Thoughtcrime

[rvg]

Why is the former simply exercising his free speech while the latter are militant?

Because gay marriage doesn't have a thing to do with web browsers?

[PanzerJaeger]

Because gay marriage doesn't have a thing to do with web browsers?

But this isn't really about Firefox, is it? It is about promoting someone with Eich's views to the highest leadership position in a company that is supposedly built on inclusiveness. Under the right leadership, there are a thousand and one ways a company can discriminate against people without being caught. Eich essentially threw down money not just to oppose gay marriage, but to call gay people a danger to children... to degrade and attack them in the most cruel and vicious manner possible, and it is completely understandable that gay employees and contributors to Mozilla's products would be uncomfortable working under his leadership and voice their opinion.

To borrow GC's example, would it be out of bounds and 'militant' for black employees to speak out in opposition against the promotion to CEO of someone who had donated to the KKK five years prior?

[Fisherking]

But this isn't really about Firefox, is it? It is about promoting someone with Eich's views to the highest leadership position in a company that is supposedly built on inclusiveness. Under the right leadership, there are a thousand and one ways a company can discriminate against people without being caught. Eich essentially threw down money not just to oppose gay marriage, but to call gay people a danger to children... to degrade and attack them in the most cruel and vicious manner possible, and it is completely understandable that gay employees and contributors to Mozilla's products would be uncomfortable working under his leadership and voice their opinion.

To borrow GC's example, would it be out of bounds and 'militant' for black employees to speak out in opposition against the promotion to CEO of someone who had donated to the KKK five years prior?

So, a $1000 donation allowed him to steer the entire campaign? And all that in October. Amazing!

I am truly sorry. I know this is an issue you hold close but it doesn’t change things.

This was an over reaction on the part of those who brought the issue forward. The repercussions and backlash are not going to be good for the gay community at large or firefox. It was a little thought out knee jerk reaction that has backfired.

The best thing to do is for them to admit that mistake and move on. That is recognized in the members of the gay community speaking out against it.

Attempts to justify it are only going to make matter worse.

[HoreTore]

Because gay marriage doesn't have a thing to do with web browsers?

The CEO doesn't make a single browser. The CEO's job is to provide good working conditions for his gay employees which will enable them to produce good browsers.

[rvg]

The CEO doesn't make a single browser. The CEO's job is to provide good working conditions for his gay employees which will enable them to produce good browsers.

Can you point at CEO's discrimination towards any specific gay employee?

[HoreTore]

Can you point at CEO's discrimination towards any specific gay employee?

As he was in charge for a few weeks, you know that's not relevant.

[rvg]

As he was in charge for a few weeks, you know that's not relevant.

Of course!
I keep forgetting that things that disprove your statements are irrelevant.

[HoreTore]

Of course!
I keep forgetting that things that disprove your statements are irrelevant.

Uhm, what?

You're asking me to show evidence of something he hasn't been employed long enough to actually do. If he had been employed for, say, a year, it would have been a fair request.

[rvg]

Uhm, what?

You're asking me to show evidence of something he hasn't been employed long enough to actually do. If he had been employed for, say, a year, it would have been a fair request.

Here's what you said: "The CEO's job is to provide good working conditions for his gay employees which will enable them to produce good browsers."
If you can't provide the evidence of the CEO behaving in a manner contrary to your statement, then there's no credible reason for firing the CEO.

[rvg]

How is donating to a hate group who's mantra was segregation at best not discrimination? I agree he didn't break any laws, but he still brought this on himself.

Hate group? Which group is that? You throw around terms like 'hate group" without any understanding of what that implies.

[rvg]

A group seeking to blanket marginalize a segment of society because they just don't like them is certainly a hate group. Prop 8ers are the same as white priders. Welcome to the modern world.

According to whom?

[rvg]

The prevailing youth culture. Its the same reason weed will be legal all over the place soon. Every day more of them turn 18, and the youth vote is active in opposing social conservatism if nothing else.

Sources.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I'm in favor of gay marriage because I feel like gay people are unjustly disrespected in our culture, and publicly passing a law supporting them is a very symbolic statement of equality*. It doesn't really have anything to do with rights or anything substantial. Gay people can get married just fine without a legal document; if you have the ceremony and make your vows etc then you are married. If it was only about the legal benefits of being married, people would have simply pushed for civil unions. Many people come up with more complicated intellectual arguments, but on the whole it's really about status. And when we symbolically raise the status of gay people we downgrade the status of christians, which I accept even though I'm not happy about it. It's a public statement that christianity is out of date about some things and should not be looked to for guidance on moral issues. So it is plainly a direct attack against christianity. There is a long history of anti-christian efforts, as christian people well know, and this goes along with that. So, naturally christian people don't like that. They are usually being pro-christian by being against gay marriage, rather than anti-gay, just like I'm being pro-gay by being for it, rather than anti-christian. So it really is bigotry to hate someone for being against gay marriage and donating to a campaign, even if that campaign is nasty like political campaigns usually are.

Unfortunately it seems to me that the vocal parts of the lgbt movement are becoming louder and more obnoxious with their anti-christian bigotry, suing wedding photographers, and getting people fired like this. Some of it is real, some of it is because of how politically useful it is to have a stick to bash republicans with.

CR made a good point about Mozilla not being a real company. It's a company based on the childish political views of the internet/tech subculture**. Really it's a completely insignificant company and shouldn't be in the news, we're only hearing about it because on the internet the importance of internet/tech stuff is vastly overrated. What I'm trying to say is that it's true that Mozilla isn't a normal company, but that's not really to say something good about it, it's more like if there was some investing firm run by the "ayn rand institute", and they fired someone for donating to some environmentalist cause.

Also, I don't think that companies that fire people because they are concerned about bad p.r. should be respected. I would admire them if they would take a hit in the pocket-book for doing what was right. Money isn't everything.

At the end of the day this isn't really surprising. We already know that people who are passionate about political movements go on witch hunts, and excuse their bigotry by talking about how they don't tolerate intolerance. It seems surprising that it affected a company CEO, but when you see what kind of company Mozilla is it isn't surprising anymore. The real take away is that we (and the media) should take the political views of tech companies and internet websites much less seriously, and ignore wikipedia black outs and google's messages under their search bar and so on.

*which is why it's much better if done by referendum than by court decision.

**for example: "Mozilla’s mission is to make the Web more open so that humanity is stronger, more inclusive and more just. " and "Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard."

[rvg]

Look around?

That's not how it works. Find a credible source that equates pushing for prop 8 with being in a hate group, then we'll talk. Otherwise it's just you running your mouth about things you cannot prove or understand.