n1 writes
Mozilla appointed a new CEO earlier this month, Brendan Eich. Previously flying under the radar to a degree as CTO for Mozilla, he has now come under scrutiny by Mozilla employees across the globe for his financial support of Proposition 8 in 2008.
Proposition 8 sought to ban same-sex marriage in California and passed with 52.24% of the vote. Mozilla employees such as Jess Klein and Chris McAvoy have taken to twitter to call for their new CEO to step down.
Mozilla's head of Education Christie Koehler avoided discussing Eich's suitability as CEO but noted in a blog post:
Like a lot of people, I was disappointed when I found out that Brendan had donated to the anti-marriage equality Prop. 8 campaign in California. It's hard for me to think of a scenario where someone could donate to that campaign without feeling that queer folks are less deserving of basic rights. It frustrates me when people use their economic power to further enshrine and institutionalize discrimination.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by umafuckitt on Sunday March 30 2014, @12:07AM
Whilst I really don't agree with the guy's view on marriage, I'm also uncomfortable with the idea of someone being fired for their political or moral opinions. Then again, he did put himself into this position by actually donating money. Silly move, I reckon.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Tork on Sunday March 30 2014, @12:11AM
Basically it's his actions getting him in trouble, not his opinions. You also don't want a guy who has used his resources to limit freedom representing a company whose main product is based on increasing freedom.
Slashdolt logic: 1600 x 1200 > 1920 x 1200
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday March 30 2014, @12:31AM
Agreed 100%. You have to wonder what motivates a person to act in such a mean-spirited manner. Having an opinion is one thing, going out of your way to give your own money to donate to a cause which upholds a 14th-century status quo for no rational reason.
" F-fuck you Ethanol, you're n-nothing but a t-troll trying to whore for karma. "
Okay, put another way -- Why do humans consider themselves "above" the other animals while multitudes of their laws and populations are obsessed with breeding and the notion that life should revolve around breeding?
It's just one of those things, like being racist or sexist, that no matter how justified you may be to believe the public is always gonna think you're an asshole or a self-loathing closet homosexual -- probably both -- to oppose same-sex marriage.
Marriage should be a religious or civil matter, and the state should have no say in it. If two men want to marry and no church will do it, there will always be somebody available who would.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by FatPhil on Sunday March 30 2014, @08:35AM
Absolutely not. Marriage has (in)testacy implications, and other matters of legal obligation. It's 100% the government's business to define what and what is not marriage whilst those things hold true. And what does "civil" mean to you - almost everything I've seen prepended with the word "civil" has had the hand of government defining and controlling it.
Making a public pledge to no longer contribute to slashdot
(Score: 5, Insightful) by VLM on Sunday March 30 2014, @09:24AM
"Marriage should be a religious or civil matter"
No by separation of church and state it should be purely religious.
If you want a "package deal" of survivorship benefits, tax structures, power of attorney, inheritance law, then any two adults should be able to obtain a civil union from the government. If that package deal comes with a marriage certificate from a religious leader, well thats nice but the religious part is none of the governments business.
I don't see the government regulating and enforcing the religious sacrament of marriage as being any more appropriate than the .gov trying to take over the religious sacrament of baptism or last rites.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday March 30 2014, @01:04PM
Which requires those into the woo-woo/dress-up side to effectively admit that the additional ceremony was, to the rest of the world, utterly meaningless.
Which of those two is the "marriage"? There are at least two wrong answers to that question.
Making a public pledge to no longer contribute to slashdot
(Score: 1) by rochrist on Sunday March 30 2014, @04:14PM
Why should it be labeled by the second class (to some) term 'civil union'. Why not just have marriages, and if a particular church doesn't like marrying gay folk, then they don't. There are plenty of churches who do. Or you have a civil ceremony, justice of the peace style. It can still be marriage.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Sunday March 30 2014, @04:29PM
Practical naming conventions. Marriage is a religious sacrament, keep it that way. The .gov should not be issuing marriage licenses, only civil union registration for all, not "just" gay couples.
You can imagine the chaos if the .gov stole the name of the Catholic religious sacrament "First Eucharist" and then thought it would be hilarious to use that name for some public school ceremony denoting the graduation of 2nd graders into 3rd graders and then started passing new rules and regulations redefining "First Eucharist" and the Catholics freaking out about .gov intruding into the conduct of their religion.
Or equally hilarious, how about we have the .gov stop issuing "birth certificates" and start issuing "baptism certificates" in its place and then start passing all kinds of laws about exactly who, and how, and when, "baptisms" will be permitted. Even if what .gov means by a baptism is merely a legal birth certificate, you'd have the religious people all wound up that people designed by god to be born gay are not having their "baptism certificates" revoked by the government because some churches hate gay people.
To some extent its all just part of the big lie. Lets say you want to reduce separation of church and state, you don't outright say it, you just give the little kids two choices both of which involve reduction of the separation of church and state, and let the little kids fight about which of the "two" choices is better, until everyone is convinced of the original goal of the whole project, which was to reduce the separation of church and state, it doesn't actually matter which of the two choices are selected, the important part is framing the argument. You see this a lot with creationism arguments, too.
I learned this from my liberal arts education where every graduating senior had to take a Holocaust class. The Germans are pretty nice people and you don't convince them to put jews in camps by telling them they want camps. The way you pull it off is telling them they'll be building camps here, or there, and which location do you want? Let them argue all about which location. Then once they're used to the idea of their being camps to begin with, and it doesn't really matter to you where they build them anyway... And thats how those nice guys ended up involved in a real bad scene. Its all in the PR techniques of manufacturing consent.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Sunday March 30 2014, @12:41AM
You also don't want a guy who has used his resources to limit freedom representing a company whose main product is based on increasing freedom.
Given that I consider this completely irrelevant to his job or to any process of increasing freedom, I would have to disagree. Increasing freedom is first and foremost about allowing people who have different beliefs from you to act on those beliefs, even if you don't like it.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday March 30 2014, @01:14AM
Would you feel comfortable working with somebody who was openly racist or sexist in their personal life? Would that racist or sexist person have more, or less, of an advantage as a result of more, or less, or no people at all willing to communicate anything other than the bare minimum out of contempt? Would an organization benefit more from having a leader who is respected rather than reviled?
Despite my other comment above, let's pretend that I don't have an opinion about this. Anybody who interacts with people regularly knows that knowledge is power, and assholes get less knowledge because there is less dialog. As an example, if you are rude to your waiter, your waiter is going to recommend the dish made to disguise and offload the 3 week-old fish, and you're going to gobble it up like the rube you are. Show a little respect, don't be an asshole, and your waiter will point you to a better alternative, or at least warn you of your terrible choice with a cocked eyebrow and a change of vocal inflection.
If this guy stays on as Big Boss, you can bet your ass that the little guys are going to do whatever they can (professionally and legally, of course) to sink him. And a lot of little guys work for him. Oh, and that userbase...lotta gay people in this world, gay people who have internalized anger at how they've been maligned and oppressed all these years, itching to "stick it to the man."
(Score: 3) by Runaway1956 on Sunday March 30 2014, @02:09AM
"gay people who have internalized anger at how they've been maligned and oppressed all these years, itching to "stick it to the man.""
So - you are saying that gays a petty, mean spirited people? Interesting . . .
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 30 2014, @06:57PM
He's saying they've been hurt by bigots going out of their way to make their lives difficult.
(Score: 4, Funny) by c0lo on Sunday March 30 2014, @03:10AM
Alert: sexist comment. Lesbians are in the same situation (maligned and oppressed), would like a chance to marriage equality too, but they wouldn't think to stick it to the man (at most, "giving it to the bitch")
(grin)
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 30 2014, @06:45AM
Opposing marriage being redefined is not necessarily sexist nor bigoted.
Marriage is an artificial construct. In theory one could also come up with an artificial construct for the homosexual equivalent and seek similar benefits for that construct.
Instead of broadening an existing definition you could create a new definition. Meanings and definitions of things change with time of course, but just because you oppose the broadening or changing of a definition doesn't automatically make you a bigot.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 30 2014, @01:13PM
Would you feel comfortable working with somebody who was openly racist or sexist in their personal life?
Yes. I know this because I have. If they can separate their personal life from their professional life, then that's good enough for me. I see no more reason to discriminate against them for that than for stuff that you can't legally discriminate.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by naubol on Sunday March 30 2014, @01:26AM
Freedom is the right to say what you think without retribution from the government.
Freedom is absolutely not about respecting someone else for their beliefs, it is not about allowing people to be in top positions regardless of what they believe in their "private life", it is not about being free from communal pressures to confirm to commonly held mores....
Freedom is about being able to marry whom you want. It is about due process under the law. It is about voting for whoever represents your views.
Freedom of expression != freedom from the social consequences of expression. Freedom from the social consequences of expression would make for a horrible society. Trying to claim that people shouldn't criticize a public figure for their beliefs because of "freedom of expression" is an attempt at censorship, itself. I don't think this is a 1st amendment violation, but it is slightly ironic.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 30 2014, @06:31AM
Uh you can't always marry (or even fuck) just whoever you want. Sometimes you need to get divorces first ;). And sometimes you (both?) need to wait to reach a marriable age. And sometimes despite you both loving each other, sorry in most countries inter-species marriage ain't happening.
Point is, lines were drawn, they may seem arbitrary, you wish to redraw the line but be aware your proposed line is arbitrary and restrictive too.
Your freedom will always be limited. Whether it is better or worse for everyone in the long term should be the consideration, not whether you have greater or less freedom. Don't think of freedom to do whatever you want as something inherently good. For example rules and restrictions are often a crucial part of making games fun. No rules, no game.
p.s. apparently Corporations are legally Persons in some crazy countries. So what next, marriage between Corporations? Or humans and Corporations?
(Score: 2) by naubol on Sunday March 30 2014, @12:56PM
I don't know why you were downmodded as troll since I think you're making a point.
I agree with you that my freedom will always be limited, and that of others. But, the lines are not arbitrary. They contain deep significance about what society is currently tolerating and okay with, and they affect people's lives. Nothing about them is arbitrary.
The reasons for not allowing incestuous marriages, sham marriages (for green cards), or polygamous marriages all differ from each other and from whether to allow gender-ignorant marriage. My statement meant to indicate that freedom should mean that legal marriage is gender ignorant.
I suppose your last comment is why you were really modded troll, it is patently absurd and not at all what was intended by me, and how could you not have inferred that?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 30 2014, @01:21PM
Freedom is about constraints on one's actions. It doesn't matter if the constraints come from government, commonly held mores, physical aspects of the environment, or absence of capabilities.
Freedom of expression != freedom from the social consequences of expression.
Freedom of expression is a very specific legal conception. It is not merely saying whatever you want to say however loudly you want to say it.
(Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Sunday March 30 2014, @06:08PM
> Trying to claim that people shouldn't criticize a public figure for their beliefs because of "freedom of expression" is an attempt at censorship, itself
Indeed, I think criticizing the guy is fair, even openly
.
But asking him to step down, before he does something discriminatory, is pure "prejudice".
So the victims have stepped down to the level of the aggressors and that`s ironic too.
Once upon a time a soccer player used the term homophobe instead of homosexual, I dunno if as an inside joke or out of sheer ignorance, the result was hilarious, but technically valid. A homophobe that respects the law cannot be discriminated against, without becoming hypocrites.
(Score: 2) by naubol on Sunday March 30 2014, @06:35PM
What do you mean 'before'?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday March 30 2014, @02:04AM
That is a bit of nonsense, when you really think about it. You seem to be saying that it is alright to VOTE your conscience, but it's not alright to make campaign donations unless the campaign is politically correct and/or successful.
Either I'm not understanding you, or you're talking nonsense.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Tork on Sunday March 30 2014, @03:35AM
No, it isn't nonsense. He used money to influence a democratic process. That really should disturb you, if for no other reason than this happening in the context of a beloved Open Source project, even if you are against gay marriage.
Slashdolt logic: 1600 x 1200 > 1920 x 1200
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 30 2014, @07:39AM
If you're an American, and you find using money to influence the democratic process to be disturbing, then I have some bad news for you.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by VLM on Sunday March 30 2014, @09:40AM
"Either I'm not understanding you"
This is the more likely case. The purpose of selecting a CEO is deciding who to make filthy rich compared to everyone else. At which time he (usually a he) will use his filthy richness most likely in an uncivilized manner, based on historical record. Why pay a guy way more than he's worth so he can use the extra money in a grossly uncivilized manner?
The key is combining both income inequality with the CEO's lack of civility. Nobody cares if an honest working man making an honest wage uses some of his honestly earned money in a way you don't like. But if you live in a corrupt society where those at the top have been selected for criminality and sociopathy, but cannot normally be punished, and now somehow you've found a way to punish "the crooks" at the top, its going to be pretty bad for that guy. Even if as an individual he's not as crooked as most of "them" he's still part of a criminal class.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday March 30 2014, @12:12AM
123
456
789
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 30 2014, @01:20AM
Only an idiot would claim that tolerance encompasses accepting someone's actions that would either deny others liberty or to cause them physical harm. And his actions fall into the former category.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday March 30 2014, @07:57AM
123
456
789
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday March 30 2014, @11:51AM
Slashdolt logic: 1600 x 1200 > 1920 x 1200
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday March 30 2014, @10:41PM
Neither of those were made up. They are verifiable facts. If you need citations, I'll find them tomorrow.
That's neither here nor there though and wasn't the point. The point was to make it crystal clear to everyone reading that the left cannot tolerate intellectual diversity. Right at this moment in history, the Republicans are the big tent party because they're far, far more tolerant of differing viewpoints. There are gay Republicans who are in favor of gay marriage but there's not one Democrat who'll say gays should not marry.
I'm neither and think both are corrupt, power-mongering, liberty-stealing douchebags. Right now though, the left are working towards fascism in a big damned way and it needs to be recognized before it's too late to do anything about it. We need to be able to argue. We need to be able to push any cause we believe in without having the San Franciscan Inquisition showing up on our doorstep. We need freedom of diversity in thought and deed. In short, we need people to wake the fuck up and smell the Folgers or we really are headed to proper fascism sooner rather than later.
123
456
789
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday March 30 2014, @11:03PM
The GOP has been in damage control for quite a while now. Its members have made taken some offensive stances and, because they cannot re-write their statements, they've been distorting info out there to make it sound like their views are justified and it's the mean old left-controlled-media keeping the truth from getting out there. You have quite obviously fallen for that.
Slashdolt logic: 1600 x 1200 > 1920 x 1200
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday March 30 2014, @11:17PM
123
456
789
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday March 30 2014, @11:22PM
Nope, I didn't miss it. It just didn't succeed in bailing you out.
Slashdolt logic: 1600 x 1200 > 1920 x 1200
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday March 30 2014, @11:32PM
123
456
789
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday March 30 2014, @11:50PM
Nope.
Slashdolt logic: 1600 x 1200 > 1920 x 1200
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 30 2014, @12:02PM
Nope, I don't. My argument is about individual people and their actions. And by repeatedly saying actions there is good reason. Tolerance does cover accepting people's thoughts no matter how repugnant, but when they act on those thoughts in ways that physically threatens/harms others or would deprive others liberty then they no longer get tolerance. It's why not all Christians are at fault for the actions of the Prop 8 idiot crowd unless they acted in concert with them as Eich did.
Your strawman is silly and pathetic.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday March 30 2014, @10:19PM
123
456
789
(Score: 5, Insightful) by naubol on Sunday March 30 2014, @12:56AM
I think the problem is that it is considered a "political or moral" opinion and not a horrific thing to be saying or thinking. The story would be quite different if he believed black people shouldn't have the right to vote, for instance. Or, say, that black people should only be able to adopt black children. You know, there are views he could be saying that I view as similarly heinous that would make him national news.
My opinion is the phrase "political or moral opinion" is used to make it seem like that view is considered an acceptable one to have, and I disagree, I think it makes him scum. I might be down modded for that, but I think any objective look at how gay people are treated by people with "moral opinions" on the subject is very disproportionate to other "moral opinions" they hold. At some point, it is obviously a just a nasty point of view that someone is nourishing.
Also: Kids are dying, people's lives are put on hold or destroyed, this stuff really matters.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Sunday March 30 2014, @02:13AM
"Also: Kids are dying, people's lives are put on hold or destroyed, this stuff really matters."
Hyperbole much? Hey, how about you stick to facts, and leave this imaginary nonsense out of the discussion.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by naubol on Sunday March 30 2014, @02:44AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_among_LGBT_yo uth [wikipedia.org]
http://s3.amazonaws.com/hrc-assets//files/assets/r esources/Growing-Up-LGBT-in-America_Report.pdf [amazonaws.com]
I'm deadly serious. To me, it seems obvious that a society which, in the freakin news, debates the merits of discriminating against a certain class of individual makes it difficult for an individual to grow up as a member of that class.
In some places, to grow up gay is to be in the closet, to go through puberty trying to stunt the development of your blooming sex drive while you watch everyone around you learn to flirt, to date, to be valued, to be seen as sexually compelling, etc. Stress about identity and future acceptance can lead to fatalism and an erosion of the self that eventually risks suicide, disease, and lost opportunities. Another study shows that gay people are poorer. http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/u ploads/LGB-Poverty-Update-Jun-2013.pdf [ucla.edu]
If we know anything about studying cultures at all, is that oppressed people suffer in a myriad of ways, and people who are not oppressed tend to hold the suffering of the oppressed against them as reason to continue the oppression. You may not agree with it, but the facts are there.
There is no hyperbole in what I said.
The most insane thing about it all is that there is no rhyme or reason to destroy the kids that don't make it through, and to cripple/hobble so many others. I don't know of a study that measures the economic impact of this activity, but it must not be to our net. What value is lost to society by such attitudes?
Saying that Mr. Eich should be removed from his post for monetarily supporting discrimination like this is a good thing to me. It starts a dialogue, it creates more accountability, it shows at-risk youth that there is support for their position, it shows their parents that there is strength in the position of equality.
But, I suppose it is easier to be snide and casually dismissive than do a basic google search.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Sunday March 30 2014, @03:04AM
One fact is clear anyway - your interpretation of the facts that you choose to see.
If, in fact, you can make a case that gays are oppressed (obviously, they are not in the United States today, they are instead publicly celebrated) that does NOT make a case for gay marriage.
Gay pride parades and gay activists clearly take pride in being DIFFERENT. At the same time, you make a hypocritical case for being accepted as just like heteros.
Are you different, or are you the same?
No gay marriage. The term is an oxymoron.
Marriage has been invented by mankind a number of times, in a number of places, all around the globe. Marriage has ALWAYS been about procreation. No society on earth came up with the construct that we call marriage out of concern for the happiness of the marriage partners. Always, marriage has been tailored to see to the creation of, and nurturing of CHILDREN, and then to ease the task of passing on possessions from one generation to the next.
Happiness? Tax breaks? Entitlements? Precious few societies have given the smallest damn about any of that, yet they had marriage.
Marriage is all about the CHILDREN.
And, no, I simply do not entertain any arguments about test tube babies, adoption, offspring from prior liaisons, etc ad nauseum. Nor do I entertain frivolous arguments against hetero marriages between sterile people, or people who don't want children, or aging people.
Society's ONLY interest in marriage is the creation of the next generation.
Gays do indeed have some rights that need to be addressed. My favorite, is visitation rights in a hospital. Hey - I've often been far from home. If I were sick or injured, and family couldn't visit, I would want my shipmates and buddies to be allowed to come in and visit me. No hospital has the right to prevent visits from friends. They might LIMIT visits to a small number of people, but they have no right to decide who can visit.
Inheritance rights are sometimes trampled. That needs to be addressed. There are other rights that can be trampled - each of those rights needs to be addressed.
But, marriage?
Call it a "civil union" and you'll find that a lot of opposition dries up. YOU ARE DIFFERENT. Stop asking to be accepted as "just the same as you, except we're queer". It doesn't work.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 30 2014, @05:10AM
Marriage is only about having children? I'm single and I've had a vasectomy. Are you saying that I shouldn't be able to get married?
Should some form of "we guarantee that we will produce at minimum one viable offspring that shall live long enough to reach the age of legal maturity" be part of the legally binging marriage contract with the State? What should the penalty be for not meeting that obligation?
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday March 30 2014, @12:02PM
Slashdolt logic: 1600 x 1200 > 1920 x 1200
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday March 30 2014, @01:18PM
Reading comprehension failure on your part.
(Score: 1) by Angry Jesus on Sunday March 30 2014, @03:58PM
Seems fair since there seems to be a writing comprehension failure on your part.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday March 30 2014, @04:13PM
Funny. I'll say it again, using small words.
Society has no interest in marriage apart from children. None.
(Score: 1) by Angry Jesus on Sunday March 30 2014, @06:22PM
Funny, I'll say it again using the same words.
You have a writing comprehension problem. You don't understand the implications of your own words.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday March 30 2014, @05:29PM
Slashdolt logic: 1600 x 1200 > 1920 x 1200
(Score: 1) by evilviper on Sunday March 30 2014, @11:39AM
Except those LGBT youth suicides don't have one bit to do with whether or not the state of California will allow then to file their income taxes jointly...
Do YOU see ALL home-page stories?
dev.soylentnews.org/search.pl?tid=1
github.com/SoylentNews/slashcode/issues/78
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday March 30 2014, @12:00PM
Slashdolt logic: 1600 x 1200 > 1920 x 1200
(Score: 2) by evilviper on Sunday March 30 2014, @07:29PM
Sure it was. That's what marriage is.
Do YOU see ALL home-page stories?
dev.soylentnews.org/search.pl?tid=1
github.com/SoylentNews/slashcode/issues/78
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday March 30 2014, @10:59PM
Slashdolt logic: 1600 x 1200 > 1920 x 1200
(Score: 2) by evilviper on Sunday March 30 2014, @11:36AM
You believe the majority of people in California are "scum"? Hell, I'd say at least 3/4ths of the world population must be "scum" at the present time. When your zealotry has gone that far, you seriously need to turn the lens around and figure out what is wrong with YOU.
Do YOU see ALL home-page stories?
dev.soylentnews.org/search.pl?tid=1
github.com/SoylentNews/slashcode/issues/78
(Score: 2) by naubol on Sunday March 30 2014, @12:47PM
Somewhere, in a chat room, in the 1930's, someone is asking, "You believe the majority of whites in Alabama are scum? What is wrong with YOU."
(Score: 2) by evilviper on Sunday March 30 2014, @07:41PM
You're spinning that into something completely different than what I said. I didn't restrict it to straight people, and I put the ENTIRE WORLD in there. If you can find a legitimate counter-example, then I might consider it worth responding to.
And comparing gay marriage to slavery (or Jim Crow-era south) is massively intellectually dishonest... You horrifically trivialize the incredible misery and suffering that was inflicted upon non-whites, and denigrate the memory of those who died. What would you think if every idiot who had their license taken away (eg. for DUI) equated themselves to being in slavery?
Do YOU see ALL home-page stories?
dev.soylentnews.org/search.pl?tid=1
github.com/SoylentNews/slashcode/issues/78
(Score: 2) by naubol on Sunday March 30 2014, @10:46PM
I don't think it is important to determine who suffers more, gay kids in parts of the US or blacks in the Jim Crow south. What I do think is important is to recognize that there is a helluva lot of suffering going on in gay kids in the US and we should do something about it.
So yes, I think that opinion is scummy. My point by referencing the Jim Crow era south was that a majority finding a view acceptable make the view less odious. Someday, society may wake up and realize just how scummy it is.
Also, I said Eich was scum not just because of his view but because he had donated to a political campaign to reduce the rights of gay people. Odd that you're so concerned with whether or not I think he is a scum for donating to prop 8 and that I don't denigrate the suffering of black people, but not a peep about the suffering of the gays. Wait, that is not odd, it is consistent with your attitude in other messages on this forum.
(Score: 2) by evilviper on Sunday March 30 2014, @11:37PM
There's nothing to determine, the answer is overwhelmingly and undeniably obvious. You're the one who equated the two, equating a trivial issues with a very serious one.
Maybe, but legalizing gay marriage isn't going to have any effect at all.
Except you're wrong. Sure, you can always choose a small group that holds a crazy view, if you get to define your own borders. But find me an issue that the whole world disagrees with you on, that you're so zealous about you call it "scummy," and overwhelmingly, the odds are that you're probably just a nut-job. In the battle between you and the world... bet on 'the world'.
Or (more likely) you'll wake up one day and realize your extremist opinion was naive, unfair, and baseless. The morality of those who's opinions haven't changed will be no better or worse... You'll be the only thing that has changed.
And there you go again... despite just claiming you're not doing so, once again you're equating a trivial state marriage certificate, with tens of thousands of murders.
You need to stop pointing the finger at me, and figure out what the hell is so damn wrong with your moral compass.
Do YOU see ALL home-page stories?
dev.soylentnews.org/search.pl?tid=1
github.com/SoylentNews/slashcode/issues/78
(Score: 2) by naubol on Monday March 31 2014, @02:17AM
It is not obvious to me.
It is obvious to me that legalizing gay marriage has an effect on how gay kids perceive their own self worth. Just as the resulting social discussions about whether or not it is okay to discriminate against gay people sends the message to some kids that it is okay to bully gay kids and to other kids that it is okay to be bullied. Studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_among_LGBT_y outh) show that bullied LGBT youth commit suicide in greater numbers, which indicates to me a lot of suffering is going on, and we should do something about it.
If it is hard for you to believe that social cues have a powerful effect, take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golem_effect [wikipedia.org] Even GWB said, "It is the soft bigotry of low expectations." These things really matter, and much has been explored in how social cues are used to oppress women, blacks, gays, and other minorities. The damage may not be physical, but it turns out that words have real power.
The latest gallup poll has national support for gay marriage at 57%. I wouldn't have called it overwhelmingly against when support was only 48% in California in 2008 only amongst people who voted.
My point, which apparently I should have spelled out awhile ago, is that attitudes shift. I was trying to say that in the future, I believe people will consider your comments absurd, not mine, in order to cause you to reflect that maybe my position isn't so "zealous".
Also, gays are getting brutally attacked and murdered across this country on a regular basis for being gay. Not a week ago, a father murdered his daughter and her lover because he was displeased she was a lesbian. But, even if this were not happening, kids are being psychological damaged in a way that often cripples for life because of social stigma and its very real power. Again, I invite you to check out the links and do some googling on the power of attitudes in society on children and their identities. These are people who are so very programmable because it is an evolved response to listen to your community, to seek its approval, and to enforce its morality.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday March 30 2014, @01:59AM
I didn't use my mod points - to bad they disappear so quickly, or you would have another "insightful" here.
But - I have a bit of a problem. I DO support his views on marriage, and I am thinking, like you, that his political and moral views shouldn't count against him. On the other hand - there have been instances in which I felt that other people's views should disqualify them for their office. Damn - hypocrisy? Me? NO WAY!
Hmmmm - time for a little introspection here . . .
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday March 30 2014, @12:06PM
Slashdolt logic: 1600 x 1200 > 1920 x 1200
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 30 2014, @02:24AM
Why is it a silly move to donate money to a cause you agree with?
I donate money to EFF every month. Am I silly too or is it only silly when you don't believe in the same cause?
For the record: I also disagree with him.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 30 2014, @07:14AM
You are only silly if your professional ambition is to run the MPAA or FBI.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday March 30 2014, @12:15PM
If the EFF ever creates an ad-campaign to plays on people's ignorance and bigotry to ram their own agenda through you can bet on your contributions to their cause being questioned.
Slashdolt logic: 1600 x 1200 > 1920 x 1200
(Score: 3, Interesting) by geb on Sunday March 30 2014, @07:04AM
The critical point is, he's not being fired, he's being asked to resign. There's no use of force here. There is only speaking an opinion.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 30 2014, @07:08AM
> Whilst I really don't agree with the guy's
> view on marriage, I'm also uncomfortable
> with the idea of someone being fired for
> their political or moral opinions.
The CEO sets corporate direction and policy.
He's generally hired because his personal
opinions align with the organization's vision
of its direction, all the more so when that
organization is an NPO.
You wouldn't hire Jenny McCarthy to run the
Children's Vaccine Program, regardless of how
good an administrator she is; you wouldn't
hire RMS to run Microsoft.
Not all personal beliefs are directly germane
to the company future, but the CEO especially
is the public face of the company, the
personification of corporate values. So, if it
turns out that women's wear-maker Lululemon
has hired misogynist Brian Sozzi, it hurts the
corporate mission, and he should leave. This
petition is Mozilla's employees saying that
they believe inclusivity and tolerance are
important components of Mozilla's corporate
vision, and that their CEO should reflect that.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 30 2014, @08:05AM
Except when it comes to including and tolerating those who disagree with their lifestyle choices, it seems.
Do Mozilla prevent their software and services being used by bigots? Murderers? Rapists? Fascists? Communists? No, they do not. The only restrictions placed upon Mozilla products are those mandated by law (eg. export restrictions). Mozilla make things for everyone to use, no matter what Mozilla, or the recipient, happen to believe or have done.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 30 2014, @10:29AM
Yeah, up until last week, when Mozilla hired a CEO who actively supports discrimination against LGBT individuals. His policies have not yet had time to filter through the organization. No doubt, he will comply with the letter of various local laws prohibiting discrimination in the workplace. Probably, he won't relocate Mozilla to a place where such laws don't exist. Are you sure his vision for Mozilla doesn't include "protecting" people from homosexual propaganda, ala Russia?
Tolerating other people's views and opinions is a completely different question than wanting people of opposing opinion to set the direction and vision of your cherished project. We can disagree on Yankees/Red Sox. That doesn't mean it's a good plan to put a Yankees fan in charge of Red Sox public relations.
Half of Mozilla's board resigned over Eich's appointment. Individual employees are exercising their free speech in opposition of his appointment, presumably because they don't want to work for him. So the appointment of an intolerant CEO has already begun to change the climate at Mozilla. That doesn't happen if you hire an anti-Semitic mailroom clerk.
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Sunday March 30 2014, @12:20AM
http://lagg.me [lagg.me]
9467 6082 8A35 2E1E 2D6B 76C4 5E9A ED56 076F 9E89
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday March 30 2014, @12:37AM
It's doubtful that they knew any earlier than any of us found out. It's not like corps hold elections for CEO or even give a rat's ass what the employees think.
I have to admit that I'm surprised they're actually speaking out about it. Perhaps I am spineless, but unless I was prepared to quit I wouldn't dare publicly diss an employer. Even if I was ready to quit, I seriously believe in not burning bridges. Regardless of anybody's views I still have a family to support.
Slashdolt logic: 1600 x 1200 > 1920 x 1200
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday March 30 2014, @02:16AM
Another point of view:
It's the EMPLOYEES who are being disruptive. Note that Prop 8 won the majority of the vote. That tells us that the view is indeed socially acceptable. Voting and even financially supporting Prop 8 is socially acceptable. The CEO acted within the law, and within social restraints.
Now, he is being punished by a group of activists who refuse to work with him. HIS ACTIONS are not disruptive - it's the gay supporters who are being disruptive.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by guises on Sunday March 30 2014, @09:48AM
Well obviously they're both being disruptive. Publicly adopting any controversial viewpoint is always going to cause conflict - a disruption. Winning with 52% of the vote is not a topic that's "socially acceptable," it's clearly controversial.
The additional disruptive element is that the actions here are not independent of work, they do effect the workplace environment - the proposition that he supported directly impacts Mozilla employees, and the employees' protests obviously impact him.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Sunday March 30 2014, @11:11AM
prop8 was paid for by out-of-state mormons. this was not any 'will of the people' and you can clearly see that, NOW, with all the reversing of the 'dom' act all across the country. even red states are giving in and finally declaring that its wrong to discriminate based on sexual preference.
the country is slowly catching up with much of the rest of the world's view on this. we are BEHIND in progress, here; and its embarassing to be in a so-called enlightened country and still be arguing about whether people in love have the right to marry or not.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 31 2014, @12:44AM
The rest of the world's progressive view is that gays need to be exterminated. Stalin himself outlawed homosexuality. That law was repealed in the 1990s but today gays are beaten in the streets with Putin's approval whenever they try to have a rally. Ecuador under a progressive government outlawed gay marriage in 2009. Cuba bans gay marriages. Uganda just passed a law outlawing gay people. In India, social pressure is such that you don't talk about being gay. In China, they don't let you talk about being gay. In Muslim countries the state throws gay people in jail while the religious police will outright kill them.
Compared to the rest of the world's view on this, once you accept that the world is larger than the San Francisco Bay Area and Western Europe, Eich's support for Proposition 8 barely registers as possibly controversial. It's certainly no reason to resurrect Joe McCarthy and try to get someone fired from his job because of a political viewpoint he holds that happens to be shared with a majority of the public.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Tuesday April 01 2014, @07:49AM
firstly, its NOT shared by the 'majority of the public'. only backward countries outlaw same-sex marriage. which modern progressive country outlaws it? please cite a few before you claim that most of the world agrees that same-sex relationships are 'evil'. in fact, its ONLY the highly (overly) religious countries that object.
you list such wonderful freedom-loving countries such as uganda, china, russia, india (india is corrupt as any lousy 3rd world POS country, btw) as examples? oh PLEASE!
secondly, it actually is not a vote or popularity contest. do you have to 'vote' on who is allowed to breathe air? who is allowed to eat? who is allowed to work? these are fundamental things and you can't 'vote' them away. why do you think its 'up for a vote' on same-sex marriage? by default, people have the right to seek happiness and you don't have the right to stand in their way. its just none of your DAMNED business.
look, the only objection you can honestly raise is 'this does not work well with my imaginary sky daddy view of the world'. I can accept that as your view but its not a reason to DENY others basic simple human rights!
eric can eat shit and die. he's subhuman if he really thinks that some people deserve love and others should feel bad their entire lives due to how their brain is wired.
no one has a RIGHT to be ceo. and it seems there is enough doubt as to his leadership ability that he does not belong in this position. there are hundreds of willing and able people who can do his job. I see no need to reward a bigot with a c-level position, especially in california!
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 1) by hash14 on Sunday March 30 2014, @06:12PM
You're using a fallacious appeal to authority to justify a form of discrimination which is (objectively) immoral.
You could argue that civil rights activists were disruptive when they staged protests in the south. And that women suffragists were doing the same in the early 1900s. Yet the right position was clearly held by those who were being disruptive. A majority vote from the establishment does not guarantee that your position is morally valid, unless you are willing to concede that slavery was (or is, seeing as it still occurs in certain parts of the world) socially acceptable and responsible.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 30 2014, @05:18AM
Perhaps because he wasn't in a position to set or change corporate policy regarding employee benefits? Is part of their concern that his views about (against) gay marriage could result in restricting or reducing existing benefits that include same sex partners?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 30 2014, @08:11AM
Are you suggesting that only being welcome to the gay community is important? What about all the people (apparently the majority of voters) who personally agree with the CEO's position on gay marriage? Should we not welcome them into the open-source community as well?
(Score: 2) by evilviper on Sunday March 30 2014, @11:29AM
Using that logic, you must disqualify EVERYONE who has publicly stated ANY opinions on ANY subject. Because there's always going to be some small group of people who will dislike and avoid you for that opinion. Your bar is set pretty damn high. I suppose no black man can ever take that job, because any neo-nazi open source coders won't work with him...
Do YOU see ALL home-page stories?
dev.soylentnews.org/search.pl?tid=1
github.com/SoylentNews/slashcode/issues/78
(Score: 4, Interesting) by khallow on Sunday March 30 2014, @12:38AM
Seems to me that there's a lot of bigotry and maybe a little hypocrisy aimed at this guy, Brendan Eich. Let us note that his donation was lawful and moral by Eich's viewpoint. So what's the basis for removing him from the CEO position? Did he actually do anything wrong?
I believe same sex marriage should be legal and recognized by the state just like any other marriage, but I don't get put out just because other people don't share my beliefs.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Sunday March 30 2014, @01:10AM
His position makes him the boss of some of the very people he sought to strip rights from. He has the right to speak out against homosexuals if he wants, but blowback is to be expected.
(Score: 2) by evilviper on Sunday March 30 2014, @11:24AM
" He has the right to speak out against homosexuals if he wants, but blowback is to be expected."
If it's okay to fire someone because they opposed gay marriage, then it must be okay to fire those who support gay marriage. Be very careful what you wish for...
Do YOU see ALL home-page stories?
dev.soylentnews.org/search.pl?tid=1
github.com/SoylentNews/slashcode/issues/78
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday March 30 2014, @12:20PM
Nobody's getting fired.
Slashdolt logic: 1600 x 1200 > 1920 x 1200
(Score: 2) by evilviper on Sunday March 30 2014, @07:43PM
That's just pedantry... Nobody has been fired, and maybe he won't ever be, but it's a real possibility. And if you want to change that from "fired" to "asked to resign" it doesn't change the statement or it's impact one bit.
Do YOU see ALL home-page stories?
dev.soylentnews.org/search.pl?tid=1
github.com/SoylentNews/slashcode/issues/78
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday March 30 2014, @09:27PM
Slashdolt logic: 1600 x 1200 > 1920 x 1200
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday March 30 2014, @10:00PM
Read TFA again. The people asking have no authority whatsoever to do anything more than ask.
(Score: 2) by evilviper on Sunday March 30 2014, @11:26PM
The same is true for any kind of protest/boycott/etc. It's designed to influence those higher-up to do what they want.
If employees of any company start a coordinated effort to get someone fired, even if they don't have the authority to do it themselves, they're still using force, and they have good odds of success.
Do YOU see ALL home-page stories?
dev.soylentnews.org/search.pl?tid=1
github.com/SoylentNews/slashcode/issues/78
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday March 30 2014, @11:56PM
So you're saying the employees are obligated to quietly continue working for someone who has made it quite clear he considers them second class citizens at best?
If he can't maintain enough order and morale to keep the employees from asking him to leave, perhaps he is unfit to lead. Or at least unfit to lead that organization.
(Score: 2) by evilviper on Monday March 31 2014, @05:22AM
You're not doing much good (saying he should be fired) supporting your previous point that he isn't being fired...
And as I keep pointing out, you don't get to have these things only go the one-way you want them to. If he can be fired for opposing gay marriage, then prepare for a rash of firings of anyone who SUPPORTS gay marriage. You're surprisingly anxious to open that pandora's box...
Do YOU see ALL home-page stories?
dev.soylentnews.org/search.pl?tid=1
github.com/SoylentNews/slashcode/issues/78
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday March 31 2014, @04:50PM
Why, who are they trying to make into second class citizens?
Besides, he really isn't being fired.
Beyond that, what would you suggest instead, violate the employee's rights to free speech? What if enough of them feel that way and are willing to strike? What if it';s enough to destroy the company? Do we enslave them, fire the CEO, or close the company (and then everyone is fired)?
(Score: 2) by evilviper on Monday March 31 2014, @10:35PM
You could say the same things about the guy being black, Muslim, handicapped, etc., etc.
Do YOU see ALL home-page stories?
dev.soylentnews.org/search.pl?tid=1
github.com/SoylentNews/slashcode/issues/78
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday March 31 2014, @11:17PM
Yes you could. It would be a bit different unless the CEO tried to force everyone to conform to his race/beliefs/abilities, but ultimately it would come down to the same question. And ultimately we would have to ask the same hard questions.
(Score: 2) by evilviper on Tuesday April 01 2014, @12:50AM
No, it's pretty easy. Discriminating is illegal, and you face huge lawsuits for it. If you wanted to make it legal, then some of the questions you're asking would be relevant.
Do YOU see ALL home-page stories?
dev.soylentnews.org/search.pl?tid=1
github.com/SoylentNews/slashcode/issues/78
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday April 01 2014, @02:38AM
Discrimination is illegal, sure. But what is your suggestion for the posited situation? Fold the company I guess?
Oddly, you have now maneuvered yourself into the position of insisting that discriminating against people who discriminate against people is wrong :-) Further, we can't do anything about it because that would be wrong :-)
But since you brought it up, Would it be at all reasonable to force Muslims to choose between unemployment and working for someone who is well known to have contributed money to an attempt to strip rights from all Muslims? Isn't that a bit of a hostile workplace? Would it then be reasonable to further insult them by insisting that it is wrong to want him to leave?
If some board member at the NAACP went nuts and started attending Klan rallies would you expect them to keep him on?
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday March 30 2014, @12:35PM
He's not being fired. A few employees with no authority whatsoever ASKED him to leave.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 30 2014, @01:54AM
Funny that there is a huge outcry if the bigotry points one way and not the other. This reaction shows who the real bigots are...
Where he contributed is his choice and has zero to do with him being an effective manager / CEO. Beigeism gone mad.
(Score: 1) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 30 2014, @12:25PM
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 30 2014, @09:43PM
Let's look at the actual definition of bigotry [merriam-webster.com]:
Here, the "particular group" is people with socially taboo prejudices. Just because your hate is socially approved doesn't mean that it isn't bigotry.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 30 2014, @11:30PM
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 31 2014, @10:15AM
It's the actions of a particular group. In other words, hate for that group stops when they stop acting on it. Incidentally that also fits with your definition.
Who said anything about action? This isn't punishing people for bad behavior, but rather for thoughtcrime. I don't care if a person is bigoted. That's a mental viewpoint that they might not actually have a lot of control over. I care if they intentionally act on that basis.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 31 2014, @11:25PM
> This isn't punishing people for bad behavior, but rather for thoughtcrime.
Nope, this is all about the actions an individual took.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 31 2014, @11:34PM
Nope, this is all about the actions an individual took.
Which goes back to my original post. The actions in question were both legal and something the guy thought was moral. Thinking about it, those actions don't even show evidence of bigotry. Campaigning against same sex marriage doesn't imply that you hate anyone.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 02 2014, @12:13AM
> Campaigning against same sex marriage doesn't imply that you hate anyone.
In the context of this discussion: Wrong. Put the shoe on the other foot and you will discover why. And... still not a thought crime.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 02 2014, @10:56AM
Since no one has bothered to explain why this is "hating" anyone, I guess I'll just have to ignore you until such point as you come up with a sensible argument.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 02 2014, @11:38PM
You're already ignoring me, so no skin off my nose. I mean if you can't even do a little role reversal to put your views into perspective, then nothing I say to you is going to get through to you. Mainly because you'll try to divert to another subject... again. I don't blame you, though: Picturing somebody telling you no when you want to commit your life to another without a good logical reason for doing so is a good way to drain your faith in humanity.
When you're ready to discuss instead of debate, let me know.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 03 2014, @10:31AM
No, I haven't so far.
Why should role reversal change anything? It's not like I haven't thought about this.
Instead, I did that role reversal thing at the very beginning. It's part of the standard mental tool set I apply to ethical problems like this. IMHO, it is clear you haven't done this yourself. Read my last three paragraphs.
I don't obsess over the petty differences between us. It would not drain my faith.
Getting married with another person of the same sex is not illegal, it is merely not officially recognized at the moment in some parts of the US. Do it anyway (probably in a place where it is officially recognized), if it is important to you.
Since we're on the subject of role reversal, how about you put yourself in the shoes of Brendan Eich? I don't know his motives for the controversial donation in question, but there's a good chance he might have done it because he thought it was right. Should you not do what you think is right, just because you might be a CEO of a major non-profit in a few years?
He might also have some psychological issues with homosexuality. Homophobia is not just a derogatory label. Sure, I'd be reluctant to have someone like that in a position of authority, but it is illegal to discriminate in job hiring (even for the CEO position) on the basis of disability.
That's part of the role reversal exercise I did at the very beginning. I thought about this not just from the angle of people that felt they were slighted, but by speculating about Eich's point of view too. You should try that too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 03 2014, @01:55PM
> No, I haven't so far.
You're avoiding what I ask you. Normally I wouldn't mind since it's the typical debate nonsense on a site like this, but you did ask a question you wanted an answer to.
> Why should role reversal change anything? It's not like I haven't thought about this.
Try it. You did ask for insight. You wanted to know why the word 'hating' was floating around. So put yourself in the shoes of the person being hated. Try out the rationale in that context, see how it floats.
> Should you not do what you think is right just because you might be a CEO of a major non-profit in a few years?
You're asking the right question, but you're doing some from the wrong side of the fence. This question is hilarious.
> ... but it is illegal to discriminate in job hiring (even for the CEO position) on the basis of disability.
Homophobia is not a disability. What's happening here is not illegal.
> I thought about this not just from the angle of people that felt they were slighted, but by speculating about Eich's point of view too. You should try that too.
No you didn't, instead you tried to find hypocrisy in order to maintain your point. You wanted an answer to your question, all you gotta do is put yourself in their shoes. How would you feel about your one vote being put up against a thousand dollars to an ad-campaign? How about after you found out that it won... by a very small margin? What if that guy then became your boss? Focusing exclusively on how he felt about it, that doesn't line up with your stated goal. Finding fault with me does not help you attain your goal, either.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Open4D on Sunday March 30 2014, @08:28AM
My instinctive reaction is similar to this viewpoint. Gay marriage is good. Being sacked for opposing it is bad.
But when I try to think it through a bit, I start to become uncertain. Your subject "Guess I don't get it" may have been somewhat rhetorical, but in my case it really does apply.
If anyone can provide some clarity, I'd be grateful!
(Score: 2) by Open4D on Sunday March 30 2014, @08:45AM
FWIW, when I previewed comment #23132 [dev.soylentnews.org], my questions had numbers against them. But when I view it at this URL [dev.soylentnews.org], the numbers are gone.
But now, on the page where I'm typing out this reply, they're back!
I might investigate this issue, and report back here.
P.S. I'm using Mozilla Firefox, so can I blame Brendan Eich? :-)
(Score: 1) by Open4D on Sunday March 30 2014, @04:36PM
I've created https://github.com/SoylentNews/slashcode/issues/10 7 [github.com]
(Score: 5, Informative) by VLM on Sunday March 30 2014, @09:46AM
"Should it be illegal to fire someone just because of an opinion they have expressed?"
Note that in a right-to-work state we've already decided that for non-members of the CEO class, its OK to fire anyone at any time as long as (on paper) its not because they're members of a protected class. So, yes, its perfectly OK to fire someone just because of an opinion they have expressed. Its "all in good fun" when applied against the lower classes, now watch the upper classes squirm now thats its being applied to them.
(Score: 2) by naubol on Monday March 31 2014, @02:27AM
Would he have been brought on as CEO if he had donated to an organization that tries to remove the right to vote from women? I think the answer is no because it wouldn't align with the best interests of the corporation. There is a reason CEOs have morality and reputation clauses built into their contracts.
Because the reputation of the CEO matters a great deal to the company, the only question that matters here is whether we think that we should hold a CEO to be immoral in a similar manner to the question that starts this post if said CEO behaves as Eich behaved. I say yes.
If you agree that he shouldn't be CEO based on the first hypothetical, what is different about this case?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by lil'wombat on Sunday March 30 2014, @12:51AM
The Man was CTO for several years, and has a long history of contribution. But now everyone has a problem with him. I think part of this is that leaders are expected to at least give lip service to the beliefs of the organizations. GM executives drive GM cars. I'm sure Ballmer at Microsoft does not have an iphone or ipod (Zune baby Zune).
In a way, his stance and support of prop 8 is like the head of the ACLU giving money to the David Duke campaign.Or the head of the DNC giving money to Lyndon LaRouche. Or Ann Coulter admitting she used to be a dude.
At some point your private beliefs and public persona have to be in sync.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 30 2014, @08:14AM
Where in Mozilla's mission statement does it say that Mozilla is a pro-gay-marriage organisation?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 30 2014, @12:27PM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Bartman12345 on Sunday March 30 2014, @01:32AM
While I get that many will have a problem with the CEO's opinions on gay marriage, I think the suggestion that it is at odds with the Mozilla Foundation's ideals is drawing a pretty long bow.
The Mozilla Manifesto [mozilla.org]
If someone supports the idea of Free Software and a Free Internet, and actively works towards these ideals, should it mean that they also have to take a liberal stance on everything else as well to be "accepted" by the community?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by tftp on Sunday March 30 2014, @03:21AM
If someone supports the idea of Free Software and a Free Internet, and actively works towards these ideals, should it mean that they also have to take a liberal stance on everything else as well to be "accepted" by the community?
No, it doesn't mean that, for one simple reason. That "liberal stance" is an external reference that can and does change often. Additionally, not everything that is tagged as "liberal" is related to liberty. This very case is a great example. A bunch of liberal (let me tag them as such) people want to deny liberty of working at a certain place to a certain specific individual. There is no law against him working there; there is nothing that would link his political opinion and his job performance. This is a childish, vindictive behavior. The group of people whose ideas were not embraced by the society at large is now going, illegally, after individual voters. Can you imagine anything more undemocratic and less liberal?
I haven't voted in that poll. But if I were to vote, I'd be voting the same way as this CEO guy. I have good scientific and political (but not religious - I have no gods to pray to) reasons to do so.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 30 2014, @01:49AM
He has opinions.
This is legal.
He gave money to people in support of those opinions.
This, too, is legal.
Even in California, people expressing views consonant with his in a free and fair election, prevailed.
This is still legal, and moreover suggests that while one might not care for his views, that they aren't inherently insane.
People are now suggesting that he be judged for a position, not on the merits of his skills, knowledge, or experience, but his opinion - most plausibly because it makes them feel uncomfortable, and might make other people feel uncomfortable.
This is legal, but the position is apparently self-defeating. His views are arguably in the majority. Where is the stigma in a CEO holding a majority position? Or is strict adherence to a progressive agenda now a requirement for holding corporate office?
It would seem to be counter to the ideals of liberty to disqualify people of strong faiths from full participation in the political and commercial life of society. In fact, it is in conflict with the idea of freedom of religion, specifically.
It is easy to say that people are entitled to discriminate against the religious (or otherwise possessed of strong moral codes which may appear similar) but that is in itself a form of bigotry - merely one more acceptable to the right-thinking modern urbanite.
It's very easy to mock someone who doesn't want to deliver flowers for a gay wedding, or bake a cake for one, but it's still bigotry.
Perhaps it is time to reopen a public discussion on the ideal of respectful disagreement.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Sunday March 30 2014, @02:15AM
Two things: First, it's the guy's personal politics - it has zippo, nada, nothing to do with his abilities as a manager.
Also, one should note that there were various reasons to support proposition 8 that had nothing to do with disliking homosexuals. Supporters of gay marriage will paint it as black-and-white, but life isn't that simple.
A current example: here in Switzerland there is currently a proposition for a "lifetime ban on pedophiles working with kids". Slam dunk, right? Well, maybe good intentions lead to bad results... Lifetime bans for 17 year olds who date 15 year olds? Or teenagers who get caught sexting?
Do note that 52% of the rest of the population also supported it, this in California of all places. Perhaps this is discrimination, but perhaps they object to other things, such as the way gay marriage has been legislated. So: has anyone asked this guy *why* he supported proposition 8?
tl;dr. This guy is being criticized for his private support of a political issue; support that, in fact, was on the side of the majority at the time. Issues aren't black-and-white at the best of times. And no one even has the courtesy to ask him for an explanation.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by blackest_k on Sunday March 30 2014, @05:17AM
Mozilla was pretty much faceless before he got put in charge.
Now Mozilla has a face and a CEO who felt so strongly about gay marriage that he helped finance a campaign against it.
The question that comes to my mind is this going to be damaging to mozilla? Will firefox lose market share , lose developers, lose some degree of funding from google?
If the answer is yes then perhaps he is the wrong man to be the public face of mozilla. Even thou his campaign won in california, world wide its increasingly a losing proposition. In the UK yesterday the first gay marriages took place as new laws came into effect. Mozilla operates world wide.
Eventually most people come to realise that love is pretty much the most important thing to have in your life. So when asked should two people who love each other be allowed to marry. The answer tends to be yes. Nobody decides they want to be gay its the way they were made if two people are happy together then good on them. To be honest i think you'd have to be pretty twisted to want to actively prevent that.
Now I have to ask myself do I wish to associate myself with an organisation like Mozilla who now it seems has been outed as an organisation which far from supporting equality actually has a CEO who campaigns against it.
I could switch to seamonkey or perhaps chrome instead as it happens i'm using chrome now and finding it snappier than firefox with some nice features.
If he had the best interests of Mozilla at heart he really shouldn't have taken the job maybe he didn't realise that as CEO he could damage the reputation of Mozilla, maybe he will perhaps choose to resign instead.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 30 2014, @09:43AM
I'd encourage you to use whichever browser has the feature set that you want/need, not the one that has claims an ideological position unrelated to web technologies that you agree with most closely.
Mozilla is a software developer, at heart a browser developer: the fitness of their developers (and leadership) should be judged according to their ability to contribute to the software, not according to their political leanings with regard to marriage, which has nothing to do with coding.
If someone forks Firefox and creates a new browser called ProGayMarriageFox with only a political stance and no technological advantage to differentiate themselves from Mozilla's general neutrality (until the current call for resignation arose), those developers would be either ignored or ridiculed, not lauded as heroes advancing the cause of freedom.
(Score: 1) by rochrist on Sunday March 30 2014, @04:19PM
Exactly. He's not a manager, he's the face of the organization.
(Score: 1) by lajos on Sunday March 30 2014, @10:51AM
"has anyone asked this guy *why* he supported proposition 8?"
probably. and probably he had some good arguments.
but here in america we have selective hearing. we are also manipulated. we also only care about the juiciest details. then we judge. once we judge, you are fugged.
want proof? remember the woman who sued macdonalds for the hot coffee? did you know that she was not the driver but the passanger? did you know the car was pulled over in the parking lot? did you see pictures of her injuries?
yeah, i know, who cares about the details.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Grishnakh on Sunday March 30 2014, @10:52AM
And no one even has the courtesy to ask him for an explanation.
They don't need to. He's the CEO of a publicly-visible organization. He can pipe up any time he wants to and explain himself, and the tech news will give him a podium to do so.
You and others seem to forget that this guy is not a normal person; he has privileges and rights and powers that normal people don't have, because he's a CEO. His actions and words affect people far more than some random person on the street or some random low-level employee. This is why this is a big issue. By having this guy as the public-facing head of Mozilla, the Mozilla organization is basically saying it opposes gay marriage. This is not a good position for it to be in, and it was stupid of them to pick this guy as their CEO.
For comparison, take a look at other public CEOs. For example, Steve Ballmer (now ex-CEO): he's famous for throwing chairs and chanting "developers, developers, developers, developers!!!", but what do you know about his political opinions? Does he oppose or support gay marriage? Is he Democrat or Republican or other? How about Larry Ellison, famous for yacht racing and looking like the devil himself? How about Bill Gates? How about Steve Jobs? How about just about any other CEO of a tech company? Offhand, I can't think of ANY of them who have known political stances or party affiliations. If they have any, they keep it secret, because their public persona reflects absolutely on their company, and the last they want is to polarize potential customers, with them thinking that "Microsoft is Republican" or "Microsoft is Democrat" or whatever. Companies wisely stay silent on political issues unless that issue affects them directly (e.g., oil companies support fracking for obvious reasons). CEOs do not take public stances on anything other than support of their own company, and issues that affect their company. This guy stupidly broke this rule, and has no business being a CEO.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by zim on Sunday March 30 2014, @04:19AM
And yet gay people are the first ones to tell you right up front they are gay... I know the sexual orientation of thousands of complete strangers who i don't even know their name... But yet they put right out there they're gay...
"Hey gee thanks for the info. i really don't give a damm who or what you're screwing."
As for marriage... Any sentient intelligent creature should be allowed to marry any other. No questions. It's none of our business. It's none of the states business. It's none of any companys business. Keep that info to yourself. Beyond a simple checkbox of 'married/single' it should never come up at all.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 30 2014, @06:27AM
They tell you they're gay because otherwise you might not know they have official liberal victim status, and therefore you must genuflect before them.
(Score: 1) by hendrikboom on Sunday March 30 2014, @12:16PM
Any sentient intelligent creature should be allowed to marry any other?
well, only if the other is competent to give consent and does so!
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 30 2014, @12:35PM
It has to do with making sure that people who are still in the closet know that they're not alone and that they do not have to hide who they are anymore. You'll get your wish eventually but in the mean time there are still mean spirited people out there who are working against that goal.
(Score: 2, Informative) by timbim on Sunday March 30 2014, @04:25PM
He supports denying certain rights to certain people. To him, not everyone is created equal. Now that we know what he's capable of, let's decide if this character trait will reflect badly in terms of running a company full of many different people and ideas. The answer is yes. Get him the fuck out.
(Score: 1) by michealpwalls on Monday March 31 2014, @11:34AM
So let me get this straight... It's perfectly fine for Brendan Eich to constantly divert resouroces away from what matters (Gecko engine and the Firefox browser's code-base) to pursue his agenda to "monetize" Mozilla Firefox by mining the user's personal information and selling it to Google...
However, when Eich makes a contribution to a political association he agrees with.. That's crossing the line of being the Mozilla CEO?
What a disaster, this Mozilla organization. They care about everything but the damned Firefox browser or the Gecko engine that powers all of the other products they own. What a joke.
This guy is not a politician. It is none of our business what his political opinions are or how he exercises those opinions. When has the Mozilla Foundation gone too far? Completely selling out to Google... Destroying slowly and painfully what was the greatest browser the community had access to... Now the firing of employees over their Political views.
I'm speechless at this point LOL :/
(Score: 2) by Open4D on Tuesday April 01 2014, @05:02AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-26830383 [bbc.co.uk]
"Dating website OKCupid has sought to deter users from accessing its site via browser Mozilla Firefox. The site says the move was in response to new Mozilla chief executive Brendan Eich's previous opposition to gay marriage in the US state of California."