<p><pre><code> ... it was hard to watch as people who should know better pulled
out the Chick-Fil-A playbook
</code></pre>
That's exactly right. By all means, protest a corporation that uses corporate resources to fund hate. That's not what happened at Mozilla.<p><pre><code> I am equally disappointed in Mozillians and in demagogues who didn’t
see the irony in hounding someone for their private opinion
because of "intolerance."
</code></pre>
Mozilla is beautiful because they've united very different people for a common, worthy purpose. To accomplish that, they must firewall personal opinions, politics and prejudices that are not relevant to their mission.<p>That firewall has now been breached. It's scary to think that an important organization with a critical mission could be damaged by this breach.<p><pre><code> If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents
with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone
else – then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free
speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies
who came before us.
</code></pre>
Well said and incisively reasoned, Andrew Sullivan.
I would like to begin by stating that I, personally, support gay marriage - if the government is willing to offer tax benefits, next-of-kin status, etc. to married and common-law couples based on committed, long-term relationships, it seems hypocritical, cruel, and unfair to deny those same rights to homosexual couples with similar relationships.<p>That said, I think it is ridiculous that this is a scandal, and worse that it ended with Brendan Eich being forced out of his job. He made a really quite modest personal political donation on one side of an issue the state of California had deemed contentious enough to hold a referendum. It seems unfair that backing the wrong side in that referendum apparently disqualifies half of California from being Mozilla CEO. Whether you agree with his views or not (and I and most of the Internet seem not to), they have nothing to do with building an accessible Internet for everyone, and as long as those views don't affect his managerial choices, I don't see how they're relevant to his job (Mozilla HR could answer the question about professionalism, but I don't think the rest of us have the necessary data).
> One thing’s for sure. If you eat at Chick-Fil-A, your money will support anti-gay causes.<p>Which is also technically true if you do business with any company that employs any people who oppose gay rights. Or if you do business with any company that itself does business with another company that employs any people who oppose gay rights.
The fallout from this will be interesting to watch. If there are other employees of Mozilla that supported Prop. 8 or are otherwise opposed to gay marriage, do they now fear for their jobs?<p>I keep seeing the argument that it's only because he became CEO, which is completely different than CTO. While there is some truth to that, it mostly comes across as post witch-hunt rationalization to me.<p>Maybe witch-hunt is a little strong, but the level of vitriol in OKCupid's message directed towards Eich (and effectively at anyone who shares that opinion) felt genuinely disturbing to me.<p>Maybe I'm just not cut out for these Internets.
> I am equally disappointed in Mozillians and in demagogues who didn't see the irony in hounding someone for their private opinion because of "intolerance."<p>His opinion is no longer private. Once you vote with your dollars you have publicly acknowledged your opinion.<p>I don't know if I really support what happened to Eich, but this whole event opens your eyes to the hypocrisy of the tech community. If some person not well known to the loudest voices of the community says something insensitive they will have their lives ruined. Someone like Eich does something similar and all of a sudden it is, "whoa, now, let's not overreact."
Proposition 8 took away my right to marry. It's a pretty shitty thing to find out that the majority of voters in your home state believe it's OK to treat you as a second class citizen. When Brendan Eich sent in that check for $1,000 in support of Proposition 8, he was making the statement that I should not continue to have the right to marry the person I love and that explicit discrimination against gay people should be enshrined in California's constitution. It left a lot of people very upset. I don't agree with with lashing out at Eich, but I understand it.
<i>So if the long march of progress makes a fast food drive-thru a site of civic participation, well, that’s surreal—but it’s democracy in action.</i><p>I wonder if this guy is aware that "long march" almost always refers to the "long march through the institutions", which is essentially a Marxist plan to subvert society. (When it's not referring to the original "long march" by Mao's forces.) I'm guessing he is. It reminds me of the old commie-styled Mozilla red star logo. Was that an accident? What's with these people? At any rate, if you <i>ever</i> want to donate to any political cause, make sure it's 100 percent anonymous. That includes supporters of gay marriage. When the worm turns, you might get the same as you gave.
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”<p>I think that the great tech though-crime purge of 2013-? will end up having a different outcome than intended...
I'm going to take a different stand than the one a lot of people seem to keep echoing here. I think it was the right thing for Eich to step down.<p>This isn't about free speech, it's about basic human rights.<p>Let me try to re-frame it this way; had Eich been a white supremacist and had contributed money to the KKK, do you still think he would have been fit to lead Mozilla? The same arguments being bandied around here apply.<p>Whether people want to admit it or not, this guy is (was) the public face of the organization. Despite being an avid user of Firefox, I definitely would hesitate to donate money with him as the CEO. And, were I an employee of Mozilla, I'd probably consider leaving. I'm also sure that I'm not alone in this. If Mozilla is shedding employees and losing donations as a result of him being at the head, he clearly isn't the right person to be the leader.<p>As for free speech, I love the first amendment. Eich certainly has the right to express his (completely ridiculous and hateful) opinion. Everyone else also has the right to pressure him to not be the head of a charitable organization which promotes tolerance.
There are currently two posts on the main page about this. Do we really need a third? Is this really the kind of place where we are going to push a story about Postgres and the Linux kernel off the main page so that we can have another nasty political fight? I guess I'm new here and don't know the community that well, but that seems more than a little sad and absurd.<p>It is a shame though cause this is kind of a decent write-up.
If a christian run organization fired an employee (lets not kid ourselves here, Eich was fired) because they paid $1,000 to support gay marriage, how dramatically would the reaction differ from this situation?<p>Why the huge difference? because in our culture, we are not "allowed" to voice a different opinion than the SCOTUS. Even if the majority populous agrees with our opinion.<p>I know what you are going to say... This is a civil rights issue. It is now a homosexual's civil right to be married because the court said so.<p>When I hear the term civil rights, I always think of blacks and whites in America, segregation and unequal rights because of race.<p>Non Caucasian people were not allowed to use the same schools, bathrooms, bus seats, or even drinking fountains that white people used. That was wrong. Everyone is human and should be treated with dignity.<p>These days we have this out of control "equality" thing that just kind of blindly rolls over common sense.<p>If there is no distinction between men and women in marriage now, then what about the rest of the gender based legal things like a law preventing a man from going into a women's locker room at the local gym and showering with 10 year old girls that happen to be showering in there. Well gay men can shower with boys in the locker next door, so why not? Why are there women's battery laws? Special rape laws only for women? There are literally thousands of laws that are preferential toward or only exist to assist women? Can't a gay man have these same laws applied to him just like marriage? It just isn't fair if they aren't. This breaks "Equality".<p>Men and women are different, that is why there are different rules for us. Homosexuals did not fit the description of marriage because it was defined by gender, since this fundamental attribute was thrown out, it seems only fair to throw out any and all gender biased laws, rules, and guidelines.<p>If a women feels that she was violated because a man came into the women's shower while she was shaving, how is this different than a women feeling that her marriage was violated because it also was re-defined as being genderless.<p>I just don't grasp the "logic" (or lack thereof) that people today must use to come up with such thoughts and justifications.
This is not a free speech issue. I wish people would stop making that mistake. A private company can fire anyone they want in California for whatever reason they want.