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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[TsuruchiBrian]

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

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

[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

[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?

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....

[Raseri]

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

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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[HornWumpus]

You can have legal partnerships of more then 2 people.

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: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.

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

[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: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.

[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?

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: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.

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'

[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: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: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: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.

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: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: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.

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.

[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.

Would we...

[WillyWanker]

...even be having this conversation if he donated money to the KKK?

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: 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.

[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.

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: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?

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: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.

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: 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.

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: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: 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.

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.