the past 100 years, the US government has stolen from polygamous families. I couldn't find a single case in your listed timeframe that wasn't listed as a seizure for a different listed reason (the fact there was polygamy wasn't connected), and you refused, what, 4 times now to cite a single case. So lies. You've not posted a single post that wasn't all lies. Sounds like the morals of a polygamist...

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[sjames]

I offered you a fair alternative that you say isn't happening. Then you say it is but it's unacceptable. But you said before that it's what they should do, Which is it?

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[Sarius64]

Hmm, well since you specifically spoke out against polygamist and called them all immoral (and other poor stereotypes), I'd say that you are the liar in context of this thread.

Again with this morality thing? What can you possible establish as moral in your analogy? You've already accepted (by silence) that 198 murdered children by a serial killer is fine as long as it promotes the gay and possibly IRS agendas. How can you possibly establish any moral ground after that? Morality, if anything in America, should be the ability to live as you want to live. Gay marriage is from this ilk. You suggest that polygamists be denied these rights based upon how an already corrupt tax-collection agency is going to react to the issue. Boo hoo.

Let's start with your example. For what one member of that FLDS church did against the law the community property worth $34.5 million was stripped from the church. That means all of the members, even the victims, were fined for the actions of a few; and the government, much like in the case of the War on Drugs, does not give back confiscated property. If your nephew gets caught smoking a joint on your property and the wrong judge hears the case -- so much for your property.

Moving on to the most famous case fitting the scope you asked. Short Creek, Arizona was the largest mass arrest of polygamists in modern times. The Short Creek raid took place on July 26, 1953. Over 100 reporters were invited to the raid. Arizona Governor John Howard Pyle initially called the raid "a momentous police action against insurrection" and described the Mormon fundamentalists as participating in "the foulest conspiracy you could possibly imagine" that was designed to produce "white slaves. He accused the compund of rape and bigamy and other issues, like most raids of this type do to sway public opinion. The reporters had a different take.

In the words of a reporter from the Arizona Republic (1953-07-28):

By what stretch of the imagination could the actions of the Short Creek children be classified as insurrection? Were those teenagers playing volleyball in a school yard inspiring a rebellion? Insurrection? Well, if so, an insurrection with diapers and volleyballs

In Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought a reporter suggested that the raid's "only American parallel is the federal actions against Native Americans in the nineteenth century.

Time Magazine covered the event and was amazed that the government even cared what a small unincorporated community with no economic standing could plausibly be acting in insurrection to the state.

Much like the Short Creek incident, your example displayed how the government used the actions of a small minority to destroy the lifestyles of hundreds of families, including confiscating their property and denying them parental rights by association. The article, Polygamous crackdown echoes 1953 Short Creek arrests shows how the setup is used to destroy marriage rights from communities, denying them fundamental liberties.

Maybe we should decide on how to fulfill fundamental liberties instead of whether the IRS has a problem with tax forms. But, of course, you've already stated that your form of morality allows anything that keeps your jack-booted thug masters in power.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[AK Marc]

Hmm, well since you specifically spoke out against polygamist and called them all immoral (and other poor stereotypes), I'd say that you are the liar in context of this thread.

Ah, more lies to distract from your other lies. I searched this thread, and never did I (or anyone else, before you) use the word "immoral". I didn't call "them" anything. I stated that the laws can't handle any full-mesh marriages, and only polygyny would be possible without a major re-write of many laws.

But don't let your lies distract from your claims that polygamists are currently prosecuted. Show me one from the past 100 years (your asserted time frame) where a polygamist in violation of no other laws had anything seized. If not, then you are nothing but a liar, lying about lies, and lying about what others say.

Moving on to the most famous case fitting the scope you asked. Short Creek, Arizona was the largest mass arrest of polygamists in modern times.

After reading your cite, there was no indication of any seizure, and indication it was later re-inhabited by others (proving it wasn't seized). So again, you've proven yourself a lying jackass, but haven't posted a single thing supporting your assertions. But I'm sure that's because of my bigotry.

you've already stated that your form of morality allows anything that keeps your jack-booted thug masters in power.

Ah, more lies by the lying liar and the lying lies he tells.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[Sarius64]

Yes, your inability to read references equates to me being a liar. Surround yourself with that dogmatic chanting as you base your concept of government (and apparently morality) on whether an organization can write laws that evolve with society. Hope it keeps you warm at night.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[AK Marc]

I read the reference. You claimed seizures. There was nothing in your reference that indicated any seizure at all. You lied, and lied about lying. You are incapable of supporting your previous assertion, so i can only deduce you are wrong. And your continued lies about it don't support your position. Given you made it seem so obvious and directed others to Google (and Google didn't support you) and you couldn't find a single support for your assertion, either.

What's truly sad is that your mental illness will have my future lack of responses to your lies as "proof" that you are correct, and you'll count your previous "opinion" as more correct because nobody has proven you wrong, despite everyone having proven you wrong. The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[Sarius64]

Yes, Mark, I understand that reading just seems so hard to you with your tongue firmly fitted up the asses of your IRS masters.

YFZ Ranch was one of the references mentioned. The property seizure around $19.96 million. The evidence against the community was completely false and the person who falsely created the initial phone call was arrested, but the community was still assaulted, their children removed, and their property seized. Even though the entire event was overturned due to no evidence of any abuse, the property was seized and became the property of the state of Texas.

But, again, you've proven that your inability to do any research or even worry about the liberty of American citizens plays second-fiddle to warped reality where concern for the IRS changing forms trumps Constitutional rights. Your first step might be not advocating governance at the whim of civil servants.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[AK Marc]

Yup, raided for child abuse by a "witness" who claimed to also be a victim. Like I said, name once where there wasn't an additional crime. You can't.

BTW, your claim was that the US Governemnt seized things. In your link, the state of Texas seized some things, but the US Governemtn seized nothing.

You've failed to present a single case supporting your assertions. Despite so man posts claiming you have. Why are you so confused?

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[Sarius64]

Really, that's an interesting take. Last time I checked the state of Texas was part of the U.S. Government. I guess the 10th Amendment was talking about the other states, somewhere. Did federalism get abolished? Did Texas succession happen and the news not inform anyone?

Also, the claim of abuse at YFZ was proven false, but they took their property and split up the families anyway. You continue to have this reading problem. You should get that looked at. You seem to be unable to accept reality. Most likely you have that social disease wherein it doesn't matter if it doesn't effect you.

P.S. Say hi to Lois Lerner for me. Tell her you're trying to make sure her precious life isn't shattered by people engaging in liberty and potentially making her change a form.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[AK Marc]

Also, the claim of abuse at YFZ was proven false, but they took their property and split up the families anyway.

So, they got treated better than suspected drug dealers, and you claim it's a specific anti-polygamy issue.

You seem to be unable to accept reality.

You are claiming that Texas is the federal governemnt because it fits your personal instanity. Seems you are the one with reality issues.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[Sarius64]

Well glad you finally admitted your bigotry. I think the only reason I continued this discourse is that I find it amazing the poor reasoning you attributed to removing someone's liberty. That you value the IRS stress levels over the Constitutional rights of American citizens indicates that the other comments you've ascribed to some sense of morality are bullshit.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[AK Marc]

I never supported any removal of any rights. I just point out your string of lies. That is all. An apparently it pisses you off. Quit lying and people will stop calling you a liar.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[Sarius64]

Yep, you keep believing that.

by AK Marc (707885) Alter Relationship on Thursday March 27, 2014 @03:40PM (#46597571) The issue is simple to some people. Do you believe in human rights, or are you a bigot? That is something some people can't handle. Just because you can doesn't mean they are wrong. It just means you have no empathy.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[AK Marc]

What right did that advocate removing, and from whom? Oh yeah, more lies.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[cyborg_zx]

I offered you a fair alternative that you say isn't happening. Then you say it is but it's unacceptable. But you said before that it's what they should do, Which is it?

I... don't recall saying anything like this? I don't know what "fair alternative" you're referring to is or the bit where I say it's "unaccpetable". I'm simply saying if we really want to be modern about this then we'd have a serious rethink on whether or not we want the state deciding what is or isn't an acceptable arrangement for human beings to congregate in is and then allow people to manage their own affairs - it's the only sensible way to deal with marriage due to its intrinsic links to religious practice historically (and the contradictory definitions of different cultures - the whole "one man, one woman," thing being demonstrably untrue throughout history and in different places - and America specifically being what it is historically has a less justifiable claim to tradition given it can only appeal to the many shared traditions of the mostly wholly immigrant population). But I don't see that happening because people don't think that deeply when it comes to questioning why things are the way they are in the first place - it's hardly unsurprising to me then that people will see an "attack" on "traditional" marriage.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[GameboyRMH]

If that definition were correct in the political context, the "tolerate my intolerance" crowd would be correct, and the entire movement could be thrown into a paradox with a childish logic trick. And then why not "tolerate" murder, pedophilia or nazism, since it's about "opinions and behavior."

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends

[jwhitener]

That means that you consider a majority of Americans to be said "bad people".

There was a point in time in the US when the majority of people were bad people when it came to equal rights for Black Americans. At what point in time the majority became the minority is up for debate. However, that is precisely the reason why historically civil rights issues are not decided by popular vote.

Talking Points

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever uttered this phrase with sincerity?
"what an employee does outside of work hours is nobody's business"

Re:Talking Points

[blue9steel]

Sure, just not by an employer.

Re:Talking Points

[Sarius64]

Yes, because somehow, not believing what you believe in strips a person of their Constitutional rights.

No

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are so opposed to this guy's viewpoints that you can't stand to work in the same organization with him, the problem's yours, not his. He's not the one demanding you resign because he doesn't agree with yoru views, you are.

You intolerant clod.

The double standard at work

[DaHat]

Prop 8 has been a contentious issue for many, and is now largely resolved... yet those who ultimately won are still not happy.

It is interesting to see how those who supported it (even through a simple donation) are now targets for personal and professional attacks such as this... yet this kind of intolerance for the views of other peoples opinions & donations, does seem to be rather unidirectional, but then that is the typical 'tolerance' that the left in this country believes in.

Re:The double standard at work

[amicusNYCL]

The reason why the attacks are unidirectional is because gay marriage, or the larger issue of gay rights, is a human rights issue. All you need to do is look back across history to figure out if the side that protects, or the side that attacks, human rights is the "right" side. It's pretty obvious. In the future, people opposed to gay rights today are going to be seen similarly to those who fought against civil rights in the 60s. 2 men or 2 women getting married has the same impact on your life as a black man marrying a white woman. There is no reason to not allow that. The only justification people have for not supporting gay rights is because of their own prejudice.

Re:The double standard at work

[mendax]

End result - people's will overturned by a few activist judges.

Wrong. It was overturned because Prop. 8 was clearly unconstitutional. Study civil rights law as I have and you'll understand. These are the facts: Marriage may be considered by some people as a holy thing but as far as the government is concerned, it's nothing more than a civil contract. When the government prohibits certain persons from entering into such a contract simply because of their sexual orientation or gender without there being a rational reason for that prohibition, it's unconstitutional because it's then considered to be arbitrary. There is no good reason for that prohibition that makes any sense. The excuses used by religious conservatives in the past have been shown to be crap. Gay marriage is almost a fait accompli in the U.S. and there is very little anyone can do about it.

Prop 8 was a slam dunk vote in which CA clearly voted in one direction, despite being pro Democrat since Reagan stopped being president.

Incidentally, recent polls show that California voters would not pass an initiative like Prop. 8 today and that a majority support gay marriage.

Re:The double standard at work

[Archangel Michael]

Gay marriage isn't about rights, it is about benefits granted by government. Nothing more, nothing less.

Most gay people oppose Polygamy, even though that is exactly the same issue, government deciding who can and who can't be "married" (Defining Marriage). Why do they oppose polygamy (polyandry, other plural marriages)? Historically, there is much more evidence of polygamy and even polyandry being "legal" forms of marriage than homosexual marriages.

Here is my view, as a Libertarian: Government has no right to define what is or what isn't marriage. Period. Individuals are the only people with rights, therefore, marriage is simply a contract between two people. And at that point, it is no longer something that government has a say in. The opponents of gay marriage, made the mistake all along of suggesting that it was a right for only Heterosexual people. It isn't a right, it is a contract, and a sacred one at that (religious). If the Muslims and Mormons want to define marriage to have their polygamy, then that is who defines marriage for them.

Re:The double standard at work

[DaHat]

Ug... posted my reply to the wrong comment... now again to the right place...

The reason why the attacks are unidirectional is because gay marriage

I wasn't talking just about same sex marriage... why are you?

or the larger issue of gay rights

At last check... gay individuals had the same rights as straight ones... and while sometimes those rights may not line up with preferences (ie right to marry someone of the opposite sex where desire is to marry someone of the same sex), the right remains the same regardless... you purposely try to pain the issue as something more than its not.

is a human rights issue.

Again... you prove my point of intolerance from the left... and that one need only call something a 'human rights' or 'civil rights' issue until you make enough people agree through education & politics... or fear mongering and blacklisting.

Guess which you are supporting?

All you need to do is look back across history to figure out if the side that protects, or the side that attacks, human rights is the "right" side.

History tends to be written by the victors... yet up until just two years ago, the President of the United States claimed to be against same-sex marriage... does that mean up until then he should have been viewed as a homophobic and anti-gay bigot? No? Interesting the continued double standard... or do you think history will record it that way?

2 men or 2 women getting married has the same impact on your life as a black man marrying a white woman.

You assume I care about either, your point?

There is no reason to not allow that.

Again... do you have a point? It's been clear for some time which way the tide was going... yet the issue is less today about the 'right' to marry someone of the same sex, but of the compulsion to force others to recognize it... and no, I don't mean at the court house, but of even a florist or baker being able to say they do not agree with the union and cannot provide services for such an event.

The only justification people have for not supporting gay rights is because of their own prejudice.

Yet the prejudices of those who see prejudices everywhere are emboldened to lash out against anyone they deem as not being sufficiently supportive of the current cause celeb... as we see in this case here.

Intolerance of perceived intolerance is still bigotry... and if anything, those who are calling for the stepping down of Eich are proving the (lack) of quality of their characters as they cannot handle the idea of working for someone who may have once disagreed with them.

Re:The double standard at work

[im_thatoneguy]

You're right it is unidirectional. Just like KKK members even though they lost the civil rights movement are still generally scorned and viewed as bad. The hate towards neo-nazis is generally unidirectional as well (don't hear about Neo-nazis being terribly discriminatory in workplaces).

Re:The double standard at work

[akirapill]

The "right to own slaves" necessarily infringes on others' right to be free. The right for two consenting adults to marry infringes on noone else's rights. What you're saying can be boiled down to "why won't you be tolerant of my intolerance?"

Re:The double standard at work

[DaHat]

Wrong. It was overturned because Prop. 8 was clearly unconstitutional. Study civil rights law as I have and you'll understand.

Wrong... in so many ways.

If you actually read the ruling of Judge Vaughn Walker you'd realize that he was inventing much of his ruling out of whole cloth... in the end the reason Prop 8 was struck down actually has less to do with 'civil rights law' as you claim and more to do with standing.

Vaughn Walker struck down P8 yes, on flimsy grounds. The state of California then opted not to appeal... effectively guaranteeing it remained overturned as they were the only entity which could have defended it.

While it's true that there was an effort by individuals & groups to defend it on behalf of the voters who had passed it, they ultimately lost because they did not have standing in the case.

Like the outcome all you want, but fear the process.

Re:The double standard at work

[cold fjord]

Saves didn't have a right to be free under the written law, so there was no infringement. The rules, laws, and customs governing sex and family have many repercussions in society, including what is taught in schools, and how government prioritizes various rights. Your claim is false.

Re:The double standard at work

[im_thatoneguy]

You didn't mention which "60s" you're referring to, the 1860s or the 1960s. I have little doubt you're thinking of the 1960s, but the future is an uncertain thing. They may be seen like the people in the 1850s and 1860s that opposed the right of other Americans to own slaves, a right reflected in the Constitution itself, opposing a right that was popular in some areas but ultimately a bad idea. When you're referring to "prejudice," make sure to consider your own.

Somehow I feel safe believing that not discriminating against people due to the sexual orientation will fall on the side of not discriminating based on skin color.

I'm totally against the right to discriminate against slaves. I'm also totally against the right to discriminate against gays. You have to have a very convoluted worldview to equate those who ask for the same rights as everyone else with slave masters.

Re:The double standard at work

[amicusNYCL]

Gay marriage isn't about rights, it is about benefits granted by government. Nothing more, nothing less.

I would disagree, I would say that it is the right to those benefits. That's a technicality though.

In general I agree with you. As far as I can tell, the reason why polygamy or polyandry is outlawed is pretty much because it would be a pain in the ass for the IRS. I don't see any other reason to outlaw it. The IRS could use a little fixing itself.

Re:The double standard at work

[AK Marc]

At last check... gay individuals had the same rights as straight ones... and while sometimes those rights may not line up with preferences (ie right to marry someone of the opposite sex where desire is to marry someone of the same sex), the right remains the same regardless... you purposely try to pain the issue as something more than its not.

So if the law was changed so that you could only marry someone of the same sex, you'd be ok with that, because it's not discriminatory?

The "distrimination" is that a straight person can marry anyone they want (if they are straight, the won't "want" to marry anyone of the same gender), and a gay person can not marry anyone they want. How is that equal?

Re:The double standard at work

[im_thatoneguy]

It's perfectly easy to oppose polygamy without opposing gay marriage. It goes like this.

You may form partnerships with one other person. In the event that one person dies, all assets shift to your partner. If you wish to have 5 wives you need to form a corporation not a partnership due to an increase in complications of asset law.

Simple example. If a spouse dies, the other spouse gets all of the assets. If a polygamist spouse dies... there would need to be a completely different asset distribution system. If a single spouse is sick then one spouse is by default granted all rights to make medical decisions. If a polygamist gets stick and needs medical consent do you take a vote? Does it need to be unanimous? Just visitation is different. If you have a hospital room the spouse may stay. If you have 6 spouses, are they all entitled to visitation? If you give Social Security benefits... or a company gives out healthcare to spouses--are they obligated to pay for 6x spouses? That becomes a financial burden on any one company who can't anticipate if their healthcare will go from say a 3 person company to a 3 person company and 90 spouses. You would have to be allowed to discriminate on quantity at some number.

On the other hand there are no practical arguments against Gay Marriage that apply to regular marriages. If you cover one spouse--their gender is mostly irrelevant. If you need a medical consent signed it doesn't matter what gender signs. Etc.

Re:The double standard at work

[cold fjord]

In the case of slavery you are removing the right of the slave owners and giving new rights to the slave so it isn't that simple. Also, slavery actually isn't a question of skin color but of legal status. There were white slaves, and sentencing one to slavery was an available legal punishment in the judicial system in various places in the US.

Gay people already literally did have the same rights as other people, and they aren't happy about that. They want something different.

Re:The double standard at work

[im_thatoneguy]

I don't mean at the court house, but of even a florist or baker being able to say they do not agree with the union and cannot provide services for such an event.

Businesses may not discriminate based on how someone is born. If you discriminated based on haircolor we wouldn't be "forcing the blonde agenda" down your bigoted throat. Yes we force bakers to serve those who have disabilities, those who are black. We are long past the racism of the 60s where just because you're born black you won't be served at a restaurant. Skin color and sexual orientation are interchangeable. And yes the president realized that he was prejudiced and has since changed his mind. And yes before he changed his mind he was prejudiced.

Re:The double standard at work

[m3000]

At last check... gay individuals had the same rights as straight ones... and while sometimes those rights may not line up with preferences (ie right to marry someone of the opposite sex where desire is to marry someone of the same sex), the right remains the same regardless... you purposely try to pain the issue as something more than its not.

Wow, what a hackneyed bullshit argument. "You have the right to be in a loveless fake marriage with someone you aren't attracted to. Why aren't you happy!?!" Yes somehow I don't think people who think this is a ligament argument would feel the same way if heterosexual marriage was outlawed.

Again... you prove my point of intolerance from the left... and that one need only call something a 'human rights' or 'civil rights' issue until you make enough people agree through education & politics... or fear mongering and blacklisting.

How is this not a human right issue?

History tends to be written by the victors... yet up until just two years ago, the President of the United States claimed to be against same-sex marriage... does that mean up until then he should have been viewed as a homophobic and anti-gay bigot? No? Interesting the continued double standard... or do you think history will record it that way?

Yeah, he kind of was a homophobic bigot. Just like all the presidents who didn't push for inter-racial marriage or who tolerated slavery are kind of racist bigots. And yeah, history has shown us time and time again that denying people basic dignity will always go down as terrible policies we should be ashamed of.

Intolerance of perceived intolerance is still bigotry

Just keep telling yourself whatever you have to make you sleep better at night I guess. Not recognizing that gay people should have the same rights as everyone else is bigotry, regardless of if you want it to be or not.

As far as if this matters if Eich should step down is debatable and I'm a bit on the fence on it to be honest, but this is much bigger and more important issue than him saying that his favorite color is red and mine is green.

Also try to actually meet some gay people. You'll discover they're just like everyone else, and you'll have a much happier life not being in fear of them.

Re:The double standard at work

[cbhacking]

Yeah. Funny how people care a lot more about preventing government-mandated institutionalized discrimination than about respecting the people who publicly support such a thing. You are entitled to your opinion. You are even entitled to advocate public policies that support your opinion. You are *not* entitled to immunity from reputational harm when you advocate for trampling the rights of millions of people.

Tolerance does not require that we treat the intolerant the same as everybody else. Condemning intolerance is completely compatible with promoting tolerance; after all, you're not really promoting tolerance if you do so in a way that (even tacitly) also promotes intolerance!

Re:The double standard at work

[amicusNYCL]

I wasn't talking just about same sex marriage... why are you?

Because the place where you mentioned "attacks", "unidirectional", "views", etc, is the same sentenced where you used "it" to refer to Prop 8. And this whole discussion is about Eich's support of Prop 8. I didn't realize you were using your post as a blanket criticism of all of the views and opinions of every person that you consider to be on "the left".

At last check... gay individuals had the same rights as straight ones... and while sometimes those rights may not line up with preferences (ie right to marry someone of the opposite sex where desire is to marry someone of the same sex), the right remains the same regardless... you purposely try to pain the issue as something more than its not.

If a gay person does not have the legal right to obtain a marriage license to marry the person that he is in love with, a person of the same gender, then it is a rights issue. Just because I also don't have that same right does not mean it is not a rights issue. The reason it is not an issue for me is because I don't desire to exercise that right.

Again... you prove my point of intolerance from the left... and that one need only call something a 'human rights' or 'civil rights' issue until you make enough people agree through education & politics... or fear mongering and blacklisting.

I'm "the left", am I? Is that because I think that everyone should have the same basic set of rights? What do you believe? Is the belief that someone should be allowed to get a marriage license to marry any consenting adult they want to marry a "left" issue? So, today I learned that I am on "the left", and I am also intolerant. Thanks for the fantastic discussion. I'll refrain from putting any labels on you, because I don't know the first thing about you or what you believe or what you've lived through.

yet up until just two years ago, the President of the United States claimed to be against same-sex marriage... does that mean up until then he should have been viewed as a homophobic and anti-gay bigot?

A homophobe? No, I doubt that he had an irrational fear of homosexual people. Anti-gay? Yeah. Also a slimy political douche for only taking a stand when it is politically advantageous, like every other politician. He's also kind of a lying asshole. I don't think he lives in fear of gay people though.

but of even a florist or baker being able to say they do not agree with the union and cannot provide services for such an event.

Last time I checked, that remains legal. Even here in Arizona. I believe they call that the "right to refuse service for any reason." Of course, those running public businesses providing services to the general public do have additional restrictions placed on them, in that they cannot provide public services to a subset of the public, it's either all or nothing. Private clubs don't have those restrictions.

Yet the prejudices of those who see prejudices everywhere are emboldened to lash out against anyone they deem as not being sufficiently supportive of the current cause celeb... as we see in this case here.

The only time I feel like lashing out is when a religious group thinks that they deserve special treatment for being religious. They don't. I remain the enemy of anyone trying to push the United States farther into the territory of theocracies.

Re:The double standard at work

[Rockoon]

I would disagree, I would say that it is the right to those benefits. That's a technicality though.

So what you are saying is that its not about equal rights. Realize that adding your own limited class to the special benefits club is not the same as equal rights.

Re:The double standard at work

[Rockoon]

The "distrimination" is that a straight person can marry anyone they want (if they are straight, the won't "want" to marry anyone of the same gender), and a gay person can not marry anyone they want. How is that equal?

You make the claim that straight people would not want to marry people of the same gender, but clearly that is not true since there is an incentive to be married. Perhaps straight people would not want to be thought of as homosexuals for getting hitched to a member of their own gender, but thats not the same thing at all.

Getting married grants the people involved special rights and privileges. Homosexuals don't want equal rights and privileges.. they want the same special rights and privileges that not everyone else enjoys.

Re:The double standard at work

[HornWumpus]

You can have legal partnerships of more then 2 people.

Re:The double standard at work

[viperidaenz]

Why can't 2 men get married to 2 women? Surely that's a human rights issue too. How does it effect you if 4 people all get married?
Why are you so against polygamy?

Re:The double standard at work

[viperidaenz]

But where you're not married and "living in the nature of marriage" ie, defacto relationship, it is entirely possible for three people to all live together like that. Which two are in a defacto relationship according to IRS?

Re:The double standard at work

[amicusNYCL]

So what you are saying is that its not about equal rights.

No, I'm saying exactly the opposite actually.

Re:The double standard at work

[amicusNYCL]

Abusing children and treating women, or any other person, like slaves is already illegal. There doesn't need to be an additional law to try and make something else illegal in order to prevent what is already illegal. That's like here in Arizona where we have a law that says that something like 6 or more unrelated women cannot live in the same house, because of prostitution. That law doesn't need to be there, prostitution is already illegal. There's no reason to outlaw 6 women living together, and there's no reason to outlaw plural marriage.

Re:The double standard at work

[amicusNYCL]

Look up my comments on polygamy or polyandry in this very thread. There is zero reason why 4 people should not be allowed to marry each other. The only justification I can think of for having a law like that is because it would be a pain in the ass for the IRS, which in my opinion is not a valid reason.

Re:The double standard at work

[amicusNYCL]

Are you asking me about tax law? I'm not the person to ask. I don't think "defacto relationship" is even a legal thing. Maybe you're thinking about a common law marriage.

Re:The double standard at work

[Rockoon]

No, I'm saying exactly the opposite actually.

You keep telling yourself that... doesnt make it true.

Equal rights means everyone is the same. It does not mean that some people have special rights and privileges, nor does it mean that other people can demand that they and only they be added to the special rights and privileges group. However, thats exactly whats happening. Thats the reality of it and its why what you are saying does not match what you feel that you are saying.

Re:The double standard at work

[amicusNYCL]

I'm sorry, who is asking for special rights and privileges that only they should have? And what are they asking for that will only apply to them and no one else? It sounds like you're describing religious people wanting special treatment because they are religious.

Re:The double standard at work

[cold fjord]

The Declaration of Independence is a fine document, but it isn't the Constitution, and it is the Constitution that constitutes the foundation of government. Sadly the Constitution as adopted allowed for slavery. If it hadn't it would not have passed at the time since various colonies had slavery as an institution bequeathed to them by their European founders. However the spirit of the Declaration of Independence won out in the end.

Re:The double standard at work

[AK Marc]

When marriage is controlled by the government, poly must be illegal. For human rights reasons, it's presumed a human rights violation, where the "single" in a group is the male, and the multiples are female, and have a lower standard than the male. But from a more practical governmetn stance, two married people are legally the same person (they can't be compelled to testify against themselves, and have survivorship and such that the death of one doesn't affect the finances or access to those finances of the other). But what happens if you marry someone, and the marry someone else? Do all three people become the same person? must both in the existing marriage marry the new person, or can one person get multiple marriages without the others knowing?

Then there are the sociatal logistics that aren't prepared. A child would have 3 parents. So, one of the parents has no blood, and no (under current laws) legal claim for their dependent. That's mostly unworkable. How many lines would you need on a birth certificate for parents?

Usually when poly was "allowed" it was only one man and multiple women. With one woman and multiple men, how would children be tracked? In the "old way" the man was the father, and the woman the mother. But when the biologiacal father isn't known, do you mandate DNA tests at birth to determine the birth parents? And if an entire town were to decide to get married, what would stop 10,000 people from marrying each other in a full-mesh poly marriage? With curent property rules, how would you handle the death of a single member of the group? Everything divided equally? Or, more the way the rules work now, everyone in the 10,000 group is 100% owner of everything owned by any single member of the group.

The real reason poly is impossible is that the laws were written so that poly (one man, limited wives) was the only poly considered, and "marriage" defined by law assumes two people. Changing those basic assumptions would be problematic.

So the issue of "gay marriage" is unrelated to poly. Seems poly is generally brought up by those that oppose gay marriage, looking for holes when the two are unrelated.

If the Muslims and Mormons want to define marriage to have their polygamy, then that is who defines marriage for them.

In most cases, those are "illegal" discrimintory marriages. Women aren't allowed to have multiple husbands, but men are allowed multiple wives. The men don't need to consult the previous wives before adding more, and if the women could do the same, you could end up in a situation with everyone in the planet married to each other, and the only question is number of degrees of separation. So illegal discrimination is required for them to be workable, making them impractical, and not because of dislaike of the lifestyle or those who would live it, but from the ability for it to coexist with today's basic legal framework.

Re:The double standard at work

[Rockoon]

I'm sorry, who is asking for special rights and privileges that only they should have?

Homosexuals are asking to be added to the special rights group. Are you thick?

Re:The double standard at work

[rahvin112]

Proposition 8 isn't the only state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in the country that's been thrown out. In fact the Supreme court threw out the Federal defense of marriage law and cited that it directly violated the 14th amendment. Since that ruling several district courts have ruled that even state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage are a violation of the 14th amendment and cite the supreme court ruling on DOMA and the supreme court ruling that threw out laws and state constitutional amendments that banned inter-racial marriage.

Regardless of what the justification was for throwing out prop 8 it would have eventually been thrown out. Banning gay marriage is no different than banning inter-racial marriage. It is a direct and IMO criminal violation of rights codified in the constitution and it's amendments. In 50 years it will be looked upon with the same disdain that most people today feel about to the same inter-racial marriage bans.

The employees of Mozilla are within their rights to ask him to step down for those atrocious views. Of course he can refuse and the majority of the workforce could quit as a result, which would highly damage Mozilla. He needs to decide if his running Mozilla is more important than the potential loss of those employees which have requested he step down. I can imagine the recruiters are salivating at the thought of him refusing.

Re:The double standard at work

[thoth]

Here is my view, as a Libertarian: Government has no right to define what is or what isn't marriage.

Marriage confers various legal statuses, and as such, involves the gov't.

Now if you are talking about some kind of Libertarian exception that exempts both spouses from ALL legal status and responsibilities, then sure, knock yourself out. Just be happy with a giant middle finger if later you wanted one of those rights/benefits you passed on, to avoid the gov't definition.

But it would be very hypocritical to expect the gov't to grant legal status with marriage, without agreeing to the definition of marriage.

Re:The double standard at work

[viperidaenz]

I don't know specifically about USA, but living with someone has effects on social welfare payments in many countries.

Re:The double standard at work

[madbrain]

Was anyone other than homosexuals excluded from the "special rights" group ?

Re:The double standard at work

[Sarius64]

It's almost not worth arguing. The gay marriage advocates are more than willing to discriminate against others in order to gain their comfort level of acceptance.

Re:The double standard at work

[bluefoxlucid]

I'm single. Do I get the special privilege to file jointly with myself and pay half as much taxes?

Re:The double standard at work

[bluefoxlucid]

Yeah, because you know. Love isn't valid if the state doesn't get involved.

Re:The double standard at work

[bluefoxlucid]

He's not intolerant. He believes that it's bad for society to allow gay marriage. Intolerance would involve putting gays in concentration camps (we call them 'prisons', a french word meaning 'concentration camp for jews and slave labor').

Those beliefs are valid: various moral systems assume that exposure to or encouragement of homosexuality is harmful to society as a whole, and thus the most tolerant thing to do is to show society that these things are discouraged but to not intervene on others' choices. When you get married, your tax burden decreases--society supports you monetarily, as in with money, by taking less money from you--which is diametrically opposed to the moral belief that homosexuality should be discouraged.

A person whose beliefs fall this way will, if tolerant, refuse to extend these convenience benefits: people who prefer to form a nuclear family get a monetary benefit, people who do not form such a nuclear family are given no such benefit. Such a person who is intolerant will execute these people or send them to Australia.

There is a difference between "tolerating", "accepting", and "encouraging". Marriage is a legal system to encourage certain behaviors by extending a monetary benefit. This monetary benefit comes at the expense of those who do not engage in those behaviors. Thus, marriage itself is government-mandated institutionalized discrimination: if you want equal rights, dissolve the institution of marriage.

Re:The double standard at work

[mrjimorg]

Consider if this was the opposite. What if he was anti-Prop 8 and some employees asked him to step down for it. What would your reaction be then? Remember, tolerance is a 2 way street, and these employees are very intolerant of differing opinions and beliefs.

Re:The double standard at work

[Archangel Michael]

Yes. Everyone who is neither gay nor straight. Haven't the whole non-heterosexual crowd (aka the GLBT) been making the case that sexuality is not black and white, but a whole bunch of gray in between?

So yeah, homosexual Marriage isn't about sexuality, it is about trying to feel "normal" (whatever that is) and forcing people to accept them. The fact is, quite frankly, I don't give a shit who is sleeping with who, who wants to marry who, and everything else associated with this argument. The fact is rights are not assigned to groups, and shouldn't be. Rights are INDIVIDUALs. If marriage is a right, it is a right assigned to an individual to make a contract with another individual without interference from government. PERIOD.

The problem is, that gay marriage activists have taken hold of a benefit assigned to people who are contracted (marriage) together. And at that point, I will agree that they should have that benefit. But then again, so should Polygamy and other forms of Plural contracts. If you're talking discrimination, then lets deal with the whole problem, not just the part that you agree with, while not dealing with the parts you don't. IS THIS NOT the whole argument of gay marriage?

The easiest solution is to remove the benefit, making all people equal, (single, married, plural etc) and let those that want to give preferential treatment do so according to their own conscience.

But here is the real crux of the issue, I would want to "marry" my daughter, not for sexual / procreation purposes, but rather for the "Benefits" associated with it, namely inheritance tax avoidance. IF you say you're not okay with this, then the whole point of Marriage is then taken from the "benefits" and put back into the "for love" (romantic type) realm. The problem is, the gay people want it both ways. They want it for, they can have their "civil union" and have all the noise of a "marriage" and none of the benefits today, in just about every state. They don't accept that. If they say "two adult people" then why then can't I "marry" my daughter to gain the benefits they want to gain (insurance, social security, death benefits etc) ? The moment you start excluding people you making "special rights" associated with some people, not others, based on arbitrary distinctions. Which is the exact opposite of the goal they claim they are working towards.

The can of worms they want opened is not one I dare say they expected.

Re:The double standard at work

[jcsalomon]

If you’re going to resort to etymology to define homophobe as “someone irrationally afraid of gay people” rather than the more common “someone who dislikes gay people”, you might as well go all the way and use the word correctly: “someone irrationally afraid of being alone”.

Re:The double standard at work

[amicusNYCL]

And what rights are homosexuals asking for that will only apply to them? The way I hear it, they want the same rights that other people have now.

Re:The double standard at work

[amicusNYCL]

homophobia
noun
noun: homophobia
1.
an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.

than the more common “someone who dislikes gay people”

Describe how disliking an entire group of people that you don't know is rational.

Re:The double standard at work

[ToddInSF]

I don't think you quite understand the role of government in relation to contracts, I mean, it's obviously the job of government to enforce the recognition and terms of contracts, so your entire argument right there is seriously falling short of coherency.

The Polygamy issue is irrelevant, as you can't really speak for "most gay people", or most Libertarians for that matter. The state does have a legitimate interest in designating marriage as between between only two individuals in so far as the state plays a crucial role in the recognition of the legitimacy and enforcement of contracts.

A real Libertarian would hardly fail to notice that the issue is just as much about the agenda of some Conservative Christians to dictate to other churches the right to wed same sex couples, as this has been the centerpiece of their little battle all along.

The right to utilize the state to dictate to other churches their religious beliefs and agendas has always been THE fundamental focus of the authority by which they base their arguments upon.

The authority of THEIR supposed biblical interpretation over everyone else's. And they are more than willing and feel more than compelled to get the state to do their dirty work for them.

So I'd argue that you (and perhaps most "Libertarians") are no more "Libertarian" than the average religious Fundamentalist is.

That you fail to comprehend the impact upon the basic human rights of same sex families being denied legal recognition of their marriages pretty much negates everything you have to say about Libertarianism.

Re:The double standard at work

[rahvin112]

I would have the exact same reaction. See I'm not brainwashed by the republicrats or democans into believing there is any difference whatsoever between the parties that I start to believe in silly BS like this where someone starts claiming discrimination because someone isn't "tolerant" of someone else's views. The employees are well within their rights to exercise their rights to freedom of speech and association to threaten to quit because he once wore a blue suit and they don't like blue suits. And I would fully support the other employees that think the ones that don't like blue suits are idiots threatening to quit if the request is honored.

The best response to people exercising their free speech and association rights in ways someone doesn't like is to exercise their own free speech and association rights as well. All I see in this thread is a bunch of whiny little bitches complaining about people exercising their rights apparently because they don't like the idea that anti-gay speech can and will lead to serious counter speech and people exercising their freedom of association rights to have nothing to do with the bigot. Get used to the idea, because in a free country if you start saying shit other people don't like they are probably going to react to that speech. Your choice is either to keep your mouth shut or to realize you may only be able to associate with people that share similar views because no one else will want to.

Re:The double standard at work

[jwhitener]

Equal treatment under the law is very much a rights issue.

Consider: only white people get food stamps. Sure, that is "just a benefit, nothing more, nothing less", but it is obviously racist.

At one point in our history, many states forbid black white marriages. And sure, that marriage certificate was "just a benefit", but that situation is obviously one about Civil Rights.

The Polygamy argument is just silly. It is the slippery slope argument that most far right conservatives start with, and it usually ends with them mentioning something about bestiality. However, the slope really doesn't exist. Polygamy has historically been shown to be a bad idea. And one that is nearly always about the exploitation of women. The split second that women get close to equal power in a society, polygamy vanishes. If polygamy is a non-starter, the slope doesn't exist.

Marriage has always been about two people creating a partnership, which creates stability and benefits society. As our society has changed, grown, and matured, we've decided to code into law protections against discrimination. At first, they were obvious ones, like race, religion, etc.. The latest one happens to be sexual orientation. It just takes time for a new civil rights protection to seep into all the aspects of society that people use to inform their worldviews, like churches for instance.

Re:The double standard at work

[Hognoxious]

You can have legal partnerships of more then 2 people.

Even UK graduates (whom you're apparently not impressed with) don't make that error, fatty.

Re:It wasn't just private opinion.

[cold fjord]

That conduct was not connected to his job. But if you want to start penalizing private political activity not connected to the job, that can cut the other way too. ACLU members? Fired. GLAAD members? Fired. Get the drift? Are you sure you want to go there?

Remember when Eich became the CEO of Mozilla?

[thevirtualcat]

I do. It was a pivotal day in the history of the organization.

His first action as the CEO was to immediately fire anyone who was in any way, shape or form connected to the GBLT community and issue a public statement that says "Fags should use Chrome or IE. Google and Microsoft like you perverts for some reason, but we don't want any of that here." Within a week, he had diverted a substantial portions of Mozilla's revenue to anti-GBLT orgnizations and publicly backed candidates who actively oppose gay rights. There were unsubtantiated rumors he would be working to remove code contributed by GBLT developers from Firefox, but those turned out to be just rumors.

Oh wait, no. That didn't happen.

He gave some money to a cause he supports a few years ago that a lot of people disagree with (including me) and didn't apologize for it.

But I can see how it's easy to get those two things confused.

Re:Remember when Eich became the CEO of Mozilla?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you pay a hit man to kill someone because you don't want to get your hands dirty, you are legally responsible.

If you pay an organization to discriminate because you don't want to get your hands dirty...

Tolerance and reason at it's finest

[Anonymous Coward]

"Hey, there is this guy, he has been around for pretty much forever, contributed more than half the goddamn planet, but he donated for Prop 8, what was outlawed anyway, he must be the spawn of Satan! He must step back, stop existing, or we boycott our single biggest hope for a better web and anyone who works there and isn't Eric!"
Those Ars commenters are batsh*t insane, mixing personal feelings and professional stuff. Also, gotta love the comments where he is compared to Hitler or the KKK. It isn't even a different different order of magnitude anymore...

Re:Tolerance and reason at it's finest

[Anonymous Coward]

Hitler? No.

KKK? Welll.... He's not burning crosses out there with them, but he's paying for poster board, paint and sticks.

This whole issue is about what Mozilla wants their company to be from the ground up. There is a culture there that is at odds with itself at times. They want to be a diverse force for good, but are mostly straight, white and male. The employees have a right to shape their company. They also have the right to complain... and to leave.

Everyone just cool their jets: no one is getting fired, some people just want to work for a diverse company.

Re:Tolerance and reason at it's finest

[devent]

If I have to chose between a "better web" and a world where gays are not prosecuted and are not discriminated any more, then I chose the latter, thank you very much.

Re:Tolerance and reason at it's finest

[mdielmann]

And by diverse you mean...everyone has to agree with everyone else.

As a general rule, I don't put up with intolerance, but I'm not saying I agree with his political choices, but I think he just might be able to separate his personal opinions from his work.

Also, he's in his fifties - his view is held by almost half the people in his demographic. Should they all be banned from leadership roles? A more reasonable idea might be to just wait for those who don't like the modern state of things to die off. It's a typical part of the process for a lot of social change. This will barely be an issue in a generation, although I can appreciate the discomfort this causes for everyone involved in the process.

Re:Tolerance and reason at it's finest

[Arker]

"a world where gays are not prosecuted and are not discriminated any more"

Running this guy out of town on a rail for his political beliefs is not going to bring that world closer. Quite the opposite.

Everyone in this story looks bad. It sounds like the organization is packed from top to bottom with people that are far too worried about lifestyle and office politics to have the time for software engineering.

Re:Tolerance and reason at it's finest

[devent]

> Running this guy out of town on a rail for his political beliefs is not going to bring that world closer. Quite the opposite.

Yes, I agree. But nobody is doing that (at least not me). Calling out on him for what laws he supports will bring the world closer to a world where minorities are not discriminated anymore.

Re:Tolerance and reason at it's finest

[devent]

I agree. I compared him to a bigot, not to Hitler. But I don't think a bigot is fit to represent Mozilla as the CEO, and some of the employees of Mozilla agree and asking him to step down. He can surely still work at Mozilla, he is just unfit to represent it.

Re:It wasn't just private opinion.

[Frosty Piss]

That conduct was not connected to his job. But if you want to start penalizing private political activity not connected to the job

But it is related to the job: He is the public face of Mozilla. As the CEO, his behavior reflects on Mozilla.

Re:It wasn't just private opinion.

[unixisc]

Mod up - insightful!

I'd rather not be fired for my beliefs

[Anonymous Coward]

So why fire him? If I were to donate money in favor of Prop 8 or against it I would like to keep my job.

Re:I'd rather not be fired for my beliefs

[cbhacking]

"Asked to step down" != "fired". He was promoted from inside the company, and they feel that he shouldn't have been.

Oh, and if you don't want your political contributions to become a big deal in the workplace, I have a couple recommendations:
1) Don't become a CEO. The CEO represents the company. The policies of a new CEO are assumed, with reason, to be the intended policies of the company. People care about that stuff, in ways that they're never going to care about one AC on Slashdot.
2) Don't do it publicly! A few thousand dollars quietly donated to one cause or another isn't generally going to alter anybody's opinion of you, because they won't know. A few thousand dollars publicly and visibly donated to a very controversial, discriminatory cause? Well, that's going to grab some attention. It still won't make headlines though, unless people have reason to believe you're in a position to discriminate against others going forward. See #1...

Re:I'd rather not be fired for my beliefs

[Anonymous Coward]

"Asked to step down" != "fired"

"Ask to step down" + "threaten to quit" = "extortion"

Don't do it publicly!

Guess what? He didn't!
It only became public when some activist acquired, and leaked, the list of donors. With the intent of public shaming, I can only presume.

Re:I'd rather not be fired for my beliefs

[Anonymous Coward]

He was promoted from inside the company, and they feel that he shouldn't have been.

I have an alternate theory. He burned some bridge at some point. That someone has an axe to grind. Got the the hate brigade all pissed off about something he did 5 years ago. I have seen less at lower levels. Someone like that being bumped to CEO probably pisses some off and not because of his belief.

How dare someone running a company have an opinion. This particular group has been using this shame tactic lately because it works. Its not right. In fact it is the *opposite* of what they demand everyone else give to them. There is a reason people do not like gay people. Hint: Its not because you are gay. Its because you are an asshole about it.

Re:I'd rather not be fired for my beliefs

[cold fjord]

He was promoted from inside the company, and they feel that he shouldn't have been.

If he was promoted from inside the company it was because of his job performance. His detractors oppose him because of something he did that wasn't work related, on his own time.

Oh, and if you don't want your political contributions to become a big deal in the workplace, I have a couple recommendations: ... The policies of a new CEO are assumed, with reason, to be the intended policies of the company.

That is BS. The political contribution he made were personal, unrelated to the company. Nobody could reasonably confuse the two - his personal contributions and what the company policy was. If he had Mozilla make contributions as a corporate entity that is a different question.

A few thousand dollars publicly and visibly donated to a very controversial, discriminatory cause? Well, that's going to grab some attention. It still won't make headlines though, unless people have reason to believe you're in a position to discriminate against others going forward. See #1...

In other words, people should only contribute to the causes that you personally approve of. Besides that, company officers aren't government officials.

If you really want that to stick that could be bad news for a lot of companies. Apple, for example, has a gay CEO. Should Apple then be boycotted?

Re:I'd rather not be fired for my beliefs

[wisnoskij]

"Don't become a CEO. The CEO represents the company."
We get that line for every back room worker. I do not care what some burger flipper wrote on FB that is his business, not McDonald's. And the same goes for the CEO.
"Don't do it publicly!" So freedom of speech, as long as no one hears you speak.

Re:I'd rather not be fired for my beliefs

[shutdown -p now]

Don't become a CEO. The CEO represents the company. The policies of a new CEO are assumed, with reason, to be the intended policies of the company. People care about that stuff, in ways that they're never going to care about one AC on Slashdot.

Which is bullshit through and through. By this logic, CEOs should be robots, basically, since almost everything that a human can do can be controversial to some person or another (did you see how Jobs dressed? disgusting ~).

Don't do it publicly! A few thousand dollars quietly donated to one cause or another isn't generally going to alter anybody's opinion of you, because they won't know. A few thousand dollars publicly and visibly donated to a very controversial, discriminatory cause?

Can you not do it publicly, though? Aren't there reporting requirements for donations above a certain, not all that large amount?

Re:I'd rather not be fired for my beliefs

[rahvin112]

"Ask to step down" + "threaten to quit" = "extortion"

So your mental gymnastics involve the belief that threatening to quit a company is somehow blackmail?

You're a fucking idiot.

Re:I'd rather not be fired for my beliefs

[Darinbob]

He didn't donate it publically, but it became knowledge because of campaign disclosure laws and someone digging through them to find names to boycott.

Re:I'd rather not be fired for my beliefs

[cbhacking]

Ah, my bad. I certainly can't argue that people should be able to finance such things invisible. I hadn't realized the public knowledge of his actions was due to a third-party though.

Re:I'd rather not be fired for my beliefs

[cbhacking]

I'm not sure if you completely misread what I wrote or are just intentionally being obstreperous. To clarify:
If you don't want people raising a stink over you doing things which conflict with company values, don't do those things and then become CEO.

The way that Jobs dressed was not, generally speaking, seen as a negative for the company (quite the opposite, really; his charisma and the "think different" aspect of it made it iconic). Similarly, Tim Cook being gay isn't seen as a problem for the company because their policies are extremely supportive of the LGBTQ community (although it may be offputting to some of their potential customers and/or investors, which is unfortunately a valid potential concern). If the next CEO had a history of opposing gay rights, you can be sure there'd be an uproar over it too, as that would mean having a CEO whose values conflict with those of the company and its employees.

Now, a company has every right to change its values and its policies. However, the employees also have the right to resist such changes, even pre-emptively. The company furthermore has the right to decide it can do without the services of those employees, just as the employees have the right to leave the company.

Just don't expect that to happen without people getting upset about it!

Re:I'd rather not be fired for my beliefs

[cbhacking]

Freedom of speech is not, never has been, and must never be freedom from consequences of speech. It limits the extent of those consequences (for example, the government can only prosecute you for very specific classes of harmful speech, such as slander or the classic "'Fire!' in a crowded theater" example). It mandates that you will always be free to express even unpopular opinions (such as anti-gay-rights, which is unpopular at a pro-equality company like Mozilla). It does *not* mean that people won't call for your removal from a highly visible position which also carries great authority, though. In fact, that's *their* freedom of speech!

Re:I'd rather not be fired for my beliefs

[Sarius64]

Really, your theory makes more sense considering the histories I've seen in climbing the ladder. Giving anyone ammunition against you equates to asking them to shove the daggers in your back as they use them to climb over your cold-dead body.

Re:I'd rather not be fired for my beliefs

[ToddInSF]

THIS.

He's the most public face of the company. He made his political/religious/moralistic political stand, now he has to suffer the scrutiny, like anybody else in his position.

He's failing to lead the company as a result of this stand, and trying to keep quiet about it now that the horse is out of the barn.

He gambled that people with his view would remain in the majority and that there would not be serious repercussions and a calling out for an explanation at some later point.

He was wrong, so now he's got all this scrutiny, which is what happens to CEO's.

The same sex marriage issue didn't turn out the way a lot of religious people thought it would as years went by, they thought that their religious views, and imposing them upon other churches and other religious people would somehow not come back to bit them in the ass. They love to make the issue out as being about some sort of PC police thing, and play the poor victimized Christian martyr. The reality is that other Christians and their churches have been and are just as much in disagreement with them. They tried to wield a power and authority that hurt people and their families and now they're crying about it. It's too bad, but they deserve the reactions they are getting now. If they'd shown a little compassion and deference and respect early ont hey wouldn't be in the position they've created for themselves.

They deserve it.

Re:It wasn't just private opinion.

[Quila]

So when Michael Bloomberg was CEO of Bloomberg LP, or Steve Case head of AOL, they should have been forced to step down because they "actively and publicly contributed to and campaigned for" taking away gun rights from the people. Right?

Not going to happen

[rsborg]

Regardless of the merits of Eich's actions, or the merits of those calling for his ouster, the fact remains that all that's going to happen is that there will be a kerfuffle and Eich will either ignore it or make some pro-LGBT concession and then things will continue on, the same way things have been going.

Does anyone doubt that the Eich is capable of handling the job? I don't hear that anywhere. Perhaps this whole thing is to focus away from the fact that he may not be the best person to head Mozilla (and remove other candidates from the spotlight by hogging all the attention)? That's a bit CT [1], but I've been accused of worse kinds of thoughtcrime.

[1] http://acronyms.thefreediction...

Re:It wasn't just private opinion.

[HornWumpus]

It is related to their jobs. As movie directors and writers they are credited by name. They are the public face of MGM. Their behavior reflects on the studio and it is reasonable to blacklist communists.

And, for the counterpoints

[chefmonkey]

A homosexual Mozilla employee's take on the topic: http://subfictional.com/2014/0...
A statement from Mitch Baker, Mozilla chairperson: https://blog.lizardwrangler.co...
A statement from Brendan himself: https://brendaneich.com/2014/0...
An official Mozilla statement on its policy regarding employee and contributor diversity: https://blog.mozilla.org/press...

Re:And, for the counterpoints

[Darinbob]

What's interesting though is that even with Brandon as CEO, Mozilla may still be one of the most open and inclusive and tolerant companies out there.

Re:It wasn't just private opinion.

[christianT]

A company's products are the public face of a company, not the CEO. Until this whole debacle I hadn't a clue who the CEO of Mozilla is or ever has been. What I knew of Mozilla was that they made a pretty darn good web browser among other things. The CEO is there to make sure they keep making a good browser and that the employees are taken care of. If the browser goes to crap or the employees are being mistreated, then he should be ousted.

Re:It wasn't just private opinion.

[Archangel Michael]

How is his stance related to the job, other than it is unpopular?

If that is all that you care about (popular opinions of the left) , which seems to the point, then it WILL cut both ways. This is the tyranny that the left opposes except when it benefits them. Think about it this way, what if the NRA said that the CEO of Startbucks should be fired for his comments about people with guns (CC permits) not being welcomed at Starbucks? I mean, THAT does affect Starbucks, but is also SIMPLY a political belief, having nothing to do with coffee and crumpets.

The left LOVES to mix their business with political beliefs. Had Right Wingers known that they support suppression of speech, I'm sure that would have done so earlier.

Libertarians don't give a shit as long as people get the job they were hired to do, done.

Re:It wasn't just private opinion.

[sjames]

The employees FIRED the CEO. What an odd company!

Hey wait! They ASKED him to step down and have no actual ability to fire him.

Why don't you quit!

[Anonymous Coward]

How about those people quit instead. If your not happy about somebody's personal life, then quit. Mind your own damn business and do your job. People are way to nosy in everybody else s affairs. Take that time and reflect upon yourself instead.

Social 'Justice'

[epyT-R]

So basically, because this guy doesn't enthusiastically cheer for and support gays at every opportunity, he deserves the boot? Doesn't he have a right to express and support his values, too? As an atheist, I think religion is nuts, but the same rights that allow these gay employees to voice their displeasure in the first place, without being booted themselves, should protect him as well. There is no 'controversy' here.

Marriage, religion, and gay rights should have nothing to do with running a software company, which is what he was hired to do. Let him do it. If he sucks at it, then fire him. If he does a good job, then reward him. Part of being an employee is that sometimes you have to work with people you don't like, and this applies equally to him as well as to these gay employees. Apparently, these professional victims think that life lesson should not apply to them, only to their political enemies. Their crocodile tears on twitter do not impress, either, as they are acting like he victimized them just by taking the job at Mozilla. That's bullshit.

Workplaces should be amoral, apolitical places. You were hired to do a job, so was he. Do your jobs well and there'll be no time for stupid political wrangling from any side.

Re:Social 'Justice'

[epyT-R]

Right, but there's nothing connecting employment with mozilla to those issues. He hasn't even been employed long enough to do anything one way or the other.

Re:Social 'Justice'

[devent]

> So basically, because this guy doesnt enthusiastically cheer for and support gays at every opportunity, he deserves the boot?

No, because he donated to a law that would remove or prohibit benefits, right and privileges to couples only because they were born homosexual. He actively wants to discriminate a minority because of his personal believes.

> Their crocodile tears on twitter do not impress, either, as they are acting like he victimized them just by taking the job at Mozilla. Thats bullshit.

No, Mozilla employees just don't want to see Mozilla, a brand that they helped to create, be associated with someone who actively wants to discriminate a minority. They are worried that a bigot like Brendan Eich is associated with Mozilla.

Re:Social 'Justice'

[bluefoxlucid]

That sounds an awful lot like "Mozilla doesn't want to be associated with Judeo-Christian beliefs because Catholics and Jews are bad people."

Re:Social 'Justice'

[devent]

If you actively support laws that will discriminate a minority based on your religious believes, then, yes, in my opinion, you are a bad person. Now, don't get me wrong, I know that the majority of Christians and Jews do not support the discrimination of gay couples, but obviously Brendan Eich did. And that is the only issue here: that Eich supported a law that is designed to discriminate a minority.

Here is Prop 8.
"Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
That discriminates any marriage that is between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman by the state of California. Yes there are same-sex marriage in California, as the California Council of Churches states: “By allowing the religious views of some faith communities to be imposed on all faith communities, our religious liberty has been severely eroded,” [1]
Even the church itself is calling Prop 8. bigotry
"Rev. Schlosser affirmed, “As faith leaders, we know that bigotry, exclusion and discrimination are not faith-based family values. We are committed to standing together for equality for all Californians, no matter how long it takes." [1]

[1] http://www.webcitation.org/que...

You could rephrase it to:
"Sec. x.x. Only marriage between a white man and a white woman is valid or recognized in California."
Would you still be Ok with that?

Re:Social 'Justice'

[bluefoxlucid]

They're still discriminating against people who are married to animals, The Lord, or the single life. All of these groups need to pay more in taxes and get arrested if they take a lower tax payment and higher standard deduction by filing jointly.

Re:Social 'Justice'

[Sciath]

I for one could grant that a workplace should be apolitical. However, it's a substantial stretch to assert it should be amoral. The "amorality" of capitalism is one of it's inherent flaws. The only thing free-markets are currently premised upon is 1. Self-interest. 2. Some degree of regulation, because without oversight to ensure contract law etc. free-markets would be complete chaos. One the other hand, there have been countless instances of free-market fraud, cheats, manipulation, theft, etc. All because the self-interest motive is amoral. It seeks wealth and power "by any means necessary" regardless of cultural norms expected in other social spheres. Was it the junk bond trader Michael Milkin who once asserted, "greed is good"? Greed has become a sacred cow in western capitalism because self-interest trumps morals (unless you get caught breaking some law).

Re:It wasn't just private opinion.

[TheGratefulNet]

tit for tat, I say.

more and more, companies are invading your home life and privacy. you want this job, here, piss in a bottle since you are guilty unless you prove otherwise.

what a person may choose to do at home while off-work is their business. right? well, companies don't seem to think so. they want to invade your lifestyle choices and penalize you for it.

well, same here! we have every right to inspect the CEO's personality and character and if its not 'in line' with our core beliefs, sure, send him packing!

when companies stop invading our home life styles, we will stop asking the c-levels about theirs.

fair is fair.

Re:It wasn't just private opinion.

[DaHat]

The reason why the attacks are unidirectional is because gay marriage

I wasn't talking just about same sex marriage... why are you?

or the larger issue of gay rights

At last check... gay individuals had the same rights as straight ones... and while sometimes those rights may not line up with preferences (ie right to marry someone of the opposite sex where desire is to marry someone of the same sex), the right remains the same regardless... you purposely try to pain the issue as something more than its not.

is a human rights issue.

Again... you prove my point of intolerance from the left... and that one need only call something a 'human rights' or 'civil rights' issue until you make enough people agree through education & politics... or fear mongering and blacklisting.

Guess which you are supporting?

All you need to do is look back across history to figure out if the side that protects, or the side that attacks, human rights is the "right" side.

History tends to be written by the victors... yet up until just two years ago, the President of the United States claimed to be against same-sex marriage... does that mean up until then he should have been viewed as a homophobic and anti-gay bigot? No? Interesting the continued double standard... or do you think history will record it that way?

2 men or 2 women getting married has the same impact on your life as a black man marrying a white woman.

You assume I care about either, your point?

There is no reason to not allow that.

Again... do you have a point? It's been clear for some time which way the tide was going... yet the issue is less today about the 'right' to marry someone of the same sex, but of the compulsion to force others to recognize it... and no, I don't mean at the court house, but of even a florist or baker being able to say they do not agree with the union and cannot provide services for such an event.

The only justification people have for not supporting gay rights is because of their own prejudice.

Yet the prejudices of those who see prejudices everywhere are emboldened to lash out against anyone they deem as not being sufficiently supportive of the current cause celeb... as we see in this case here.

Intolerance of perceived intolerance is still bigotry... and if anything, those who are calling for the stepping down of Eich are proving the (lack) of quality of their characters as they cannot handle the idea of working for someone who may have once disagreed with them.

Something of note:

[alostpacket]

Not sure about behavior, but as a 501c3, Mozilla is not allowed to donate to candidates and has limits on lobbying. But I do not know what exactly the limits are.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki...

Something in there...

The lobbying ceiling amount for any organization for any taxable year is 150 percent of the lobbying nontaxable amount for such organization for such taxable year, determined under section 4911.

Hopefully someone has a greater interest in deciphering that.^ It does not seem related to anything decided in Citizens v United as far as I can tell.

Re:It wasn't just private opinion.

[harrkev]

How is his stance related to the job, other than it is unpopular?

Proposition 8 passed with 52.24% of the voters voting FOR it. Please define "unpopular." Perhaps it is just that the people against Prop 8 were a lot more vocal?

Re:It wasn't just private opinion.

[DaHat]

Ug... posted the wrong reply above... instead I meant to ask/say...

Bigger question... where is the campaign to have President Obama step down as he was against same sex marriage when he ran for national office back in 2008 (and previously)... and only more recently 'evolved' on the issue.

Shouldn't a (former?) bigot like him be compelled to resign for his previous sins?

Like Supporting Segregation in the 1950s

[Bob9113]

Should private beliefs be enough to prevent someone from heading a project they helped found?

No, but he didn't keep his beliefs private, he tried to turn them into law. And that still doesn't mean he can't head the project, it just means a lot of people may walk away from it, and Mozilla.org needs to consider that.

Is the backlash itself justified? Well, to some, including myself, it is a bit like supporting segregation in the 1950s. Right now, it is a mainstream political view to believe that gay people should not have equal rights. There's a hundred thousand years of evolution behind that belief, and it is not realistic to expect everyone to switch that internal belief off at the drop of a hat -- no more than it was possible for people in the 1950s to instantly accept equal treatment of black people.

But what good people did do in the 1950s was stop expressing their prejudice. They stopped supporting segregation, and stopped saying that they found it to be an acceptable practice. Most of them still had that deep internal programming. Most people still have it to some extent today. Hundreds of thousands of years of "different looking means dangerous" genetic programming isn't going to go away overnight. But we have reached a point where we treat those beliefs as flawed baser instincts, like the desire to hit a person over the head and steal their BMW. We repress those feelings because we believe in being better than that.

We have reached a point in our society where prejudicial treatment of black people is no longer accepted. We will reach that point with gay people too, and Mozilla will be as embarrassed of having an unrepentant bigot for a CEO as Walt Disney Corp is of Walt's anti-Semitism. It is not that Mozilla should be forbidden from doing so, it is just a question of showing good judgment.

Mozilla, tell Eich to figure it out and recant his position. It's OK to be unable to overcome your baser instincts; that is a reality of being a flawed human. I'll admit that my instinctive reaction to the idea of gay sex is not pleasant. But it is not OK to express prejudicial beliefs or to support prejudicial laws.

Re:Like Supporting Segregation in the 1950s

[Vinegar Joe]

Should private beliefs be enough to prevent someone from heading a project they helped found?

No, but he didn't keep his beliefs private, he tried to turn them into law.

True. He was under the mistaken impression he is living in a free country and protected by the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Re:It wasn't just private opinion.

[cold fjord]

Do you have any examples of Mozilla's "highly intrusive" policies? Company by company might be fair, but not everyone everywhere without proof.

Re: That logic totally holds up

[Anonymous Coward]

And the responsibilities of a CEO mean they can't have personal beliefs that are contrary to those of some of the employees?

If I'm an atheist and I run a Christian college, should the employees be able to boycott me? If I'm a CEO and I voted and supported communist candidates that the majority of my employees don't approve, should I be forced to step down?

As a CEO, can I not have any beliefs?

Re:It wasn't just private opinion.

[naasking]

As the CEO, his behavior reflects on Mozilla.

His behaviour as CEO reflects on Mozilla.

Isn't it ironic ..

[DTentilhao]

Isn't it ironic that the very people who are asking for more tolerance are totally intolerant of any opposing views ..

Re:Isn't it ironic ..

[GameboyRMH]

Machinist's definition of "tolerance" at work. Again... :-(

http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

We need to come up with a totally new word for "tolerance" in the political context or this will never end. How about "brunglesnortz?" (No hits on Google, yay!)

Re:Isn't it ironic ..

[bluefoxlucid]

Between the economic considerations, the discriminatory nature of institutionalized marriage (it redistributes wealth from people not married to people married), and the fact that gay marriage is a contentious moral issue for people of certain religions, the whole thing is a huge fucking ball of hypocrisy.

If you're not in the nuclear family... or gay and marrying some other gay person... you know, if you're single... then you deserve to share a larger proportion of the tax burden than the others. Gay marriage shifts gays under the same protective umbrella as the privileged married class, leaving those who choose not to participate in the state concept of marriage paying a higher proportion of their income in taxes. Those whose lives are fundamentally incompatible with such relationships--whose interests are not toward relationships and so who pursue time-consuming goals like scientific research or military deployment or freight hauling or airline stewardship, all of which strain romantic relationships--must either chose another type of life or enter into a (strained) relationship and experience high levels of stress AND put themselves at risk for divorce litigation to avoid the monetary penalty.

Those who are religious, whose beliefs are fundamentally that homosexuality is incorrect and should not be encouraged, are attacked for trying to work toward what they believe is the betterment of society. They feel that the institution of marriage should support the proper, appropriate nuclear family, encourage singles to pair up and get married in child-rearing structures, and not support homosexuals taking advantage of the same benefits offered to encourage these things. They are, of course, attacked for their beliefs. They tolerate the existence of homosexuals, rather than exiling them or burning them to death; but they are called intolerant for not handing them money for being actively gay.

It's not just ironic; it's ridiculous. Society is built on discriminatory treatment of various social groups, and now we have a social group that wants to get in on the benefit side rather than tear down the discriminatory institution entirely.

Re: That logic totally holds up

[amiga3D]

You can have them but apparently you can't voice them. Ah well.

Re:Not private

[AK Marc]

The CEO has the right to think and say whatever he likes. The employees have the right to think and say whatever they like about the CEO's actions. I'm still not clear where the issue is.

Re:Instantly fired.

[Anonymous Coward]

No kidding. These idiots need to look past Eich's political views to his ability to run the organization. Bitching about the boss' politics isn't productive and makes the whiners look pathetic.

It could be a good thing

[wjcofkc]

So this guy is now submerged in inclusiveness, namely with policies supporting GBLT. In an official statement he said he has people around him guiding him on the culture. Further, as with any company, he works directly with a good number of gay people. This is a perfect experience to change his mind on the issue regardless of the source of his current viewpoint.

Re:It could be a good thing

[gig]

So what you're saying is Mozilla is not a company at all, it is actually some kind of rehab center for bigots? The bigot comes in, Mozilla makes him CEO, and then everyone else volunteers their time to educate him to a 6th grade level? You're saying that LGBT employees and other employees of Mozilla have been signed up against their will as some kind of unpaid anti-bigotry counselors for precious Brendan Eich? You're saying that the Mozilla community has been signed up against their will as some kind of support group for Brendan Eich? So we can help him recover from his Hitler fantasies?

Fuck no. I'm not doing it. Mozilla is dead to me as long as he is CEO. Brendan Eich can get cancer and die. I have no interest in spending anymore of my precious life on fucking Prop 8.

> This is a perfect experience to change his mind on the issue regardless of the source of his current viewpoint.

Imagine if the new NASA chief thought the earth was flat. Well, he's in the perfect environment to change his mind on that issue.

Uh — no.

Equality is not an issue you debate. Brendan Eich does not have a viewpoint. It is just hatred. We have seen it many times before.

An issue is something like, “should we let a mining company open-pit mine our county?” and viewpoints are things like, “no, the environment will be ruined and children will get sick and die,” or “yes, we need the jobs and the money will support our children's future.” And then you have a debate over the issue, arguing the benefits and risks to both sides. Then everybody (or their representatives) vote on the issue and move forward as an entire community.

But a key thing that came out of the court cases on Prop 8 is there is ZERO benefit from Prop 8 for Brendan Eich and others like him, except for the opportunity to indulge in hatred. Prop 8 is a gun that you can use to shoot LGBT people. That is it. No issue, no debate over common risks and benefits to the entire community. Prop 8 doesn't build anything, doesn't help anyone, doesn't do anything positive for anyone. It simply provides an outlet for hatred for some people. With years of court cases and millions of dollars worth of lawyers, nobody could show any harm to any straight people or religious people or anyone from LGBT people having the same marriage rights as everyone else. There was no issue of environmental pollution versus jobs, there was no issue of allocation of resources. It is not an issue. It is just hatred. Pure and simple. Brendan Eich continues to assert his right to not only hate LGBT people, but to take public action against them, to harm them, to destroy their families, to exclude them from full citizenship and exclude them from the public discourse. He's not engaging in a debate with the community — he's trying to exclude minorities from the community. He's not expressing his vote — he's trying to take the vote away from others.

 

Re:It could be a good thing

[wjcofkc]

I appreciate and understand your sentiment.

What I am saying is that the world is a rehab center for bigots, if they wind up in the right place. A long time ago worked at a two-story night club. We started renting the top floor out as a gay night club on Fridays. As part of my job, I got to help out. I was a bit homophobic at the time, but not bigoted. After I got to know the people and culture first hand, that homophobia melted away and they became just other people, some became friends.

Sometimes it takes other minds AND OR an environment to change a single mind. We can only change the world one mind at a time.

As I said, I understand where you are otherwise coming from. In fact we are in agreement. As part of the snowballing boycott, I myself have purged my system of all Mozilla software, as I am not waiting around for him to shed his moral repugnancy,that's the pressure we can apply.

BTW - I am having trouble finding an adequate replacement for Thunderbird. Can you recommend anything?

Re:It could be a good thing

[bluefoxlucid]

It's not called "Rehabilitation", it's called "Socialization". It's where we take you out of your little isolated world and make you part of society, and you become well-socialized and more understanding and empathetic. You may retain your opinions, you may even speak and act on them; but you also consider how your actions impact others, and you seek to do the least harm and to work for the betterment of society in a greater understanding of what that means.

By the by, if gays get married, they pay less in taxes. That's less money the government is bringing in in taxes. The government then needs to cover the same expenses--if they go through spending reform, they will have lower expenses, but still also have less income to cover them rather than having lower expenses and the same amount of income. Thus society suffers either from the ill effects of government debt or from an increase in taxes which is itself proportionally higher for the unmarried than the married. Since the gays have moved from one group to the other, the group of the married--paying less--is larger, and they suffer less from this adjustment, in the end coming out somewhat ahead financially while married heterosexual families come out slightly behind and unmarried singles come out significantly further behind.

So yes, there's benefit from Prop 8 for non-gays. It's small, but it's not zero. You could call it "negligible" or "insignificant", in the same way that stealing a nickel out of your ash tray is "negligible" and "insignificant". Obviously it's still stealing, but the effort to care is immensely larger than the value of a nickel.

Re:It could be a good thing

[TangoMargarine]

Imagine if the new NASA chief thought the earth was flat. Well, he's in the perfect environment to change his mind on that issue.

What the fuck does one's views on homosexuality have to do with designing a web browser?!

If .. Then .. Else ..

[burni2]

Being tollerant towards intollerant people, hasn't worked out very well as history tells.

Extremists will at any time cry foul that some people are intollerant against them, but at the same time perfectly realizing that they were intollerant in the first place.

But if he is activly anti-GBLT his smell and his taste will at one point or another stain Mozillas hiring policies because what the boss says goes, even if it's "private". It's unavoidable and this is bad.

And that is why such a person should not have become CEO of a "colourful" company in the first place. However he should be free to tell his oppinion on LGBT-people, but he should tell it honestly, not the soft washed terms, "think of the children".

He should express his true believes: that he hates LGBT people and thinks that they commit to soddom & gomorra, and that HIV is a devine punishment and that LGBT people should rott in prision like in Uganda because they taint the souls and make other people gay. And that sticking the penis into the ass of another man is dirty and annatural because sex & lust are only ment to produce children so all other uses of the tools is praying to satan.

Most homophobics men fear to see naked men because someone could spot the increasing VECTORSUM.

If he becomes CEO of the Church of the first saints and nostalgics, so be it.

But for now should step down, and a shitstorm is the best way to overcome such a person.

Re:I think one thing we've glossed over

[chefmonkey]

At the risk of feeding what is probably a troll, I'll point out that you are confused about Mozilla's financial structure. Do some research.

Re:It wasn't just private opinion.

[ne0n]

Taking rights away from others? Rubbish. It's not a right to obtain governmental approval of your cohabitation strategy or sexual preferences.

Re:It wasn't just private opinion.

[mcl630]

They're *asking* him to step down, not *forcing* him to step down. Employees of Bloomberg or AOL could have asked Michael Bloomberg or Steve Case to step down if they wished to. They didn't and it likely wouldn't have made a difference if they had tried.

Also bare in mind, Mozilla Corp is wholly owned to Mozilla Foundation (a non-profit). The goals for Mozilla Corp are whatever Mozilla Foundation wants. If Mozilla decides they don't want this guy to be their CEO, that's their perogative. Bloomberg and AOL are/were public-traded for-profit corporations. Their goals are/were to make as much money as possible for their shareholders. If their shareholders wanted to get rid of Bloomberg or Case based on politics rather than profits, it's their perogative as well.

Re:It wasn't just private opinion.

[andymadigan]

Whether it's related to his job or not, if people are willing to stop working for Mozilla because of his beliefs, that is related to his job. This isn't some low-level lackey threatened with termination because he voted for the wrong party. This is his subordinates threatening to leave because they don't want to work for him. If enough people are willing to leave, firing him will do less damage.

Hobby Lobby Supreme Court Case Comparision

[Nemesisghost]

So how does this compare to the rights that the owners of Hobby Lobby have asserted as a means for not paying for health care plans that provide certain forms of birth control? Is asking for this guy to step down as head of Mozilla not the same as asserting that the personal beliefs of the heads of a corporation or organization set them for the organization as a whole? I ask because I don't see how you can ask Brendan Eich to step down because of his beliefs without at the same time allowing the Greens to have religious exception to Obamacare.

Re:Instantly fired.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, they need to look at his technical contributions.

Javascript? STEP DOWN, SIR!

Re:Instantly fired.

[VortexCortex]

At my company, if you start making comments like that, pack your shit.

L-Lude!

Re:It wasn't just private opinion.

[cold fjord]

They are conducting a media campaign to have the CEO removed one way or another. If they were just trying to convince him they would send an email. They are trying to inflame the public against him and bring political pressure, perhaps to influence the board of directors to remove him.

Re: It wasn't just private opinion.

[Quila]

But would you have supported them in their call, as the OP does the Mozilla employees in theirs?

Re:It wasn't just private opinion.

[Anonymous Coward]

Responding to fictious comments now?

Re:If the employees don't like it they should leav

[cbhacking]

Exactly why should they leave the *country*? That's some random bullshit of the finest sort. It may have escaped your notice, but Prop 8 was actually overturned by the government...

But as for the part about quitting, that's fair enough. I'd be tempted to quit in that situation myself, and I'm neither gay nor Californian. That's a reflection of policies and probable motivations I would be extremely concerned to see at the head of my company too!

Would we...

[WillyWanker]

...even be having this conversation if he donated money to the KKK?

Re:Would we...

[Lehk228]

if prop 8 burned people to death and blew up churches, that would be an appropriate comparison

Re:Would we...

[gig]

If he was a KKK member, Mozilla would likely not have made him CEO. That is the discrepancy here. That is the mistake that Mozilla is being called out on.

If the KKK in California had put up a proposition to ban so-called* interracial marriage and Brendan Eich gave thousands of dollars to it, and then it passed because of money that flooded in from the slave states, then Mozilla would not have made him CEO. Here, we have a situation that is even worse than that, because years later after much public suffering, after Prop 8 was struck down as unconstitutional, Brendan Eich *still* supports it. He makes no apologies for his support of the KKK or the actions he took to try and make some people less equal than others.

So Mozilla is saying, some kinds of hatred are just OK with us. We give him a pass for his anti-homo actions. Mozilla says, “won't everybody please respect Brendan Eich's right to put triangles on the arms of all homos and single them out for special second-class citizen treatment?” No, he doesn't have a right to do that. And he doesn't have a right to be respected by the people he victimized with his actions. Mozilla gains Eich as CEO and loses a large part of its community in return. Action gets reaction.

(* I say so-called interracial marriage because there is only one race — human race — and therefore all marriage is humanracial marriage. In related news: the earth is round, evolution can be seen under a microscope, environmental pollution damages your health, and it is the 21st century.)

Re:Would we...

[WillyWanker]

Discrimination is discrimination, no matter who the target minority group is. And it's not like gay people aren't beaten and killed simply for being gay.

Re:Would we...

[WillyWanker]

Well scientifically there are 3 races of humans, but I'm not going to argue the point with you.

Re:Would we...

[jpatters]

Citation fucking needed

Re:Would we...

[Sarius64]

So since the Democratic party started the KKK, advocated murder for political power in America, and exists today you think that all registered Democrats should be rendered jobless?

Re:Would we...

[bluefoxlucid]

Gay people sometimes beat straight people to death for being straight. It happens.

Gay marriage is discriminatory against heterosexuals: it imposes minor economic pressure on the traditional nuclear family. Gay marriage provides economic relief to married homosexuals, but does not provide the same relief for bachelors, and the other two groups (pre-gay-marriage families and bachelors) experience increased economic pressure to supply the economic relief benefited to gays when they get married.

Re:Would we...

[bluefoxlucid]

The white, the black, the yellow, the red, the brown. No green bastards need apply.

Re:Would we...

[WillyWanker]

Go fucking find it yourself. I'm not going to provide a citation for something that's taught in high school biology class.

Re:Would we...

[WillyWanker]

Exactly my point.

Re:Would we...

[TangoMargarine]

Race != Species. Just because we're way too obsessed about the latter doesn't mean we should confuse the conversation further by denying the term.

Re:Would we...

[WillyWanker]

Are you off your meds again?

Re:Would we...

[WillyWanker]

Don't forget the purple. Everyone always forgets the purple.

Re:Would we...

[bluefoxlucid]

You assert that someone who holds a certain opinion is bad because... people have been beaten. Implication is that he is guilty by association to people who have beaten other people to death.

I respond that some of those people have been beaten for being similar to other people who have beaten people to death. These people are bad people because they are in a way associated with people who have beaten other people to death.

Re:Would we...

[bluefoxlucid]

I don't see purple.

Re:Would we...

[WillyWanker]

No, the implication was that a comparison between prop 8 and the KKK is invalid because the KKK has routinely partaken in the deaths of black people while prop 8 has not. I rejected this assertion because the reality is that gay people are murdered for being gay, and while prop 8 may not be directly responsible for these actions, anything that promotes discrimination also fosters the attitude that it's ok to beat up or kill someone you perceive to be gay. It's not.

But nice try on the strawman argument. Better luck next time.

Re:Would we...

[WillyWanker]

I've heard of blue/yellow and red/green color blindness, but not purple. Hmm...have you seen an eye doctor?

Re:Would we...

[bluefoxlucid]

I thought you were arguing that Brendan is a bad person because he supports Prop 8, because of the beatings of gays.

Re:Would we...

[WillyWanker]

He's a bad person for supporting prop 8 because prop 8 discriminates against gay people. Period.

Re:Would we...

[bluefoxlucid]

Which proposition makes marriage to animals illegal? That seems to discriminate against the Welsh.

Re:Would we...

[jpatters]

It is you who have made the astounding claim that "scientifically" there are "three races of humans", so the burden is on you to cite your sources. Current science makes no such claim, and you should stop spouting off on things about which you have no clue.

High school biology class is hardly a definitive venue to learn about science that is more current than the 1950s.

Re: That logic totally holds up

[HornWumpus]

He didn't even voice them. The prop8 donor list was outed by the McCarthyits shysters. If they become public knowledge...

Re:It wasn't just private opinion.

[sjames]

So a peon dares to suggest his better might not be all that better? OH NOES!

Re:It wasn't just private opinion.

[Oligonicella]

You mean like union workers threatening to strike because the CEO isn't Dem? That kind of thing's OK? His not being Dem is causing the company problems by your logic.

Re:It wasn't just private opinion.

[cold fjord]

No, the employee is conducting a media campaign against the CEO for something he did in his personal time unrelated to his job as CEO.

I assume you think turnabout is fair play then.

Irony

[therealkevinkretz]

So McAvoy is glad he can express feelings without fear of retribution but because of the CEO's private views, *he* should suffer it? What hypocrisy.

Re:Irony

[therealkevinkretz]

Hey crazy person,

By "private" I didn't mean "secret" or "non-public"; I meant as part of his private life, unrelated to work.

I do not agree with his positions *at all*; I am as pro same-sex marriage as a person can be. BUT It's not illegal to have a dumb position that just about half of the country has - and that doesn't make it "right", but it means it's not outrageous or extreme in today's context. Any employee is of course entitled to say "I don't want to work with you" to their employer - and then if they don't, they should quit.

Re: Isn't it ironic.

[Anonymous Coward]

What is ironic is that they ask for "equality", while supporting laws that favour "diversity quotas" to give them preference in the hiring process. But then again, that's how socialism corrupts societies. "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".

Re:It wasn't just private opinion.

[Fwipp]

The people against it spent a hell of a lot more money.

Re:I think one thing we've glossed over

[mcl630]

That for-profit corporation (Mozilla Corporation) is wholly-owned by a non-profit (Mozilla Foundation). Mozilla Corp has to bend to the will of Mozilla Foundation, whatever will that might be.

Re:Take it easy, they're just _asking_

[epyT-R]

and if he 'asked' them to step down because they're gay, what would the response be?

Re:It wasn't just private opinion.

[harrkev]

So, apparently you must be in the habit of blindly voting for whichever side spends the most money without actually understanding the issues involved, right?

Ingrates

[Stumbles]

They should count themselves lucky the CEO does not apply the same standard to those demanding he step down.

Why SHOULDN'T gays be allowed to marry?

[EmagGeek]

Marriage has absolutely dick to do with religion anymore. Marriage is a state-run institution that affords married couples certain rights and privileges that ensure the steadfastness of their union and protects it from state interference. That is all.

Perhaps the most important part of marriage is that married couples enjoy the right of spousal privilege in legal proceedings. One spouse may not be compelled by the State to testify against the other, nor reveal the contents of privileged communications, for example. That's huge, and it is something that gay couples in states that do not recognize or allow gay marriages do not have. Any two people who are committed to each other should have this right of privilege.

What States really ought to do is just remove the word "Marriage" from all of their books and only offer civil unions, to any couple who desires to have one. If you want to have a religious marriage, get one in a Church, and follow your religion's rules, but leave the rest of us out of it. Religious folk do not have the right to force the rest of us to follow their religion, and in fact our Constitution guarantees that gay couples are free from state-sanctioned discriminatory religious beliefs.

Re: I am deeply hurt and offended

[montulli]

As the creator of the blink tag, I am deeply hurt and offended by your comment. I require a public apology, counseling for everyone involved and restitution for pain and suffering. Didn't you know that everyone in tech, even the blink tag creator, reads Slashdot?

Re:Instantly fired.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mozilla is already highly political. They view their product as a tool to help further their goals of increased freedom.

Like freedom of speech? Freedom of conscience? The freedom to express your personal views? That kind of freedom?

Who do these complainers think they are; declaring that someone should lose their job, just because they have different beliefs? It's a good thing that they're not the ones in charge, because that kind of attitude is exactly what can lose you your job - and land you in court.

Re:It wasn't just private opinion.

[sycodon]

You mean, he participated in the political process?

The NERVE!

Re:It wasn't just private opinion.

[sycodon]

I bet they want all those people should be fired.

Re:public actions != private beliefs. Chavez, Phel

[rogoshen1]

heh. if chik-fil-a really cared about wholesome environments for families, they might figure out a way to pay employees a bit more*. Hourly employees don't always want 'forced' time off either. I'm sure many of them would jump for the chance to work Sundays, after all that's another 50-80 dollars for them.

* -- obviously chik-fil-a needs to turn a profit, but claiming to care even an iota about employees while paying less than subsistence wages is rather disingenuous.

Re:It wasn't just private opinion.

[melchoir55]

It is sophistry to say that both gay and straight individuals have the same rights when pointing out that gay people can marry people of the opposite gender. Some people regard marriage as an institution which expresses their love for another human being in the strongest possible terms. Some of these people are gay. Some are straight. The straight ones have the right to marry the person they love. They are guaranteed the pursuit of happiness, in this pursuit at least. Gay people are not.

You might respond that this is not a "right". If you do, you would be forgetting the philosophical commitment underlying the enumeration of powers in the US constitution. There are an infinite number of rights, just as there are an infinite number of powers. It was an absurdly enormous mistake to title the first 10 amendments the "Bill of Rights", because many people mistake this for suggesting it is possible to enumerate all the rights which individuals possess. Rather, all people retain all rights and powers unless they are explicitly removed from them (in the case of rights) or reassigned (in the case of powers).

This is why those who appose the right of gay people to marry must pass laws to prevent it. Gay people's rights in this matter are being denied by law.

Again... you prove my point of intolerance from the left... and that one need only call something a 'human rights' or 'civil rights' issue until you make enough people agree through education & politics... or fear mongering and blacklisting.

It is not intolerant to call something a human rights issue. It cannot possibly be argued that gay marriage is a *civil* rights issue, but if someone wants to assert they think all humans should be guaranteed this right then those asserters are not being intolerant. They are expressing the strength of their conviction.

Re: It wasn't just private opinion.

[mcl630]

Depends what exactly Bloomberg and Case were supporting (I don't know the real stories here). If they were trying to repeal the 2nd amendment entirely, then yes I would support them (the employees). If they were trying to take 2nd amendment rights away from a specific class of people (other than the mentally ill and ex-cons), then yes I would support them (the employees). If they were just supporting background checks and/or banning ridiculous weapons and cartridges, then no. It's moot point anyways, as no one at Bloomberg or AOL publically called for them to step down.

Re:public actions != private beliefs. Chavez, Phel

[worf_mo]

Hugo Chavez, Fred Phelps, or Jane Fonda would be very bad choices as business leaders because they come with a ton of bad PR.

There's a deeper problem than bad PR with two of those people. Just sayin'.

Re:I'll invoke Godwin's law

[AK Marc]

People seemed to care that David Duke was linked to the KKK.

Re:It wasn't just private opinion.

[Lehk228]

don't blame "the left" I'm a fucking communist and I can see through this social justice bullshit.

This is not about “private beliefs” at

[gig]

this is about PUBLIC ACTIONS. Nobody is responsible for Brendan Eich's public actions except Brendan Eich. He reaps what he sowed just like we all do.

Brendan Eich publicly funded a political campaign to destroy the marriages and families of about 25% of his fellow Californians. Some of whom work for Mozilla, and some of whom partner with Mozilla. Private beliefs are something that is private, inside your own head. Publicly funding the Prop 8 campaign is public, and takes place well outside of Brendan Eich's own head.

Had Brendan Eich kept his hatred and bigotry inside his own head he would be OK right now. There are CEO's who are racist bigots and they keep it to themselves. What Brendan Eich did by comparison was sign up for the KKK and donate thousands of dollars to *successfully* reimplementing racial segregation in California, by aligning himself with money and groups that came mostly from outside California. Because of the actions of Brendan Eich and other bigots like him, millions of Californians were told by their government to start sitting at the back of the bus, and this went on for years while the courts laboriously went through everything and said, yes, we already knew that creating second-class citizens was wrong. No, you don't have the right to make them into second-class citizens.

Married couples were told that their marriages were invalid. People died while their marriages were invalidated, and their partners got kicked out of the home they had lived in for years because the house was taxed as a gift between two platonic friends.

Me, I am not going to be involved in anything Mozilla-related while this bigot fuck is CEO. I took Firefox out of my development targets. Not because of Brendan Eich's “beliefs” but because of his actions.

Re:It wasn't just private opinion.

[shutdown -p now]

Define "actively and publicly". All we have so far is a record of a donation. It's only public because the law requires it to be. He did not publicize that donation in any way, so far as I know, nor made any other public statements on the subject. So far as I can see, this is well within the realm of a private political opinion.

Going down your route, what next? Should companies in Texas fire employees in public roles if they discover that those employees have donated money to campaign against Proposition 8? Should we start firing people for membership in various political advocacy organizations like ACLU or EFF or SAF?

Re:It wasn't just private opinion.

[shutdown -p now]

It's unpopular if you look at the entire country, and not just California. It's most definitely very unpopular among the developer and other techie demographics.

Re:Not private

[shutdown -p now]

Are you saying that an employer somewhere in Mississippi is well within his rights to fire an employee for, say, an Obama campaign sticker on his car?

Re:I'll invoke Godwin's law

[Lehk228]

I forgot about the clause in proposition 8 that called for the mass murder of homosexuals

Re:Personal Beliefs vs Discriminatory Actions

[Lehk228]

political blacklists are a really bad idea, they have been done before read some history.

Re:Take it easy, they're just _asking_

[Lehk228]

this is the hypocrisy of "social justice"

Good Q.they DO pay a bit more than other fast food

[raymorris]

> they might figure out a way to pay employees a bit more

That's an interesting question. I looked it up and they do in fact pay their wage workers a bit more than other fast food places. Not a lot more, but a bit more.

I compared them to the #1 fast food chicken (KFC) and the #1 fast food (McDonald's).

Re:Instantly fired.

[Albanach]

I imagine the developers at Mozilla who are willing to make these comments are the sort of folk who would be unemployed for approximately half an hour. If they start laying off developers for these comments, there will be recruiters parking RVs in Mountain View, waiting for them.

Re: That logic totally holds up

[TsuruchiBrian]

You can have personal beliefs. It only becomes a problem when your personal beliefs mean you are a bigot.

I think you can justify firing or not hiring someone for a upper management job if their personal beliefs indicate they are stupid or crazy or bigoted. In the same way that having a shitty GPA might mean you don't understand the material you are supposed to, believing that the moon landing was fake, or that evolution is "just" a theory, or that black people are lamanites, or that homosexuality is a sin, etc, might indicate that someone is a fucking idiot, and maybe not the best choice to inspire confidence of all his subordinates.

Re:It wasn't just private opinion.

[sjames]

I'll bet the many employees over the years who have been fired over non work related issues WISH it had been just a few disparaging tweets instead.

Tolerance for the intolerant?

[devent]

Strange reactions here on Slashdot. Some "insightful" comments here were about freedom of believe, freedom of speech, intolerance, separation of work and personal believes. Let me first explain that same-sex marriage have absolutely nothing to do with religion. The point of the debate of same-sex marriage are not some pagan rituals from aeons ago, long assimilated by the Christian church, that involves a priest and some blessings. The point of same-sex marriage is the recognition of a partnership of two people by the government on the state and the federal level. In the USA there are currently 1,138 statutory provisions[1] in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. That are 1,138 benefits, right and privileges that gay couples currently cannot benefit from, because they were born like they were born!

Nobody is talking to force the church or any priest to marry same sex couples. It is only about the recognition of the union between two people so they can enjoy the same benefits, right and privileges that heterosexual couples enjoy!

Brendan Eich have all right to exercise his freedom of speech and freedom of believes by his donation to Prop 8. But you have also give the same right to the employees of Mozilla who opposes his bigotry. The definition of a bigot is someone who "strongly and unfairly dislikes other people or ideas" [2]. Nobody except Brendan Eich can know if he have this feelings against gay couples, but his actions are very clearly the actions of a bigot. How can somebody who does not strongly and unfairly dislikes same sex couples to marry donates for a law that would prohibit same sex couples to marry? (keep in mind that by marrying I mean that the state recognizes the union)

How would you feel if tomorrow a Prop 9. would be introduced that would prohibit inter-racial marriage? And if Brendan Eich would donate from his private bank account to Prop 9? Would you still be comfortable that he represents Mozilla as the new CEO? There is no difference here. Two people are forbidden to form a union only because they were born like they were born.

Again, Brendan Eich have all his rights of freedom of speech. But he represents as the CEO Mozilla, and his actions, also his private actions, are tied to Mozilla.

[1] http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d...
[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Re:Tolerance for the intolerant?

[stenvar]

How would you feel if tomorrow a Prop 9. would be introduced that would prohibit inter-racial marriage? And if Brendan Eich would donate from his private bank account to Prop 9? Would you still be comfortable that he represents Mozilla as the new CEO?

As a customer, I can decide who I do business with. As an employee, I can decide to quit and work for someone else. And as customer or employee, I can announce my intentions. But the final decision of who is CEO rests with the owners of Mozilla Corp.

I wonder why Eich would want to stay in the Bay Area if he believes in Prop 8; there are plenty of socially conservative nice places around the US where he could live and work easily.

(Of course, I also wonder why anybody would still want to work for Mozilla, or why anybody would want to work for the creator of JavaScript...)

Re:Tolerance for the intolerant?

[devent]

> As a customer, I can decide who I do business with. As an employee, I can decide to quit and work for someone else. And as customer or employee, I can announce my intentions. But the final decision of who is CEO rests with the owners of Mozilla Corp.

Yes, I agree. But the employees can also write their opinions about the new CEO and write about their concerns that somebody, in their opinion, is a bad choice for representing their company.

PS: I'm from Europe and maybe we differ from the social customs, but in Europe the employees have a voice in their companies, too. It's not like (maybe, I have the impression) in the USA where only the shareholders or the owners have any say in a company.

Re:Tolerance for the intolerant?

[stenvar]

But the employees can also write their opinions about the new CEO and write about their concerns that somebody, in their opinion, is a bad choice for representing their company.

That's what "voicing their opinions" means.

PS: I'm from Europe and maybe we differ from the social customs, but in Europe the employees have a voice in their companies, too. It's not like (maybe, I have the impression) in the USA where only the shareholders or the owners have any say in a company.

Oh, it's very much a cultural difference. Germany has a system in which employees "have a voice"; it's not representative of Europe as a whole and rather linked to Germany's fascist and totalitarian history. VW tried to introduce such a system in one of its US plants and the workers rejected it because they recognized that rather than giving them more control, it reduced their power.

Re:Tolerance for the intolerant?

[devent]

I think you are misinformed. The workers voted down the UAW union at VW and not the works council. For some strange reason you need a union in the USA to form a works council (see National Labor Relations Act. My guess is the Act was enacted to strengthen unions in America, but is backfiring now because for some reason the VW workers does not want to join a union.

Also I don't understand why you think a works council is a result of "Germany's fascist and totalitarian history". Forms of a works council were introduced in 1900, by liberal owners of companies. Then the Weimar Constitution (1919) codified the works council. Under Nazi Germany works council were forbidden, and were introduced as law again in 1952.

And it's also not unique to Germany. In 1994 the EU passed the Directive (94/45/EC) on the establishment of a European Works Council (EWC). See European Works Councils. "The EWC Directive applies to companies with at least 1,000 employees within the EU and at least 150 employees in each of at least two Member States." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...

http://www.reuters.com/article...
"Frank Fischer, chief executive of VW Chattanooga and manager of the plant, emphasized on Friday night that while the workers voted against the UAW they did not vote down the idea of a works council. "Throughout this process, we found great enthusiasm for the idea of an American-style works council both inside and outside our plant, " Fischer said. "Our goal continues to be to determine the best method for establishing a works council in accordance with the requirements of U. S. labor law. "

http://www.autonews.com/articl...
"Now that Volkswagen workers here have turned away the UAW, labor leaders within VW are going back to the drawing board to achieve their broader goal: setting up a works council to give workers a say in corporate decisions. "

Re:Tolerance for the intolerant?

[mrjimorg]

How would this be different if Mozilla hired a gay person and people said "We're not going to support that browser because the CEO is gay". Should the company force out that CEO?
Remember, this guy didn't make any public statements. He gave a anonymous donation and was 'outed' by vigilantes

Re:Tolerance for the intolerant?

[devent]

It's really funny how people can twist and construct straw man arguments. Eich supported a law that is designed to discriminate a minority. Your example is the exact opposite of the facts. It is not the users of Firefox that want to discriminate, it was Eich who supported a discrimination law.

It does not matter if it was anonymous or not. Eich knew the law about donations and that he must disclose his employer. By choosing to donate nonetheless he actively involved Mozilla in a controversial issue. If the Prop 8. was so important to Eich, then he could have chosen to leave Mozilla first and then donate, thus not involving Mozilla at all.

Re:Tolerance for the intolerant?

[stenvar]

Workers councils treat workers as junior partners in a relationship with the company; it establishes a social hierarchy and is intended to reduce conflict. It's a typically German approach towards maintaining social order and power hierarchies. Workers councils really started in 19th century in an effort to prevent socialist ideas and self-determination from taking a hold in Germany. In the end, the arrangement just screws over workers.

Re:Tolerance for the intolerant?

[devent]

I disagree. Workers councils and unions give workers a voice in a company that they usually would not have. Without unions, and work protection laws, workers would be just like slaves to the owners of the company. And don't get me the "free market will solve it". The employer is always in a position of power of their employees, by the simple fact that there are many more workers available then companies. And with the rise of globalization, a company is free to just move to other countries. That is why we have import tax and trade agreements.

If you want to live in a country that treats their workers like in England in the industrial revolution in the 18th to 19th century, please go to China. But even there people now had enough and starting strikes.

Re:Tolerance for the intolerant?

[stenvar]

I disagree. Workers councils and unions give workers a voice in a company that they usually would not have

Yes, German workers are "consulted", in accordance with the German view of what the corporate and social hierarchy should be. They are not treated as equal providers of a valuable good and service. And as your comments show, you firmly believe in this world view.

And with the rise of globalization, a company is free to just move to other countries. That is why we have import tax and trade agreements.

Yes, one of the reasons Germany is doing so well in terms of exports: it is screwing over its workers, and German obedience and submission of authority has German workers comply. The Prussian anti-socialist strategy of providing token participation in order to keep the workers at bay obviously is still working well more than a century later.

Re:Tolerance for the intolerant?

[devent]

> German view of what the corporate and social hierarchy should be

Even _if_ I agree with you, you still need to show why it's bad.

> it is screwing over its workers, and German obedience and submission of authority has German workers comply.

At least Germany is not bankrupt like Italy, Spain, Portugal, the USA, and so on. And at least Germany is not enacting laws to weaken unions like it was done in the USA. Or at least the CEOs of Germany are not screw the workers like the American CEOs do. The average ratio wages of America CEOs to their workers is 354:1, compared with Germany 147:1 [1]

[1] http://www.aflcio.org/Corporat...

Re:I'll invoke Godwin's law

[ugen]

I did not provide quality judgement. I merely suggested that there may be *some* beliefs that justify appropriate protest. Whether *this one* is such or not is not really the point.

Re:It wasn't just private opinion.

[msk]

He should step down because he acted counter to his oath of office.

Re:And then there is reality...

[Pseudonym Authority]

Yeah, that's fucking terrible and all, but I can't imagine how that might be relevant to the discussion at hand. Was it just your way of saying `Down with all corporation!' or what?

Re:It wasn't just private opinion.

[Pseudonym Authority]

Of course not, but how does that matter? Corporations are evil. CEOs are evil. We need communism NOW so that we can disappear anyone who disagrees and finally have a free society. You need to go read your Das Kapital and take a good hard look at your life before it's too late.

Re:It wasn't just private opinion.

[cold fjord]

I have two reactions to your post.

1. Poe's law

2. A quote from David Burge @iowahawkblog:

" "Government" is just a word for things we do together.
"Corporation" is just a word for things we do together voluntarily."

Hobby Lobby

[Guppy06]

Should private beliefs be enough to prevent someone from heading a project they helped found?

Yes. Since we apparently live in a country where executives' private beliefs can be imposed on everyone else in the organization because "corporations are people too, my friend," then the organization should be answerable for the executives' private beliefs. It cuts both ways.

Re: It wasn't just private opinion.

[harrkev]

Hmm. I had no idea that California was such a conservative state. Funny.

Re:Instantly fired.

[Darinbob]

What's odd is that he had been an employee long before being CEO. Was there any campaign to force him as an employee to resign? Likely not because HR would have cracked down on that instantly as harrassment.

Re:Instantly fired.

[Darinbob]

So the CEO is not free to think? I don't agree with his views, however I have even stronger feelings about restraints of freedom and enforced political correctness.

Re:It wasn't just private opinion.

[phantomfive]

more and more, companies are invading your home life and privacy. you want this job, here, piss in a bottle since you are guilty unless you prove otherwise.

That's when I look for another job.

Re:And then there is reality...

[Darinbob]

He was Mozilla staff last week, and has been an employee since the first day Mozilla existed.. He was not an outsider brought in to shake things up or loot the company.

Re: It wasn't just private opinion.

[shutdown -p now]

California is a really fucked up state politics-wise, it's like they manage to combine the worst parts of the left and the right. I mean, for a while they were possibly the only state in the union that banned both "assault weapons" and gay marriages.

Part of it is due to the massive Latino minority that tends to vote conservative on social issues like gay marriage, but progressive on economics and gun control.

Re:Personal Beliefs vs Discriminatory Actions

[JenovaSynthesis]

You mean it was disclosed because it was mandatory? If you want to play that card, the Prop 8 people were threatening businesses with boycotts well before that.

Those donations should be public. Unless one lacks the courage of ones convictions.

Re:It wasn't just private opinion.

[andymadigan]

First, it's not a union, it's what the individual employees actually think, and those employees are critical for the company to succeed. Plus, they're not threatening to strike, they're threatening to quit, which could be fatal for Mozilla.

Secondly, while Prop 8 may have passed in California, it's offensive to the Bay Area and Silicon Valley in particular. Santa Clara and San Francisco counties actually sued to overturn it. Even Republicans here aren't suicidal enough to support Prop 8.

Third, how you voted or which party you're registered for is very different from actually financially supporting such an offensive piece of legislation.

It's perfectly acceptable to say you don't want to work for someone who has taken a public political position like this, especially if they backed it up with cash. If it so happens that there are so many like-minded employees willing to do the same that the company is threatened, then it's time to find a different CEO. Though I think Eich could probably resolve this by outright saying he now thinks that Prop 8 was wrong.

In this industry, in this area (I'm an engineer for a tech startup in SF, and I used to line in San Jose) supporting Prop 8 is as far to the right as banning birth control would be in the rest of the country.

I don't know what it's like at Mozilla, but I know the CEO of my company. Everyone knows everyone here. If a Prop 8 supporter suddenly became the CEO of my company, I'd likely turn in my resignation the same day. I really doubt I'd be the only one either.

Re:Personal Beliefs vs Discriminatory Actions

[JenovaSynthesis]

This isn't a "political blacklist". He's not being "blacklisted" first and foremost. He is being asked to resign.

Second, it's not an issue of politics. It's an issue of humanity. But unfortunately some people having equality has become a political issue and it really shows just how sick the US really is.

Re:It wasn't just private opinion.

[cold fjord]

Thirty four states have passed laws or constitutional amendments by referendum that define marriage between a man and a woman, maintaining the traditional definition. I doubt that the technical community is uniform in its opinion about this across the country.

Ideological purity and conformity

[Vinegar Joe]

So, so important!

Re:Personal Beliefs vs Discriminatory Actions

[JenovaSynthesis]

And I would say a reaction formation is your problem.

Re: That logic totally holds up

[Darinbob]

However if those beliefs are based on their religion, then forcing that person to leave the company is in essence forcing the person to leave because of their religion.

Generally, most people are able to keep their beliefs out of the workplace, even CEOs.

Thing is, there were some non-bigoted reasons out there for being for prop 8. Though I do think many people would disagree and insist loudly that this is impossible. I voted against by the way, but I like everything I vote for I looked at arguments from both sides and read the text of the laws, etc, and ya many of theo official ballot arguments for were pretty stupid.

For example, prop 8 restored what had already been voted on the past just with a bit stronger wording to get around a judicial ruling. There are people who are for more concerned about judicial activism (their words) than in discriminating against gays. Ie, they may think that gays can get civil unions and marriage may come about over time but having a judge overturn a proposition by the people will cause them to explode in righteous anger. There are others who were not bigoted against gays and who felt that civil unions were a good solution but who did not think that redefining the word "marriage" was the right way to go about it (I disagree with that view, but there are many who held it and I do not believe they were bigoted in those views). And finally there were others who just want to see gay marriage be on the ballot rather than be decided by a judge.

Re:It wasn't just private opinion.

[shutdown -p now]

Math, you fail at it.

Just because 34 states did pass such amendments, doesn't mean that the majority of people in this country support it. Most of those states are small and account for the a minor fraction of overall population (not surprising, given that the 10 most populous states in US contain more than half of its population). And even in those states where the majority voted for such amendments, there's usually a considerable minority that you simply ignore.

What we know is that the polls now consistently show that over 50% of the entire US population supports gay marriage. Furthermore, that support is especially overwhelming (as in, 75% and growing) among younger guys, and generally it correlates strongly with age. Technical community, while not "uniform", does tend to lean towards the younger side of the spectrum, and correspondingly towards support. In general, the guys who lean right in the technical community tend to be libertarian rather than conservative.

Re: That logic totally holds up

[LordLimecat]

You can sit there and call him a bigot all day long, that doesnt make it true.

Bigotry requires hatred, and I dont see any evidence of that from him. I DO see it from you, you seem to have a good deal of venom towards him (hes "retarded"? really?).

Re:It wasn't just private opinion.

[LordLimecat]

The companies put out EULAs, terms of service, and privacy policies which generally lay out exactly what they want in return for using their product.

If you dont want them in your lives then stop using their products. Have a problem with google analytics? Take it up with the webmaster using it, not google. It sounds like your massive bellyache is because you want to use all of the products paid for by ad revenue but you dont want to be subject to the ads. I sort of want a car without being subject to the bill, but I dont complain about how my dealership is a jerk for foisting a pesky bill off on me.

Quit being lazy (read the privacy policy if you care!), entitled, and spoiled.

Never mind CEO, he may not work in Cali again

[gig]

If you don't live in California, you may not understand how bad this is. Never mind losing his job as Mozilla CEO — Brendan Eich may not work in California again after this, simply because so many of the people at every single company simply won't want to work with him. Or he may go from job to job, failing badly, because the people around him are either not following his leadership or may even actively thwart his leadership and any potential success.

You have to realize 3 key things to understand what is going on here:

* California, and San Francisco and northern California specifically, are LGBT sanctuaries. LGBT people come from all over the US and all over the world to live and work in San Francisco and Silicon Valley primarily or even solely because they can live and work here free from discrimination, or essentially free from discrimination. The LGBT population in SF and Silicon Valley is probably 25%, not 10% as elsewhere. And here we are almost all out of the closet. That means we have lots of straight allies who also don't want to participate in Eich's hate.

* All of the court cases on Prop 8 failed to find a single benefit from it. Not a single benefit. It existed solely and only as a way for bigots to bash on LGBT people. Whether you knew it or not, when you voted for Prop 8 or funded Prop 8, you were 100% expressing hatred against a minority. That is all you were doing. Absolutely NOTHING ELSE. THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR IT. This is maybe the one ironic benefit of Prop 8: the aftermath was like a mass education teachable moment. But Brenden Eich did not participate in this community growth. He still supports Prop 8, even after hearing all the harm it caused to LGBT families for no benefit at all.

* There is a huge amount of anger over Prop 8. A lot of people were badly hurt for no benefit. People are not only not in the mood to work with an unrepentant Prop 8 bigot, they are in the mood to actually confront him or even harm him physically. So many people recanted their Prop 8 support that we were in some sense left without a villain. Especially because the core of Prop 8 support was from out-of-state. But 5 years later, into that vacuum steps Brendan Eich, just got a big new CEO job in Silicon Valley and he's doing fine, totally unrepentant about his Prop 8 funding, says he'd do it again. People can't make rent in northern California and Eich had thousands of extra dollars to spend on trying to prevent his neighbor from having equal rights. He's the perfect villain.

So even though most people in California today may forgive you for voting for Prop 8 — if you later became educated and apologized for the pure, 100% hatred that you expressed — it is very hard to find forgiveness if you were a funder. And he is not even asking for forgiveness. He's like, “I'd do it again if I got the chance.” That is like being elected Governor of Mississippi and we find out you are not only a dues-paying member of the KKK, but you are completely unrepentant about it to this day. You thought you were in the new Mississippi, but turns out you are actually in the old one. But don't worry, the KKK Governor says he'll treat and promote everyone equally. Trust him.

And what Mozilla is saying is, “hey you, who came to Silicon Valley to live a discrimination-free life, whether LGBT or straight, why don't you work all day for the guy who funded that years-long break in your marriage, or your sister's marriage, or your friend's marriage, and who is not even sorry about it, and just trust us that he won't treat you like the second-class citizens he says you are, and hope he doesn't get another chance at something like Prop 8, and now, let's all make a community-sponsored browser together! And lots of partnerships with other companies that don't want to work with Brendan Eich either!”

It's not going to fly. It has already crashed. Mozilla now has to admit that, fire Eich, and put someone more suitable in there.

The Minecraft guy stopped working with Ocu

Re:It wasn't just private opinion.

[shutdown -p now]

Referendums pass based on who shows up to vote, not based on some random poll. Many of the places that have established "gay marriage" have done so by the vote of judges in courts. Many of them have been small states, especially in the North East. In California and Texas (not small states) voters endorsed the traditional definition of marriage.

Which has absolutely zero to do with popular support, which is the original point that you keep trying to distract from.

One of the problems with the polls showing support for "gay marriage" is that it is one of those charged issues that people may not be candid about their actual views. As a result the polls show more support than there actually is. You're correct that support for it is stronger among younger age cohorts (although I believe 75% is a little high), but it isn't clear that support will be maintained as people age and progress through the stages of life.

Actually, it's perfectly clear, since we've had many such polls over a period of time. Basically, no, it doesn't change as people age. Every next generation is more supportive than the one before that, and retains that support as they grow old. That's why the overall perspective is shifting so rapidly.

One of the key trends in politics is the movement by individual voters towards no party affiliation. Tech companies are starting to court both Democrats and Republicans. Even Silicon Valley is more open to Republicans than in the past which is somewhat remarkable given its proximity to one of the centers of fringe politics in America. The nearly unfettered ability of progressive Democrats in California to push through their policies should eventually cure a useful percentage of tech workers there of their current affiliation.

"Conservative" and "liberal" is not party affiliation, and I did not talk about parties at all. And while tech companies may be courting Republicans, those are mostly libertarian-minded ones who are for same sex marriage, pot legalization etc; not the fundie social conservative kind.

Re: That logic totally holds up

[Sudline]

You can have personal beliefs. It only becomes a problem when your personal beliefs mean you are a pagan.

Re:Yes

[Sudline]

You have not read the previous comments. He privately makes a donation. Some asshole published the list of donors. And you do not even know all the details. Maybe it is his mother who make the donation with his credit card, who know?

Re:Try a little honesty

[Your.Master]

How are your "traditional marriages" damaged or "destroyed" by what he suggests?

your more vocal advocates have already let it be known that they intent to sue any church that will not "marry" gays

First, he's not my advocate. Second of all, who?

will try to take away the tax status of any church that does not comply

I don't think churches should be tax-exempt in the first place (except to the extent that any other similar non-religious organization would be exempt; eg. if there's tax exemptions for charitable organizations then the charity arm of the church can be tax exempt). So I don't support giving a tax break to churches that are "gay friendly". Who are these people?

Moreover, if you get to paint those extremists as the core of the gay marriage activisim, then you have to take responsibility for the extremists against gay rights. I promise you, you do NOT want to be lumped with those guys.

[government] being forbidden from interfering in religion (which it would be by establishing "gay marriage")

First off, the GP specifically was stepping away from using the word marriage, so saying "establishing 'gay marriage'" is not intellectually honest.

Second of all, how, how is that interfering with your religion? Does it interfere with your religion when we fail to make a law against gay people taking Sundays off work? After all, that comes from the ten commandments, right? Keep holy the sabbath? So clearly anybody trying to take all their Sundays off of work must be perverting the church and destroying traditional Sabbath. Let us never mind that Sabbath used to be sundown Friday to sundown Saturday, and that marriage used to mean a different thing than what you call "traditional" today.

Re:It wasn't just private opinion.

[Sarius64]

Straight married men have law encoded the discrimination all throughout marriage contract law stacking decisions against them because of perceived "righteous" stereotypes. Straight married men still pay alimony simply because a judge deems them required to support the "standard" a woman is somehow guaranteed to live at, forever. I don't see any LGBT groups fighting to get back all of the property, land, and privilege stripped from polygamous families over one hundred years ago. Somehow, the magical fairy that grants "rights" to marry doesn't visit consenting adults on the unapproved list. The only issue anyone seemed to care about is personal issues, not civil rights.

Re: It wasn't just private opinion.

[Sarius64]

Which other Constitutional rights are you willing to eliminate? That is why I would never trust you.

Re: That logic totally holds up

[TheSeatOfMyPants]

If as an atheist you were hired to run a Christian college and it turned out that you were active in a major political campaign to reduce their religious freedom, I can pretty well guarantee you that you wouldn't merely be asked politely to step down...

Re:Instantly fired.

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Who do these complainers think they are; declaring that someone should lose their job, just because they have different beliefs?

What if he believed that black people are sub-human? What if he believed that Jews should be baked? What if he believed that women were property of their husbands/fathers?

Yes, holding certain beliefs can impact your employment status. Of course, in this case, the beliefs come with a blessing by religion, so that automatically gets him a free pass. I wonder why the Ku Klux Klan hasn't re-branded as a religious organization, as I'm sure that would silence most of their critics. Wouldn't want to disrespect someone's religious beliefs, after all.

Re: That logic totally holds up

[AmiMoJo]

However if those beliefs are based on their religion, then forcing that person to leave the company is in essence forcing the person to leave because of their religion.

Religion doesn't get special consideration. Everyone is free to believe what they want privately, but if they decided to make something stupid or bigoted their public position then it is absolutely fair to judge their intelligence and suitability for a job based on that.

Some people believe that cows are sacred. They probably wouldn't make good managers at McDonalds. Just because it is a religious belief doesn't mean that McDonalds can't consider it when hiring them.

Re: It wasn't just private opinion.

[Quila]

If they were trying to repeal the 2nd amendment entirely, then yes I would support them

Many in their group are, and they likely are too, but they aren't honest enough to admit it like Congressman Ellison.

If they were trying to take 2nd amendment rights away from a specific class of people (other than the mentally ill and ex-cons), then yes I would support them (the employees).

They are. The class is all law-abiding gun owners. They haven't done much that would affect criminals and the mentally ill.

If they were just supporting background checks and/or banning ridiculous weapons and cartridges, then no.

You mean completely ineffective background checks on person-to-person transfers that will be ignored by criminals, and the most common varminting and target shooting rifles in the most common calibers, then yes.

So basically what we've established is that you are not a proponent of constitutional rights. Just the rights that you like. This is exactly what Eich does.

Re:Instantly fired.

[wytcld]

Thank you! It's depressing how many top-modded comments think it's just fine to support truly evil legislation that removes rights from millions of people because freedom of religion. Or who think it's impertinent to ask a boss to step down for having furthered evil when that's been done outside of work.

This has nothing to do with religion. It's about moral truth. Sociopaths who can't comprehend basic moral truths should not be top executives of our corporations. If your axioms are freedom and equality before the law, then the right to marriage belongs equally to all adults. If your axioms are not freedom and equality before the law, then you're a sociopath and should be barred from positions with authority over others.

Re:Instantly fired.

[DorianGre]

Yes!! How will the man do his job is the only thing that counts. I would hate for my personal activities to be brought into work, which is why I keep them private

Re: That logic totally holds up

[cyberchondriac]

or when your personal beliefs mean you think you can clearly and simply label someone as a "bigot" because their opinion or beliefs simply don't align with your own, and punish them for it.
Slapping a label on someone and reducing them to a one dimensional object is convenient, but doesn't make it accurate or fair Is someone still a "bigot" if they just feel that homosexuality is unnatural or weird, but have no problem or discriminatory feelings towards other minority groups, be it blacks, women, latinos, asians, etc.. (or even whites for that matter)? I think there's a difference between being "bigoted" towards one small faction, and just being a bigot, along the lines of Archie Bunker.
People are entitled to their personal beliefs no matter what you think and that's their private business, it shouldn't affect their hiring or firing unless they're behavior openly affects their work or coworkers; they have a right to feel or think as they do, just not a right to act on them (besides, people don't really control gut feelings, just as you don't decide whether you prefer men or women, or redheads or blonds, somehow you just like what you like, and don't what you don't).
Before the wild slashdot accusations fly, no, I am not religious. No, I don't believe it's a "sin". But I don't like seeing discrimination used as a tool against something that is subjective.

Re:Instantly fired.

[mdragan]

It's not about his beliefs. It's about his actions. He participated with lots of money to an act of discrimination against people who did him no wrong. And he didn't have the decency not to drag the name of his employer into that mess.

Re: That logic totally holds up

[TangoMargarine]

Why would you *want* to run a Christian college as an atheist?

Re:This is not about “private beliefs”

[tsqr]

Brendan Eich publicly funded a political campaign to destroy the marriages and families of about 25% of his fellow Californians.

25%? Where did that come from? The share of LGBT folks in California is estimated at about 4%, and there were about 100,000 same-sex households out of a population of roughly 38 million as of 2010, according to this.

Married couples were told that their marriages were invalid. People died while their marriages were invalidated, and their partners got kicked out of the home they had lived in for years because the house was taxed as a gift between two platonic friends.

I'd like to see a citation for that claim. As far as I can tell, the only same-sex marriages that took place in California that were subsequently annulled were the handful performed by Gavin Newsom in 2004. The fact is that the 18,000 same-sex marriages that took place after the California Supreme Court struck down Proposition 22 and before the passage of Prop 8 were not invalidated

.

Re:It wasn't just private opinion.

[T.E.D.]

You talk like that doesn't happen now.

Re:It wasn't just private opinion.

[T.E.D.]

How is his stance related to the job, other than it is unpopular?

I dunno. I don't think I'd be happy working for someone who considered me sub-human, and has said so publicly. Presumably Mozilla has gay employees and contributors, and this CEO is quite likely to have a big say in what benefits they are given and how they are treated. So if he honestly thinks gay folks (including ones working for Mozilla) shouldn't be treated like real people with real families to worry about, it damn well does relate to his job.

It seems pretty reasonable to be upset to me. I think perhaps your confusion stems from the fact that you think this is some "coin flip" issue that has no effect whatsoever on the actual lives of the actual people in question.

Re:Instantly fired.

[GameboyRMH]

It was indeed easier to overlook when he was receiving a mere mortal's salary from the company rather than a large fraction of the company's profits. Vastly more money means vastly more ability to buy "free speech" and therefore vastly more influence. Some employees may not be comfortable with so much of their productivity going into that.

A similar argument came up over the Ender's Game movie boycott. It's a much bigger deal to support a movie with a bigoted producer/director than a bigoted key grip or makeup artist.

Re: That logic totally holds up

[TsuruchiBrian]

or when your personal beliefs mean you think you can clearly and simply label someone as a "bigot" because their opinion or beliefs simply don't align with your own

I am labeling him a bigot because his beliefs make him a bigot. It is not because they don't align with mine. Karl Marx's beliefs don't align with mine, but he is not a bigot.

lapping a label on someone and reducing them to a one dimensional object is convenient, but doesn't make it accurate or fair Is someone still a "bigot" if they just feel that homosexuality is unnatural or weird, but have no problem or discriminatory feelings towards other minority groups, be it blacks, women, latinos, asians, etc.. (or even whites for that matter)? I think there's a difference between being "bigoted" towards one small faction, and just being a bigot, along the lines of Archie Bunker.

So what you are saying is that in order to be a bigot you need to be bigoted towards all or most minorities? I really don't see what the utility of this definition would be, apart from the fact that I don't think its accurate. If he thought Chinese people were unnatural and shouldn't be allowed to marry, but only felt this way about Chinese people, I think the vast majority of people would be calling him a bigot with me. What I am saying is that this is not really any different.

Furthermore he doesn't just "feel" that homosexuality is unnatural or weird. He supports passing legislation to give them less rights.

People are entitled to their personal beliefs no matter what you think and that's their private business, it shouldn't affect their hiring or firing unless they're behavior openly affects their work or coworkers;

I think people are entitled to their beliefs. I don't think people are entitled to their jobs. I also don't think people are entitled to have their belief's given immunity from criticism.

they have a right to feel or think as they do, just not a right to act on them (besides, people don't really control gut feelings, just as you don't decide whether you prefer men or women, or redheads or blonds, somehow you just like what you like, and don't what you don't).

Yeah I am not particularly attracted to the idea of 2 guys having anal sex either. This is different from supporting laws that would restrict the rights of gay people.

Before the wild slashdot accusations fly, no, I am not religious. No, I don't believe it's a "sin". But I don't like seeing discrimination used as a tool against something that is subjective.

I think public shaming is one of the best tools for effecting social change. Calling for people's resignations from leadership positions seems perfectly reasonable, especially if you feel uncomfortable working for someone who supports laws giving unequal rights to you or your friends. I think this would be exactly the same situation if the CEO had supported legislation to make it illegal for a particular race to be married.

Re:This is not about “private beliefs”

[bluefoxlucid]

Brendan Eich publicly funded a political campaign to destroy the marriages and families of about 25% of his fellow Californians.

Gays are so faggotly unstable that a legal document is the only thing holding their relationships together. Great argument you have there.

Re:Instantly fired.

[bluefoxlucid]

I have a recruiter telling me to stay where I am and try to maneuver upward in the organization before doing anything risky; and in the same breath telling me he would love to see me on the market and that I should stay off Dice and make sure to keep an updated resume on his desk because he'll have me a new position in five minutes if I ever do jump ship. I'm familiar with that feeling.

By the by, it's good to have both actual useful skills and career placement specialists as allies.

Re:It wasn't just private opinion.

[T.E.D.]

If I believed wholeheatedly what he wrote there and paid no attention to what he did when he thought nobody was looking, then sure.

Interestingly, the contents of that statement prove without a doubt that Mr. Eich understands completely why people have a problem with having him as CEO. It makes me wonder why so many people here claim to not see it.

Re:It wasn't just private opinion.

[bluefoxlucid]

It has to do with money. You see, married people get money from the government.

Self-parodying clown

[John Jorsett]

Chris McAvoy says he's glad he works at Mozilla, where he can say things "without fear of retribution". Evidently he believes that isn't a courtesy that should be extended to the CEO.

Re:And then there is reality...

[s.petry]

My comment had to do with an obvious implication the person I responded to made, which is that the management and employees are there to look out for the bests interests of the company. Perhaps English is not your first language, but if you ready my comment after reading the one I responded to, there should be no big mystery or confusion.

While I certainly did imply a personal distaste for companies and people that prey on society, I certainly never said "Down with all corporation!".

Re:Instantly fired.

[Richy_T]

I guess there are a lot of companies out there that have the mission statement "Bloat the codebase and add features users don't want".

No to step down

[lsatenstein]

What I do in my bedroom has no bearing on how I treat my secretary. If I can keep my private life private, and not have it spill over to public, then what am I guilty of?

Given the above example I say, "the new Mozilla leader has a right to a past, and from a nomination committee, was found to be the best candidate. He is there because he was the best of the very fine group of candidates. I say he stays as CEO

Judge him for what he will do as CEO

Re: It wasn't just private opinion.

[Archangel Michael]

And then there is the case of the SF State Representative that was a staunch advocate of gun control, who was just caught trying to bring all sorts of guns, and rocket launchers into the state, from Filipino Muslim Extremists (terrorists) It would be funny if it weren't so fucked up.

Re:sure buddy.

[Archangel Michael]

Odd, most libertarians I know understand that we need to defend the weakest of our society from those that would abuse that weakness. Strength is not for taking advantage of others, but rather should be used to help those that cannot do for themselves. Socialists and Progressives use the state to force their beliefs on others, often using Courts to do their bidding by creating new classes of people to divide the people up into group politics.

Just remember this, the smallest minority is the individual. And groups do not have a right to impose upon the rights of the individual.

Re:This is not about “private beliefs”

[vakuona]

Well, that is up to you, but where does it end?

Let us assume that he is let go because of this. Why stop at the CEO? Why not the COO, the CIO and the CFO? And the management level below that? Soon, maybe we are demanding that companies audit their employees to make sure there are none whose views you find objectionable.

Why not go down all the way to the janitor? Basically, if anyone ever expresses a thought that is at odds with the contemporary thinking, they should be barred from any job, because, well, you don't want to support a company that employs bigots right? Because the CEO is just a job holder. He is doing a job which he was given, not because he passes some litmus test on his personal political views.

Why end there? Why not ask every potential employee what their views on every topic you might find objectionable to ensure that you don't employ the wrong sort of people?

I'd hate to live in a country where I am only allowed to earn a living if I have the correct thoughts and the correct political affiliations.

Your views are scary.

Re:It wasn't just private opinion.

[vakuona]

If I was the CEO, I would contact the said employee and let him/her know that if they couldn't work for Mozilla because I was the CEO, then I would gladly accept their resignations.

No

[Leslie43]

Brendan Eich have all right to exercise his freedom of speech and freedom of believes by his donation to Prop 8. But you have also give the same right to the employees of Mozilla who opposes his bigotry.

No, this is exactly what anti-gays are using as a foundation lately to stop gay legislation, and the basis for "religious freedom" laws bills going up around the country. It's wrong, stop playing into it.

If you don't like something, you have a right to that opinion. You can say you hate me, my family, religion, this country, whatever... I'm okay with that. That is your opinion and that is me being tolerant.

He didn't express an opinion, nor did he spend money to announce that he disliked it, this man spent money to help take away someone's already given rights. Gays were allowed civil unions at the time of Prop 8, the goal of Prop 8 was to deny them that right. When you try to actively participate in taking away someones rights, you have crossed over from opinion, to oppression. That is why Prop 8 was shot down every time it went to court and that is what this man supported, publicly.

Punishing actions is different from punishing word

[INowRegretThesePosts]

remember when the world blacklisted apartheid South Africa and its supporters? That was terrible wasn't it?

Punishing actions is radically different from punishing words. For example, it is understandable to boycott states with the death penalty. It is not OK to demand people to be fired or demoted merely because they support the death penalthy.

Ideas should be debated freely, without fear of retribution. People should express the ideas they believe in, not those ideas that will get them rewards (and refraim from expressing ideas that would be punished).

Fire all pro-choicers!

[INowRegretThesePosts]

You are speaking of a mere difference of opinion. If the boss actively campaigned to strip Republicans of their rights, then yes, it would be quite similar.

So pro-choice people should be fired, because they support stripping the rights of the unborn.
People who support the death penalty should be fired, because they support stripping the right to life of criminals.

Or maybe we shoundn't fire people because of their views.

Re:Fire all pro-choicers!

[sjames]

So pro-choice people should be fired, because they support stripping the rights of the unborn.

My god, what ultra right wing hell-hole do you live in where fetuses have to work?

People who support the death penalty should be fired, because they support stripping the right to life of criminals.

I'm pretty sure people on death row aren't let out to go to work anyway.

Ad hominem doesn't help your case

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Supporting prop 8 makes you a bigot.

Ad hominem attacks don't help your case. Politics is supposed to be about which ideas make sense; its is not supposed to be about which side is better at name-calling.

I have yet to see a coeherent argument for why it is OK to fire or demote someone who disagrees with the institution of same-sex marriage, while it is not OK to fire someone for any other personal beliefs. Some people try to say "he is on the wrong side of a civil rights issue", but that is incoherent and inconsistent. If we allow whitch hunts when "it's about civil rights" then the powerful will simply define their pet causes to be civil rights issues.

Oh, so you support abortion? You want to deny the rights of the unborn. Fired!
Oh, so you support the death penalty? You want to deny the right to life of felons. Fired!
Oh, so you are against the independence of Quebec? You want to deny the right of political self-determination. Fired!

I, on the other hand, prefer that political, philosophical and religious speech should be free from punishment.

Re:Ad hominem doesn't help your case

[TsuruchiBrian]

Ad hominem attacks don't help your case. Politics is supposed to be about which ideas make sense; its is not supposed to be about which side is better at name-calling.

Supporting prop 8 (i.e. supporting legislation that would remove equal rights from a particular group of people), is perfectly consistent with the definition of a bigot. It's name calling, but it's accurate name calling.

By the same token, supporting a ban on marriage for black people would also make you a bigot. This is similar. The only difference is that the discrimination is based on sexual preference rather than skin color.

It is not an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack is not simply name calling. It is an attack on an a logical argument based on the person that is making the argument. An ad hominem attack would be like "This person's argument is wrong because he's a priest".

I, on the other hand, prefer that political, philosophical and religious speech should be free from punishment.

It is free from punishment by the government. This does not mean that individuals in the private sector are not allowed to deem you as unfit to be a leader of a diverse group of people if you happen to be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

I support the right of free association, which includes the ability to willingly enter into an terminate relationships, including the freedom to choose who you employ and fire. These mozilla employees are simply making it known that they do not approve of their new leader, and the committee that is in charge of hiring the CEO is free to make a decision of whether they value their new CEO or this other group of employees more.

No rights are being violated by calling for this CEO's resignation. Unlike prop 8, which did strip people from their right to equal protection under the law.

Re:Ad hominem doesn't help your case

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Supporting prop 8 (i.e. supporting legislation that would remove equal rights from a particular group of people), is perfectly consistent with the definition of a bigot. It's name calling, but it's accurate name calling.

In a political debate, you may accuse the other side to fit the definition of "bigot" or "immoral" or "rearded" or "dork" or whatever, but that doesnt change a simple fact: rational political debates are about debating ideas, not name-calling people. Name-calling only serves to make the debate irrational. Do you really believe that it is mature to insult just because you think the insult is "accurate"? Most name callers think they're accurate; that doesn't make it OK.

I support the right of free association,[...]

No one if denying the legal right to free association. We are saying that demoting someone based on his personal, private political activity is anti-ethical.

One thing is to have a legal right, another thing is to be correct. You have the legal right to deny the Holocaust, or to claim that a person should be demoted from an technological organization because of his private political views. That doen't make it ethical.

Re:Ad hominem doesn't help your case

[TsuruchiBrian]

In a political debate, you may accuse the other side to fit the definition of "bigot" or "immoral" or "rearded" or "dork" or whatever, but that doesnt change a simple fact: rational political debates are about debating ideas, not name-calling people.

If someone supports banning marriage for black people because they think marriage is only between 2 white people, then they hold a racist position and are therefore racist. Someone who supports banning marriage between gay people is not racist because the basis for the discrimination is not based on race. There is a general term for intolerance towards other groups and it is called bigotry, and the people who practice bigotry are bigots. These are the English definitions of these words. I'm sure bigots don;t like being called bigots. I'm sure racists don't like being called racists. This does not change the fact that their actions are consistent with the English definitions of those words.

You don't get to say "I think marriage should only be between white people, but I'm not a racist" and be taken seriously. For some reason this hasn't completely caught on with giving equal rights to gay people, but it is gradually getting there. One of the ways to get there is to call people bigots when they are practicing bigotry. People should be made to feel uncomfortable for supporting unequal rights for different people, and people should feel uncomfortable defending those people for the same reason that people should be made uncomfortable for supporting slavery or defending people who supported slavery. One way to enact social change is through social pressure. One way to apply social pressure is to start labeling things (like racism, sexism, and bigotry) correctly as opposed to pretending that certain people are not racists, sexist, or bigots, etc when in fact they are.

No one if denying the legal right to free association. We are saying that demoting someone based on his personal, private political activity is anti-ethical.

What I am saying is that when you are in a leadership position, your "political activity" if it implies you are racist or bigoted, actually hinders your ability to be a good leader since now, many of the people you're responsible for leading, know that you advocated denying them equal protection under the law which is a constitutional right. One of your jobs as CEO is to lead people, and you can't effectively lead people if they don't trust your judgement.

If someone got a job as the CEO of a holocaust survivor support organization, but then it turned out this person is actually privately a Neo-Nazi, I am saying that this person's privately held views (now that they are public) are a detriment to him doing his job well, even if he was qualified and would have done a good job otherwise. The case of the Mozilla CEO is a less extreme example.

One thing is to have a legal right, another thing is to be correct. You have the legal right to deny the Holocaust, or to claim that a person should be demoted from an technological organization because of his private political views. That doen't make it ethical.

I am not advocating that "a person be demoted from a technological organization because of his private political views". I am advocating that the CEO of an organization be removed from his leadership position because of his now public political views.

It doesn't make it unethical either.

Sigh....GIGO

[niftymitch]

Who could have a problem with a program that returns
twice the input?
$ cat two.c /* two.c */ // return twice the input
#include
#include
int main( int argc, char *argv[]){
int innie;
innie= atoi(argv[1]);
printf("the answer is: %i \n", innie * (int)3);
}

Re: That logic totally holds up

[adisakp]

As a CEO, can I not have any beliefs?

The CEO of a company can have religious beliefs. However, the Supreme Court of the US is about to decide if the a Corporation can have strongly religious beliefs based on the beliefs of it's CEO and if those beliefs justify not complying with Federal Laws (Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc).

Forced to disagree.

[Slartibartfast]

While I agree with you *in principle*, I can't agree with you as a blanket statement. If my CEO were an actual Nazi in his off-hours, or a cap-wearing KKK member, I think a) I'd be rightfully worried for how my company would be perceived based on my CEO, and b) I'd find his stances so odious that I wouldn't wish to continue being employed by him. BUT, while not wishing to be employed by him is easily solvable, I'd also hope that the BoD would share my opinions, and would force him to step down.

Furthermore, when I get hired, as a general rule, at the Fortune 500 companies I've worked for, they make me sign something about being careful when in the guise of a $COMPANY employee about what I say, regardless of whether I'm on the clock or not. While I don't know that the CEO would be forced to sign the same stuff I am, I *do* know that the CEO is the CEO 24x7, and that, by choosing that position, he really has acceded to the fact that his personal life and corporate life overlap substantially, and that one is no longer entirely distinct from the other.

So, yeah. Don't think he gets the slack. I side with the FF employees on this one.

Re:Forced to disagree.

[shutdown -p now]

I'm not saying that this is binary. I do think there is a difference between someone who's on a very visible and public crusade (like, say, Orson Scott Card), and a guy who is promoting some political position privately. This particular case, I believe, falls under the latter category - I'm not aware of Eich giving public speeches on this matter, or "wearing a cap" etc. He made a political donation, one among many thousands. The record of that donation was made public because the law required it, not because he wished to publicize it (IIRC, wasn't this even done by court order?).

Re: That logic totally holds up

[jwhitener]

However if those beliefs are based on their religion, then forcing that person to leave the company is in essence forcing the person to leave because of their religion.

Religions do not get carte blanche protections for their conclusions and actions. There are many religious people who have reached conclusions about things that a jury/judge would not allow. It doesn't matter what system of belief or logic created an idea, if that idea is illegal.

non-bigoted reasons

more concerned about judicial activism (their words) than in discriminating against gays

Civil rights have never been a matter of public opinion. See the civil rights movement. That is also not a sign of being non-bigoted. It is more a sign of being ignorant of the Bill of Rights, Constitution, and the history of Civil Rights.

who felt that civil unions were a good solution but who did not think that redefining the word "marriage" was the right way

Unequal treatment based on a person's natural attributes (race, orientation, etc..) is pretty close to the definition of bigotry.

And finally there were others who just want to see gay marriage be on the ballot rather than be decided by a judge.

See Civil Rights above.

Darn you to heck!

[Slartibartfast]

Valid points. I concur.

Yes. A demonstrated bigotry says...

[AutodidactLabrat]

that he has made Mozilla liable for judgement when the next round of firings and layoffs happen. He is thus a net loss to Mozilla