Someone who donated to a bigoted hateful campaign like Prop 8 to actively take away people's existing civil rights is a bigot, until proven otherwise. He could have made a case that he wasn't, but chose not to even try.
Same-sex marriage was legal in California before Prop 8 .
http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2008/general/title-sum/prop8-title-sum.htm ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
3) did not really happen. OKCupid merely displayed a message to all users of Firefox, before they could login to the site. They did not block anyone from accessing their site.
Boycotts are protected as free speech under the first amendment of the US Constitution .
Brendan Eich resigned, as a result of the backlash. We don't know if the board would have terminated him if he did not. That just didn't happen.
Would that hypothetical termination have violated California law ? It's unclear. Wouldn't the ongoing boycott of Mozilla because of its CEO would have been reason enough for the board to terminate him, whether this boycott was due to some political or non-political action of his ? I guess we will never know.
There has been much news over the last week about Mozilla. See http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/04/03/3422750/mozilla-ceo-steps-down-after-backlash/. Here is my take.
Prop 8. was passed after an extremely deceitful campaign. The "Yes on 8" TV ads were blatant lies, and just horrible. Even some of my low-information, non-voting, gay friends who say them thought they should vote for prop 8 after seeing them. Prop 8 was unlike all other state constitutional amendments against same-sex marriage, because it revoked rights that were already legally recognized.
I was deprived of the rights to marry my partner in California for many years, as many other LGBT couples were. Brendan Eich contributed $1000 towards that campaign. Unlike the 52% of the California electorate who voted for Prop 8 in 2008, this contribution was not the mere expression of an opinion, but something he actively did to influence the result of the referendum that stripped me and others of rights. While the Supreme Court declared in "Citizens United" that money is speech, I don't accept that. I cannot simply ignore that he made that this contribution. Neither do I think the rest of the world can. I think some backlash against Brendan Eich is entirely warranted.
Whether backlash against him should translate to a Firefox boycott is much more debatable. For better or worse, a CEO represents the corporation, and his political opinions cannot be merely considered private matters. I believe CEOs should be held to a higher standard than lower-level, non-management positions. In this particular case, Brendan Eich was already in a high-level position, as a co-founder of Mozilla, and previously CTO. He was not recently hired, but merely internally promoted to CEO. His "Yes on prop 8 "donation was uncovered years ago, and did not make headlines as big then as now. The Mozilla board probably underestimated how big of an issue this would become after his promotion.
There is no evidence that he has taken discriminatory actions against Mozilla LGBT employees in the past. He has promised that he would not do so either as CEO in the future. However, he has never publicly discussed his reasons for funding Prop 8 in the past, and there is no evidence that he has changed his mind on the subject. If he did, I believe he would have told the world already, and ended the controversy already. In my mind, it is difficult to reconcile having funded Prop 8 and not being an anti-gay bigot. While many were deceived by their churches and very strongly encouraged to fund Prop 8, we don't know if that was the case here. I believe he would have said so as well if this was the case. That leaves with him having been and still being an anti-gay bigot as the sole explanation for the funding Prop 8. He is certainly entitled to his bigoted beliefs. But free speech under the First amendment only means it is free of repercussions from the government, not from individual citizens. A boycott certainly falls under free speech as well. Several Mozilla employees have called for him to step down from his CEO role last week.
I'm a long-time contributor to the Mozilla project, including 9 years working on the NSS security library - but never as a Mozilla employee. I certainly don't want to see the Mozilla project disappear into oblivion. I am glad the controversy ended, before the damage to Mozilla and Firefox became irreparable. Having Brendan step down from the CEO role was the best outcome.
Of course, Brendan's $1000 contribution towards Prop 8 was relatively small, considering the $40 million+ spent on each side. I incidentally also donated $1000 to "No on Prop 8" - the same amount he gave to "Yes on 8". But I'm proud of having done so. Other CEOs have contributed to anti-gay causes, even in tech . When AOL acquired Netscape, Steve Case donated millions to anti-gay organizations, all the while paying Netscape/AOL employees to contribute to the Mozilla project. And obviously, companies like Chik-Fil-A, Barilla, Wal-Mart, Exxon, and their
It does not really solve the problem, because you will be hit with gift tax, for example if you buy a house in common with an unmarried partner, but contribute unequal amounts towards it. This is especially an issue in California where homes can be very expensive compared to the rest of the US (though not relative to the rest of the world; my sister in Paris has it much worse).
Nobody is asking you to "agree with homosexuality", anymore than we ask you to "agree with the black skin color". There is nothing to agree about. Your words are utterly meaningless.
The millions who voted for prop 8 were duped by incredibly misleading TV ads. Even some of my gay friends thought they should vote for it after seeing those ads.
Eich donated to this hateful campaign. This wasn't a mere opinion.
Obama's rhetoric was certainly inconsistent in 2008 on the subject of same-sex marriage, but he 1. never asked anyone to vote for prop 8 2. did not donate any money to "Yes on 8"
As for those "valid reasons" that aren't anti-gay", if there are some, please enlighten us, as nobody on the "Yes on Prop 8" team during the trial could make a rational argument that wasn't anti-gay.
I guess I am too old, acquisition closed in 1999, not 1997. Someone should delete my post above. Apparently slashdot doesn't let one delete their own comments..
Slashdot Mirror
Someone who donated to a bigoted hateful campaign like Prop 8 to actively take away people's existing civil rights is a bigot, until proven otherwise.
He could have made a case that he wasn't, but chose not to even try.
You don't realize that Mozilla is not a simple company, but a community.
It relies on many outside volunteers, who are not Mozilla employees. Some are employed by other companies, such as Google, IBM, Oracle, RedHat.
Many of those volunteers spoke out. Mozilla had no power to fire them.
Wrong.
Same-sex marriage was legal in California before Prop 8 .
http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2008/general/title-sum/prop8-title-sum.htm
ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Prop 8 took those rights away.
No, Prop 8 was about removing existing rights.
http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2008/general/title-sum/prop8-title-sum.htm
ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Same-sex marriage was legal in California before Prop 8. Prop 8 took that right away.
Prop 8 was unique among all the other state laws and state constitutional amendments in that way, because it actually took away rights.
The donation was made in 2008, not 2004.
Barack Obama did not donate to "Yes on 8", nor did he call for anyone to vote Yes on prop 8.
Intel has about 100,000 employees. If 60% of them donated to "Yes on Prop 8", that would be 60,000 donors.
"Yes on Prop 8" only had 35,000 donors.
Ergo, Rush is talking out of his ass, again.
3) did not really happen. OKCupid merely displayed a message to all users of Firefox, before they could login to the site.
They did not block anyone from accessing their site.
Boycotts are protected as free speech under the first amendment of the US Constitution .
Brendan Eich resigned, as a result of the backlash. We don't know if the board would have terminated him if he did not. That just didn't happen.
Would that hypothetical termination have violated California law ? It's unclear.
Wouldn't the ongoing boycott of Mozilla because of its CEO would have been reason enough for the board to terminate him, whether this boycott was due to some political or non-political action of his ? I guess we will never know.
There has been much news over the last week about Mozilla . .
See http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/04/03/3422750/mozilla-ceo-steps-down-after-backlash/
Here is my take.
Prop 8. was passed after an extremely deceitful campaign. The "Yes on 8" TV ads were blatant lies, and just horrible. Even some of my low-information, non-voting, gay friends who say them thought they should vote for prop 8 after seeing them.
Prop 8 was unlike all other state constitutional amendments against same-sex marriage, because it revoked rights that were already legally recognized.
I was deprived of the rights to marry my partner in California for many years, as many other LGBT couples were. Brendan Eich contributed $1000 towards that campaign. Unlike the 52% of the California electorate who voted for Prop 8 in 2008, this contribution was not the mere expression of an opinion, but something he actively did to influence the result of the referendum that stripped me and others of rights. While the Supreme Court declared in "Citizens United" that money is speech, I don't accept that.
I cannot simply ignore that he made that this contribution. Neither do I think the rest of the world can. I think some backlash against Brendan Eich is entirely warranted.
Whether backlash against him should translate to a Firefox boycott is much more debatable. For better or worse, a CEO represents the corporation, and his political opinions cannot be merely considered private matters. I believe CEOs should be held to a higher standard than lower-level, non-management positions. In this particular case, Brendan Eich was already in a high-level position, as a co-founder of Mozilla, and previously CTO. He was not recently hired, but merely internally promoted to CEO. His "Yes on prop 8 "donation was uncovered years ago, and did not make headlines as big then as now. The Mozilla board probably underestimated how big of an issue this would become after his promotion.
There is no evidence that he has taken discriminatory actions against Mozilla LGBT employees in the past. He has promised that he would not do so either as CEO in the future.
However, he has never publicly discussed his reasons for funding Prop 8 in the past, and there is no evidence that he has changed his mind on the subject. If he did, I believe he would have told the world already, and ended the controversy already.
In my mind, it is difficult to reconcile having funded Prop 8 and not being an anti-gay bigot. While many were deceived by their churches and very strongly encouraged to fund Prop 8, we don't know if that was the case here. I believe he would have said so as well if this was the case. That leaves with him having been and still being an anti-gay bigot as the sole explanation for the funding Prop 8. He is certainly entitled to his bigoted beliefs. But free speech under the First amendment only means it is free of repercussions from the government, not from individual citizens. A boycott certainly falls under free speech as well. Several Mozilla employees have called for him to step down from his CEO role last week.
I'm a long-time contributor to the Mozilla project, including 9 years working on the NSS security library - but never as a Mozilla employee. I certainly don't want to see the Mozilla project disappear into oblivion. I am glad the controversy ended, before the damage to Mozilla and Firefox became irreparable. Having Brendan step down from the CEO role was the best outcome.
Of course, Brendan's $1000 contribution towards Prop 8 was relatively small, considering the $40 million+ spent on each side. I incidentally also donated $1000 to "No on Prop 8" - the same amount he gave to "Yes on 8". But I'm proud of having done so. .
Other CEOs have contributed to anti-gay causes, even in tech . When AOL acquired Netscape, Steve Case donated millions to anti-gay organizations, all the while paying Netscape/AOL employees to contribute to the Mozilla project
And obviously, companies like Chik-Fil-A, Barilla, Wal-Mart, Exxon, and their
It does not really solve the problem, because you will be hit with gift tax, for example if you buy a house in common with an unmarried partner, but contribute unequal amounts towards it. This is especially an issue in California where homes can be very expensive compared to the rest of the US (though not relative to the rest of the world; my sister in Paris has it much worse).
Indeed, it's exactly the same.
The gay employees are trying to take away his right to get married.
Got it.
Jointly owning property doesn't resolve inheritance rights.
Many gay couples have had to sell their jointly owned home after the death of one, just to pay estate taxes on the half they didn't personally own.
Wrong. Same-sex marriage was legal in California since June 2008.
Prop 8 redefined marriage in California by restricting it to only between a man and woman.
Prop 8 took away my rights and that of many other LGBT Californians.
You should look up the meaning of the word "contagious". That word does not apply to HIV/AIDS.
Also, none of this has anything to do with the Mozilla boycott.
You mean he would be bigoted against bigots ?
Is that a bad thing now ?
Do corporations have feelings now, too ?
They have to pay taxes for black entitlements, too.
Or interracial couples entitlements, too.
Was there a point ?
Nobody is asking you to "agree with homosexuality", anymore than we ask you to "agree with the black skin color". There is nothing to agree about. Your words are utterly meaningless.
The millions who voted for prop 8 were duped by incredibly misleading TV ads. Even some of my gay friends thought they should vote for it after seeing those ads.
Eich donated to this hateful campaign. This wasn't a mere opinion.
Obama's rhetoric was certainly inconsistent in 2008 on the subject of same-sex marriage, but he
1. never asked anyone to vote for prop 8
2. did not donate any money to "Yes on 8"
Prop 8 was fully enforced by the government in California the moment it was passed.
The executive has responsibility for enforcing laws, but is not to defend those laws in court if they consider them to be unconstitutional.
Enforcing and defending are two different thing.
Was anyone other than homosexuals excluded from the "special rights" group ?
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.
It was prop 8, not prop 9, and it is now defunct.
As for those "valid reasons" that aren't anti-gay", if there are some, please enlighten us, as nobody on the "Yes on Prop 8" team during the trial could make a rational argument that wasn't anti-gay.
I guess I am too old, acquisition closed in 1999, not 1997. Someone should delete my post above. Apparently slashdot doesn't let one delete their own comments..