Thoughtcrime

[Ironside]

Is it acceptable to force someone from their job for a political view? A political donation? A political vote?

Apparently so.

Brendan Eich, only recently appointed CEO of Mozilla, was forced to resign due to the firestorm over his 2008 donation of $1000 in favor of Prop8. He stated in a recent interview how he separates his personal beliefs from his job....

People should be appalled by this. Perhaps Mozilla, when choosing it's new CEO, should have a checklist of hot-button political issues that you must be in favor of before you can be considered?

Yes? Or at the very least, not publically oppose. Who could've guessed that having or getting a public persona would affect on what you can say and do in public?

Don't pretend that funding an opinion by proxy is in any way different than saying that opinion yourself. In fact it's in some ways stronger, since it means money talk instead of hot air. If I'm mr "Extremely Rich" and finance 50% of the Republican party, while publically voting Democrat, am I a Republican or Democrat?

A CEO is in many ways a public speaker of a company. That means that a notable opinion of the CEO have been met by, at the very least, a stamp of acceptance by the company. People can then point out their opinion about this acceptance. If they would be forced to accept that, it would be the thought crime you decry.

Private opinions vs professionalism. When do your personal opinion colour your actions when your professional opinion should officially be reversed? That's a fair question. And depends on the person. That means that there's no good absolute answer, so the good old crowd opinion becomes the driving force.

As for your starting questions. No, it's not right. But it's legal there and has been for a long time there. Do you honestly believe that a worker supporting gay rights 20 years ago could give financial support to that opinion and not risk his job? But now it's suddenly a thought crime to do the same thing, when you feel to be on the recieving end? Two wrongs doesn't make a right, that's true. But then you try to fix the error, not trying to pretend that only the first wrong is wrong and the second wrong was right all the time.