Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO due to his Prop 8 support

[Cain]

Yes, and rightfully so, in my opinion, because his contribution had the express purpose to impact the rights that some people should have, and that most of the other people already enjoy.

It seems you completely missed the point here. Someone being gay is that persons personal affair and does _not_ discriminate someone else, does not deny someone else a right that the majority already has. There is nothing to bleed over.

No, I understood as much, I just don't find it compelling. A CEO could support odious wars, but that doesn't necessarily have much bearing on the day's business. You'd probably have a stronger argument if he was head of HR.

So people shouldn't stand up for what they believe? Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism.

You have the right to break Dixie Chicks CDs and not watch Tom Cruise movies, and organize others to do the same, but yes, I don't think people should get worked up over these types of things.

There are lots of things I can think of that don't directly bear on job performance, and yet may disqualify a person from a very high profile position such as CEO of a major company or high position in the government. What if he beat his wife? What if he is a white supremicist who posts on Stormfront, but is very competent at his job?

A CEO doesn't just perform a job, he/she is the public face of the company. If his private values are at odds with the public values of the company, he may not be able to fulfill all the aspects required of the position. Of course, he still has the right to have a job, CEO just might not be the right one for him.

Yeah, Mozilla's one of the first brands that springs to mind when people say "major company." I'm sure lots of workers bees come home and rant about the Cathys in the office, wish their boss died in an explosion and on and on. I wouldn't be surprised if there are executives with Stormfrontish views. A lot of what goes in their head-space would be shocking.

So what's the difference between all of that and supporting prop 8? The difference is we grow up learning that it's wrong to espouse those views. Even in my high school history class (late 90s), where a friend and I argued in favor of same-sex marriage, the vast majority believed in the "sanctity" of holy matrimony (one of our opponents would later spam messages on Facebook about how gays should obviously be allowed to marry). Just a little over five years ago, a majority of voting Californians supported prop 8. Many of you supported a Presidential candidate who, before "evolving," believed marriage was reserved for heterosexuals. The public opinion shift on this topic has been sudden, but it's still incomplete.

And what's Eich going to do with respect to gays in one of the most socially liberal industries? He's already contained.

Win with a little grace.

 

[bob_kark]

But, one side supported human rights for everyone, Another other side excluded human rights from some people. Again, it was not a political choice between vanilla and chocolate. He supported denying people a basic human right. If he had supported a basic human right, then people wouldn't be as upset. If he was forced out of office because he supported a basic human right, I would call foul for good reason. What you bring up is not symmetrical.

While I do believe that the right to marriage should be a basic human right, it is not currently, nor was it then. So then, it is simply our shared opinion and the opinion of many others that it should be, as it was or perhaps still is his opinion that it should not be. Are you truly comfortable about a person's employment being determined by the actions of special interest groups due to that person's private beliefs? I see no complaints about Eich's actions as CEO, simply a reference to a $1000 donation to a cause that these special interest groups object to.

Am I to understand that you don't consider boycotting to be an acceptable form of speech if it results in someone losing a job?

It's their right to boycott if they choose. I'm not requesting any legislation to infringe upon their rights. However, I believe their actions were counterproductive and vindictive.

So what should've happened? He should be allowed to actively intrude on others' private lives, but they should not intrude on his?

Where did he intrude in anyone's life? He donated $1000 to a cause that certainly impacted others' lives. How much do you think that really impacted the result? Do you sincerely believe that this $1000 donation was sufficient reason for him to lose his job?

The right uses similar tactics.

Remember Van Jones (I agree with that btw, we shouldn't allow a Truther to have a position of responsibility)

"They do it too" is not a sufficient reason for me to jump on board. While I agree that having a truther in a position of responsibility would make me nervous, I still don't believe that it should be sufficient cause to result in termination.

 

[332nd]

Where did he intrude in anyone's life? He donated $1000 to a cause that certainly impacted others' lives. How much do you think that really impacted the result? Do you sincerely believe that this $1000 donation was sufficient reason for him to lose his job?

So he didn't intrude on anyone else's life except for where he donated money to a cause that intruded on other people's lives & it was just a small amount of the total that went towards intruding on other people's lives, so we should just let him live his life the way he wants to? THAT'S what you want to go with?

If so... Yes. Yes I believe that this $1000 donation was sufficient reason for him to quit his job due to pressure from others, because he thought his $1000 would be sufficient to force others to either live without a spouse or live a lie.

 

[ravdin]

Strange that Barack Obama also opposed gay marriage back in 2008 and it didn't stop him from becoming elected president. I strongly disagreed with that position then and still do now, but I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that Obama should resign over it. The crusade of political correctness can be oddly selective.

 

[332nd]

Strange that Barack Obama also opposed gay marriage back in 2008 and it didn't stop him from becoming elected president. I strongly disagreed with that position then and still do now, but I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that Obama should resign over it. The crusade of political correctness can be oddly selective.

How much did he donate to prevent gay marriage?

 

[daredelvis]

Strange that Barack Obama also opposed gay marriage back in 2008 and it didn't stop him from becoming elected president. I strongly disagreed with that position then and still do now, but I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that Obama should resign over it. The crusade of political correctness can be oddly selective.

How much did he donate to prevent gay marriage?

He did oppose it, and I think his political power was worth more than $1000. That said, he did have a public change of hart unlike Eich. It is an uncomfortable thought. I think both positions (bigot politician and bigot donor) are indefensible, but in 2008 there was no other choice.

What do you call that thing where you are forced to chose the lesser of two evils? Ahhh, I remember, an election.

Daredelvis

 

[Puppycow]

Many of you supported a Presidential candidate who, before "evolving," believed marriage was reserved for heterosexuals. The public opinion shift on this topic has been sudden, but it's still incomplete.

...

Win with a little grace.

Dammit, Cain.



I suppose you're right, damn you.



Anyway, could the Right please make up its mind whether "McCarthyism" is a good thing or a bad thing?

 

[Travis]

I wonder how different the responses would be if the roles were reversed. Had he donated money against Prop 8 and been forced out due to pressure of religious groups, how many would then cry foul? No matter my views of his political beliefs, I don't enjoy seeing them used as a means to terminate his employment.

He contributed to a cause of evil. That makes him an ally of evil. If he doesn't want to pay those consequences then he shouldn't have done it. I'm pretty sure if I plan to get a high profile job like his I wouldn't be contributing to political causes that are designed to do nothing but perpetuate misery and suffering to others for no reason. He might as well have been in favor of burning all orphans alive because **** orphans.

Strange that Barack Obama also opposed gay marriage back in 2008 and it didn't stop him from becoming elected president. I strongly disagreed with that position then and still do now, but I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that Obama should resign over it. The crusade of political correctness can be oddly selective.

1) I'm pretty sure he was never really against it.
2) Even if he was he sure doesn't hold that belief now.

 

[332nd]

He did oppose it, and I think his political power was worth more than $1000. That said, he did have a public change of hart unlike Eich. It is an uncomfortable thought. I think both positions (bigot politician and bigot donor) are indefensible, but in 2008 there was no other choice.

What do you call that thing where you are forced to chose the lesser of two evils? Ahhh, I remember, an election.

Daredelvis

Yes he did, & if gays & gay supporters turned out in large enough numbers to vote against him thus costing him the election, that would be that as far as I'm concerned, but I see the difference as actively assaulting a position vs disagreeing with a position.

 

[Checkmite]

No, it's still a good point, because even you're capable of adjusting the scenario to make it as analogous as you deem necessary.

I disagree; the difference between "voluntarily quit" and "fired" is profound enough that a sufficient adjustment of the "scenario" leaves the intended point of the analogy unsupported.

 

[Speed of Light]

Political correctness is where people are allowed, only to have the views which are presently in fashion for younger people.

If you go to a football match, or ‘working class’ pubs, you are likely to see the reality of how ‘real’ people think, as opposed to the PC ideologies, forced on us by the ‘too powerful’ media.

The sudden shift in views in the population, is clearly a measure, only of how easily it is for a vociferous minority to manipulate the masses.
This is true generally of PC.

The view which caused the problem, is very much a majority view, on the world’s stage, and in history.

Throughout history, people who thought for themselves, rather than going along with the fashionable view of the time, were often persecuted – but in the past, it was persecution by the authorities, as opposed to obnoxiously opinionated ideological individuals who think they’re right and everyone else is wrong

 

[Puppycow]

I disagree; the difference between "voluntarily quit" and "fired" is profound enough that a sufficient adjustment of the "scenario" leaves the intended point of the analogy unsupported.

I don't think he "voluntarily quit". He clearly quit under pressure.

 

[Aepervius]

What're you, some kind of liberal? His financial contribution six years ago directly impacts his ability to run the company.

Don't forget , as a CEO he will have a huge influence on how campaign contribution from the company get spent.

 

[Travis]

Are you quoting George W. Bush? You're talking about this guy as if he killed Simon.

I needed to fill out my quota of "evil" for the day. I will now move on to "monster" and "psychopath".

 

[ddt]

Strange that Barack Obama also opposed gay marriage back in 2008 and it didn't stop him from becoming elected president. I strongly disagreed with that position then and still do now, but I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that Obama should resign over it. The crusade of political correctness can be oddly selective.

Yes, but the alternative was Sarah Palin. Which of the two would be more likely to change their view or, as many suspect with Obama, already hold the more enlightened view but keep it under wraps because it's not (yet) politically opportune?

But Obama initially enforced the DOMA. It seems to me as though the critical difference is "this guy is in my tribe, and this other guy isn't," and everything else is an after-the-fact rationalization.

A president is not above the law, and has to enforce the laws there are, also the ones he doesn't agree with. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Obama hasn't spent a penny on defending DOMA in the courts.

 

[ddt]

Now it all became too much and he had to step down, finally. While i think that it is a good idea that people enjoy free speech, and that indeed they should be able to do whatever they want in private (as long as it doesn't break the law), i think that it is par for the course that people who support the blocking of basic rights to other people should have to face the consequences.

Gay marriage is not recognized as a basic right: not by SCOTUS, not by the Bundesverfassungsgericht, your domestic Supreme Court, not by the ECHR, etc. That is a big overstatement of your position.

On the other hand, people are free to vote with their feet and boycott the product if they don't like the image of the company; and the CEO is part of that image. I'm not sure if I would have partaken in such a boycott, after all, life is a matter of making compromises. And the CEO having donated to an anti-gay referendum effort does not directly mean that the company institutes anti-gay policies.

Mozilla should have done a better job of vetting its candidates.

Oh, it's worse than that. The matter was already known in 2012:

In March 2012 it was publicized that in 2008 Eich had donated $1,000 to the campaign for California Proposition 8 with his employer identified as Mozilla Corporation.[11] This revelation was controversial in the tech sphere,[12] the gay press [13][14] and in social media, particularly Twitter.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Gay marriage is not recognized as a basic right: not by SCOTUS, not by the Bundesverfassungsgericht, your domestic Supreme Court, not by the ECHR, etc. That is a big overstatement of your position.

The point is that heterosexual people have the right to marriage. Homosexuals are often excluded from that. Which makes it discrimination, and should to be changed since there is no valid reason to not allow homosexual marriage. They are denid a basic right that others have.

This is not like people having the right to bear arms, while proven criminals or prison inmates are not allowed to have arms. This is about a small group lawful people being denied rights that a large group of lawful people have.

On the other hand, people are free to vote with their feet and boycott the product if they don't like the image of the company; and the CEO is part of that image. I'm not sure if I would have partaken in such a boycott, after all, life is a matter of making compromises. And the CEO having donated to an anti-gay referendum effort does not directly mean that the company institutes anti-gay policies.

It does reflect on the company somewhat. And they were sorry about the affair. They apologized that they didn't react sooner. And this is all fine. Also, there is a qualitative difference between someone saying he doesn't like some folks to have certain rights that he/she has, and someone actively seeking out to block those people from having these rights.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Christian Klippel]

Forgot to mention: Prop 8 was do take away a right that was already granted by the californian constitution. So it was not just to not give them that right in the first place, but to actually take away a right that they have been granted, and which heterosexuals already have.

For that reason i think that yes, the argument that this was basic right is valid. A right that others already had and have. It's not some kind of special right that only homosexuals should have and no one else.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[ddt]

The point is that heterosexual people have the right to marriage. Homosexuals are often excluded from that. Which makes it discrimination, and should to be changed since there is no valid reason to not allow homosexual marriage. They are denid a basic right that others have.

And my point was that, to call it a "basic right", it should be acknowledged as such legally, and not just your sentiment.

Forgot to mention: Prop 8 was do take away a right that was already granted by the californian constitution. So it was not just to not give them that right in the first place, but to actually take away a right that they have been granted, and which heterosexuals already have.

For that reason i think that yes, the argument that this was basic right is valid. A right that others already had and have. It's not some kind of special right that only homosexuals should have and no one else.

Good and convincing point. You were right to call it a basic right.

It does reflect on the company somewhat. And they were sorry about the affair. They apologized that they didn't react sooner. And this is all fine. Also, there is a qualitative difference between someone saying he doesn't like some folks to have certain rights that he/she has, and someone actively seeking out to block those people from having these rights.

Oh sure. But it's all a matter of degree, and in determining if you partake in a boycott, it also matters how easy it is to walk away to a competitor, for instance.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Oh sure. But it's all a matter of degree, and in determining if you partake in a boycott, it also matters how easy it is to walk away to a competitor, for instance.

Agreed. But then, in todays market it is really rare to not find an easy alternative that makes it possible to walk away to a competitor. In my opinion it nowdays is more a matter of willing to do it, rather than to be able to do so easily. Of course i assume that "easy" here means just that: having enough alternatives to walk to.

Greetings,

Chris