Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich Steps Down

[kuolonen]

If you attack person for an act that was 1000 dollar donation to a legal political movement 6 years ago, even though the person has not actively done anything for that movement since, then you are crusading for revenge. By now I have no doubt been marked as your enemy for life.

If you still happen to see any of this post through that red mist that has covered you eyes by now, let it be known that I actually don't actively fight/vote/donate against the LGBT, so please do not set my house on fire. But stuff like this sure has convinced me that they don't need/deserve any help either. And should be preferably kept outside knife's reach, in case they suddenly decide I am responsible for all of their hardships on account of beings same species as their oppressors.

Oh yeah, the gays are ATTACKING you, they're ATTACKING FireFox. They've called in bomb threats and declared Gay Jihad against Mozilla. If you gave a gay man a knife and put him in a room with Eich, there's NO WAY that that gay man, enraged by the man standing before him, won't simply stab him right there and then.

Because all gays want is the complete and total subjugation of non-gays, right? That's what all the literature tells me. Oh wait, that's the right-wing christian literature that explains what would happen if we gave gay people the same rights that straight people have. My bad.

So what is the verb you use when you use monetary means to force a person from a position in a company due to his actions 6 years ago? Honestly, maybe you know better, since English is not my first language. Is it physically debating your point? I am still not hearing any justification for it, other than, "he did it 6 years ago". If you feel that is justification enough, then so be it, we have nothing left to debate on that matter.

What is your reason for giving this answer even? To prove that pro-gay people are not aggressive like rabid dogs? Because, if that is your purpose, you are failing miserably.

Your whole text is based on the assumption I believe gay rights is something to be avoided. I do not think so. What I do think is that I want to avoid people like you. And you are making it ever more easier to justify this way of thinking. If you raise a banner, you present that banner. How do feel you are presenting yourself right now? Do you think my image of pro-gay/LGBT/whichever movement has turned better after you response? Hint: It has not.

 

[chikusho]

Gays are not destroying the world. Nor are they fighting agianst discrimination in this case. They are just throwing a hissy fit for something that happened 6 years ago and had no impact on their lives.

So, being personally hurt by a friend, colleague and employer who supported the denial of your civil rights is "having no impact on their lives"?

that is the ONLY action he has ever done that we know which would mean he would not support gay marriage. he hires gays in his company. he does not do any kind of discrimination.
Do you have any proof that he took sides? or are you just making things up again.

Well, he defended that donation in 2012, so there's that.
Also, donating against civil rights is taking a side against civil rights.

You however demand anyones resignation for his personal beliefs that he does not bring to his work. And when you do, same right allows me to call you out on your hipocracy and bigotry. Your speech is not free of consequences as well.

Good thing no one demanded his resignation then I guess.

Nor are anyones right being infringed in calling out LGBT as hypocrites in the situation. Because their speech is not free from consequences either.

Sure, you can call them hypocrites all you like. Just let your lips flap and fingers rattle. Of course, you'd be wrong, but have at it.

 

[TheRealCJ]

If you attack person for an act that was 1000 dollar donation to a legal political movement 6 years ago, even though the person has not actively done anything for that movement since, then you are crusading for revenge. By now I have no doubt been marked as your enemy for life.

If you still happen to see any of this post through that red mist that has covered you eyes by now, let it be known that I actually don't actively fight/vote/donate against the LGBT, so please do not set my house on fire. But stuff like this sure has convinced me that they don't need/deserve any help either. And should be preferably kept outside knife's reach, in case they suddenly decide I am responsible for all of their hardships on account of beings same species as their oppressors.

Oh yeah, the gays are ATTACKING you, they're ATTACKING FireFox. They've called in bomb threats and declared Gay Jihad against Mozilla. If you gave a gay man a knife and put him in a room with Eich, there's NO WAY that that gay man, enraged by the man standing before him, won't simply stab him right there and then.

Because all gays want is the complete and total subjugation of non-gays, right? That's what all the literature tells me. Oh wait, that's the right-wing christian literature that explains what would happen if we gave gay people the same rights that straight people have. My bad.

So what is the verb you use when you use monetary means to force a person from a position in a company due to his actions 6 years ago? Honestly, maybe you know better, since English is not my first language. Is it physically debating your point? I am still not hearing any justification for it, other than, "he did it 6 years ago". If you feel that is justification enough, then so be it, we have nothing left to debate on that matter.

What is your reason for giving this answer even? To prove that pro-gay people are not aggressive like rabid dogs? Because, if that is your purpose, you are failing miserably.

Your whole text is based on the assumption I believe gay rights is something to be avoided. I do not think so. What I do think is that I want to avoid people like you. And you are making it ever more easier to justify this way of thinking. If you raise a banner, you present that banner. How do feel you are presenting yourself right now? Do you think my image of pro-gay/LGBT/whichever movement has turned better after you response? Hint: It has not.

You know what, you're right, and I apologise.

I have just spent too much time dealing with genuine bigots who actually believe that this is just another step towards some kind of pro-gay dystopia where people aren't allowed to have opinions. Believe me when I say there are a lot of them.

To answer you question, that word is "boycott", or in colloquial terms "voting with your wallet": The idea is that if you disagree with a company or person's products, ideals, or political stances, you choose not to buy their products, or give them your business. If the majority agree with you, that person or company will lose money and either be forced to bow to popular opinion, or go out of business. It is a form of protest. I suppose you could call it forcing, but it's not. Forcing them would be if these protesters were directly paying their salaries, and suddenly refused to pay it unless they got the outcome they wanted. A boycott may or may not work, it's not forcing them to decide anything.

This is what happened in this instance. People voted with their wallets and chose to no longer use a company's product. The company decided that this was too much of a financial risk, and removed the thing that was causing offense (in this case, their choice of CEO)

Maybe Eich has changed his stance, maybe not: He chose to support Prop 8. This is affecting him later in life, as many things do.

Again, I apologise for misinterpreting your remarks and getting angry. I'm happy to continue to have a civil debate if you want.

TL;DR? You're a bigot

*Sigh* I'm sick of this. I'm sick of the SJW mentality of "You can't disagree with me because that makes you a bigot". Insulting people directly is against the forum rules by the way. You're really conviced me you are right by spamming the forums and insulting me, well done you've changed a 'biggot' mind. Gold star.

Feel free to disagree with me all you want. You can say and do whatever you want. You can also be free to face the consequences of those actions. Act bigoted? You get called a bigot. Set fire to a building? You get prosecuted for arson.

Again, well done on being so clever and simply not arguing. I'm open to having my opinion changed, if you want to try to sway me, I will listen. "You broke the rules, and hurt my feelings" isn't an argument. Nor is being condescending. I'm sorry I called you a bigot, I was wrong. I have dealt with many people who refuse to listen to reason, such as in this instance continuing to insist that this is some kind of war by gay people against non-gays.

 

[Vareoth]

Bah, absolutely pathetic. His personal opinion, which he has every right to hold, did in no way impact the company. It was in no way useful to have him removed other than to satisfy the need for revenge. His stepping down will inevitably create more antagonism towards the LGBT movement.

This isn't the last we've heard about this.

On the other hand, the free market was the reason he was forced to leave. I just happen to disagree with the masses on this one.

 

[ayvee]

Man you gotta love it when people seem to be under the impression that opposing civil equality and supporting civil equality are equivalently extremist positions.

"Oh no, a man lost his job JUST because he supported outlawing interracial marriage. When will the SJW-ing end!"

"Oh no, a man lost his job JUST because he funded lobbying for segregation. When will the SJW-ing end!"

"Oh no, a man lost his job JUST because he just because he donated to organizations for denying women the to vote. When will the SJW-ing end!"

 

[Georgie_Leech]

On the one hand, part of me is a little leery on how quickly how much pressure was brought to bear for something that occurred 6 years ago. On the other, Brenden Eich could have also said some variation of "My position on the matter has changed and I will not support legislation like Proposition 8 in the future," or made a similar donation to campaigns against such discriminatory laws, or otherwise reached out to the people boycotting Mozilla, which to my knowledge he didn't. He had the opportunity to apologise, but instead said the company didn't practise anti-LGBT policies. Which is all well and good, but my understanding was that this was about supporting someone who financially supported discriminatory legislation, rather than being directed at Mozilla in general. So, I don't really have much of a problem with individuals who decided they didn't want to continue using a free product that supports a man who contributed to a cause seeking to deny them fair and equal treatment under the law, when there are other free alternatives that, well, don't

 

[Strazdas]

snip

Of course repeating yourself wont work. i adressed that in my previuos post.
It was a proposition of a law. what its contents were does not matter here. you should have no right to destroy a person over his support of a law, even if you yourself dont like the content. EVER. no matter the content of the law. Without this, you have nodemocracy, but instead a coutnry run by fear of few loud individuals with power.

Whether somebody forced him to resign or not is a secret known only to board members and PR department, but it is quite clear that the actions of OKCupid users was the cause of his resignation. And while they did have a right to do so, i also have a right to call them out on it. because it was not a beneficial thing to society, quite the opposite.
Funny you should say that, because "Either love gays or you're fired." was exactly the slogan plenty of people fighting Stygian him took.

Once again, he was not bigoted. yet you seem to willingly infore facts.

"Freedom of speech also entails freely accepting the consequences of said speech."
and yet you fail to accept the consequences of the free speech users boycotting firefox is getting. that is - public outlash over hypocracy.

Also a nice way of missing my point. the point was that 52% of california supported the law, yet you single out one single person and go after him, solely because hes famous so it will get into newspapers.

So, being personally hurt by a friend, colleague and employer who supported the denial of your civil rights is "having no impact on their lives"?

you have been personally hurt by Eich? Did he hit you? did you call the police?
He supported a law, which is his legal right as US citizen, which was later supported by 52% of California voters. why are you singling him out? What exactly has he done to you?

Well, he defended that donation in 2012, so there's that.
Also, donating against civil rights is taking a side against civil rights.

Did he? I havent heard about that. care to share the link?

But the thing about civil rights is that we create and remove them all the time. For example we recently removed a right to smoke in public buildings. I supported that law. am i against civil rights now?

Good thing no one demanded his resignation then I guess.

oh yes, "ill stop using your browser because i dont like your CEOs personal beliefs and want him gone" is certainly not demanding resignation.

Sure, you can call them hypocrites all you like. Just let your lips flap and fingers rattle. Of course, you'd be wrong, but have at it.

Im glad i got your permission. I would ask for more, but this forum has strict rules.

 

[kuolonen]

You know what, you're right, and I apologise.

I have just spent too much time dealing with genuine bigots who actually believe that this is just another step towards some kind of pro-gay dystopia where people aren't allowed to have opinions. Believe me when I say there are a lot of them.

To answer you question, that word is "boycott", or in colloquial terms "voting with your wallet": The idea is that if you disagree with a company or person's products, ideals, or political stances, you choose not to buy their products, or give them your business. If the majority agree with you, that person or company will lose money and either be forced to bow to popular opinion, or go out of business. It is a form of protest. I suppose you could call it forcing, but it's not. Forcing them would be if these protesters were directly paying their salaries, and suddenly refused to pay it unless they got the outcome they wanted. A boycott may or may not work, it's not forcing them to decide anything.

This is what happened in this instance. People voted with their wallets and chose to no longer use a company's product. The company decided that this was too much of a financial risk, and removed the thing that was causing offense (in this case, their choice of CEO)

Maybe Eich has changed his stance, maybe not: He chose to support Prop 8. This is affecting him later in life, as many things do.

Again, I apologise for misinterpreting your remarks and getting angry. I'm happy to continue to have a civil debate if you want.

Fair enough, I suppose defensive bites become the immediate reaction after a while.

I still feel boycott involves too many people, on both sides, in situation where the offender is no longer active offender, and the offense is 6 years ago. I suppose you can derive justification from fact that he is (debatable, but I am not invested enough to this matter to go through necessary research to matter to make a strong argument) unrepentant, but even then it still feels too much.

Apology accepted. I was kind of bracing for a second snarkblast, so thank you for giving a little sun for my shriveled hope for humanity.

 

[A-D.]

Oh, I'm sorry. Did we infringe upon his right to free speech because we chose to exercise ours? It's not a one-way street, boyo.

He CAN say all the bigoted, nasty, racist or homophobic or mysoginistic things he wants. And we CAN choose to simply ignore him. But guess what, we can also say anything WE want, like, say, that we don't like that he was made CEO of a company. And guess what, we can also choose to, perhaps, stop using a product his company produces, making it less profitable and making the company re-think their choice to elect him.

We didn't hold a fucking gun to his head. We didn't enact a law saying that if he says that he has to be fired. We voted with our wallets, and it worked. For once it actually worked. But who am I kidding, you don't care. All you see is the big bad liberals using their rights to make something happen that YOU don't like. It doesn't matter that those rights are exactly the same as yours. Because you don't agree with what they are saying, you want them to just shut the fuck up. Isn't that right? Last time I looked, the liberals aren't passing laws saying that straight people can't get married, or that gay people have the legal right to discriminate against Christians.

You sir, are a bigot. Don't hide behind psudeo-free-speech to cry foul when people call you on it.

Manual quoting for the win. No you didnt, but you didnt leave it at free speech. You essentially held a gun to his head, either he resigns, or the company suffers, a company full of people who may or may not agree with the one person who just happens to be at the top currently, the same guy who has been at that company for 9 Years and made a silly donation 6 years ago.

What was that about OKCupid again? Please stop using Firefox because the CEO, one guy out of MANY PEOPLE who supported Prop-8 is the CEO there. Thats basicly DOXing, or is there a list somewhere where i can look up publicly who voted for Prop8 or gave donations towards the same cause? No, its one guy being singled out because he happens to be the CEO at a company that makes a popular browser. He exercised his rights to support what he feels he wants to support. Sure People can also not support him, but its not about him, its about Mozilla, he is the CEO, so what? He is one guy at the company, one guy out of how many? Yet its perfectly fine to DESTROY the reputation of an entire company, even ruin it financially because the one dude working there thinks that Gays can have civil unions and not church marriages?

You are hiding behind some pseudo-nonsense that is actually hard to grasp because..i dont wanna be rude, but that shit isnt even remotely logical. But yeah i want those people i named to shut up, i dont wanna hear about "Women need more rights without obligations"-Feminists, or "Kill all men"-Feminists. I dont want to hear about stupid vacuous tumblr keyboard warriors. I dont want to hear from people who turn EVERYTHING into a "Us versus Them" thing and if you so much as disagree with them on a single thing, they try to ruin your life forever. Look up what Scientology did with "Suppressive Persons", this applies to quite alot of Feminists, especially those on freethoughtblogs and atheism plus.

But sure, it makes me a bigot when i object to one party discriminating against another. It doesnt matter whether your cause is good or not, if you use the same bullshit tactics then you arent good, you arent better. You are just as vile, evil and reprehensible as the ones you claim to oppose.

Also, for future reference, false equivalency fallacy right there.

 

[Robert Marrs]

If you think this is a good thing I really hope one day something similar happens to you. Times change. 30 years from now who knows what will and won't be socially acceptable. You could be on the wrong side of that fence just because of how you were raised, where you were born etc. and not even think what you are doing is wrong. Hell it might not even BE wrong society just decided it was for you. Then all it will take is a couple social justice warriors or a few internet blogs and next thing you know your fired. Fired from your job for personal beliefs.

Regardless of where you stand on the gay marriage/gay rights issue respecting peoples right to hold personal beliefs is important. This man along with 60% of california voted on something. Maybe we should fire 60% of the people who work in california just to be sure we weed out all the bigots? So as much as I disagree with the man I fully support his right to hold whatever beliefs he has without having to fear for his job security or even his personal safety. Make whatever excuses you want in support of this but anyone with an objective, non-bias point of view should be able to see that this is wrong regardless of what you do or don't support.

 

[Verlander]

snip

Of course repeating yourself wont work. i adressed that in my previuos post.
It was a proposition of a law. what its contents were does not matter here.

Well, seeing as it was the law that really is at the centre of the discussion, I'd argue the contents of it are vital to some people.

you should have no right to destroy a person over his support of a law, even if you yourself dont like the content. EVER. no matter the content of the law.

You have every right to do that, actually. I didn't hurt him, I didn't verbally abuse him. I didn't do anything to be fair. He was free to his opinion, others were free to theirs, Mozilla reacted to the market. That's what freedom is.

Without this, you have nodemocracy, but instead a coutnry run by fear of few loud individuals with power.

There is no democracy in the US anyway, but your point doesn't make much sense even if there were. He was allowed to fund that proposition. It's not illegal on a state or federal level. People are allowed free choice in a free market, and the state isn't allowed to dictate where you purchase your goods, or the reasoning behind why you choose what you do.

If I went into a bakery, and there was a gay baker there, and I didn't want to purchase a cake from him, there isn't a goddamn law in the land that could force me to. Likewise, if there is a company who is headed by an anti-gay individual, there's not a law in the land that could force me to use his products. That's freedom, and that's democratic.

Whether somebody forced him to resign or not is a secret known only to board members and PR department, but it is quite clear that the actions of OKCupid users was the cause of his resignation. And while they did have a right to do so, i also have a right to call them out on it. because it was not a beneficial thing to society, quite the opposite.
Funny you should say that, because "Either love gays or you're fired." was exactly the slogan plenty of people fighting Stygian him took.

I think that the actions of the staff (including firm Directors resigning for his appointment) also had a significant sway. I don't see how what OkCupid did wasn't beneficial to society. They didn't block access to Firefox users, they merely made users aware of something, and gave them the opportunity to react to that. It was people that made the decision to change browser, which I daresay many didn't.

Anyone who changed browser didn't do so because they *love* OkCupid, they did so because they reacted to his donation. He made that donation. If he didn't want to be associated with this donation, he shouldn't have made it.

Once again, he was not bigoted. yet you seem to willingly infore facts.

You guys keep saying that, but saying so doesn't make it so. Would "He made a bigoted decision and donation" be more to your palate? The facts are that he funded an anti gay proposition. He funded a prop that segregated people in society.

"Freedom of speech also entails freely accepting the consequences of said speech."
and yet you fail to accept the consequences of the free speech users boycotting firefox is getting. that is - public outlash over hypocracy.

Eh? There is no hypocrisy here. He did something, we did something, no laws were broken. The gay community felt the consequences of his donation, and he felt the consequences of our opinion on that. All balanced.

Also a nice way of missing my point. the point was that 52% of california supported the law, yet you single out one single person and go after him, solely because hes famous so it will get into newspapers.

Nope, I would not give my custom to anyone that openly hateful. That is my freedom. I wouldn't call for their business to be knocked down, although I may share the information to those whom I believe would want to know. Then, equipped with that knowledge, they would be free to choose on whether to give that business their custom or not.

If, in the above process, the business had to close down, that's a sad day. It shows that their opinion wasn't as popular as it once appeared. For example, 52% of people may not have agreed with said law if they were properly informed about it.

 

[Elijin]

Is he actually still standing by his views? Or did he just lose a job for making a donation to a campaign 6 years ago?

I mean sure, if he's still actively campaigning as such, then that isnt a great figure to be the public head of your corporation. But if he's not? Well man thats balls.

Because there's a gaping chasm between those two events. One which calls peoples job security into question for ever making a bad decision in their past.

 

[A-D.]

What was that about OKCupid again? Please stop using Firefox because the CEO, one guy out of MANY PEOPLE who supported Prop-8 is the CEO there. Thats basicly DOXing, or is there a list somewhere where i can look up publicly who voted for Prop8 or gave donations towards the same cause? No, its one guy being singled out because he happens to be the CEO at a company that makes a popular browser. He exercised his rights to support what he feels he wants to support. Sure People can also not support him, but its not about him, its about Mozilla, he is the CEO, so what? He is one guy at the company, one guy out of how many? Yet its perfectly fine to DESTROY the reputation of an entire company, even ruin it financially because the one dude working there thinks that Gays can have civil unions and not church marriages?

Unless I am misunderstanding you, you actually can look up who made the donations. By California law if you donate $100 or more to a political campaign or potential law then your information is public and anyone can look up who made the contributions, where they live, and how much of a donation was made.

In which case, why not go after other people? Nope, only after the one dude who just happened to be made CEO recently. Thats the epitome of being vindictive. Which basicly proves the point, if people actually think that ruining someones personal life and reputation is not as bad as hanging a black guy, you need to get your priorities straight. Because from where im standing, at least the KKK had the decency to actually end your life, not ruin it and then let you live with that reputation for the rest of your life.

So ya know, pot meet kettle and all that. Prop-8 People are dumb, SJW's who think forcing a guy out of a job is fair are equally vile and evil.

 

[st0pnsw0p]

Is he actually still standing by his views? Or did he just lose a job for making a donation to a campaign 6 years ago?

I mean sure, if he's still actively campaigning as such, then that isnt a great figure to be the public head of your corporation. But if he's not? Well man thats balls.

Because there's a gaping chasm between those two events. One which calls peoples job security into question for ever making a bad decision in their past.

If he didn't believe it anymore, he could have just made a statement saying so and the backlash would have stopped immediately. The fact that he didn't do that indicates that he still holds that opinion.

 

[TheRealCJ]

Fair enough, I suppose defensive bites become the immediate reaction after a while.

I still feel boycott involves too many people, on both sides, in situation where the offender is no longer active offender, and the offense is 6 years ago. I suppose you can derive justification from fact that he is (debatable, but I am not invested enough to this matter to go through necessary research to matter to make a strong argument) unrepentant, but even then it still feels too much.

Apology accepted. I was kind of bracing for a second snarkblast, so thank you for giving a little sun for my shriveled hope for humanity.

Hmm, that's true. I suppose the problem is that the sides are so disproportionate. The Gay community provides one big target for people to generalise and direct their vitriol at, while the gays themselves only have small, individual targets to shoot back at.

I think a lot of the problem is, from what I've seen, those on the homophobic side generally don't care who they hurt in an effort to win for their side; They have all advantages. They are already the majority, and they aren't the ones fighting for any rights. They're fighting for the status quo. Whereas the gay community is not only trying to stem the tide of aggression against them, but also desperately trying to get all the people who haven't chosen a side to sympathise with them. So they can't just wage all-out war against, say, Christians in general. They can only really fight against targets that have obviously shown themselves to be trying to oppress them; The WBC, for instance. And Eich unwittingly set himself up as a target by publicly announcing that he supported anti-gay legislation.

The gay community is incredibly gunshy, and with good reason. If they given even an inch to the other side, they'll lose miles and miles.

 

[TheRealCJ]

Oh, I'm sorry. Did we infringe upon his right to free speech because we chose to exercise ours? It's not a one-way street, boyo.

He CAN say all the bigoted, nasty, racist or homophobic or mysoginistic things he wants. And we CAN choose to simply ignore him. But guess what, we can also say anything WE want, like, say, that we don't like that he was made CEO of a company. And guess what, we can also choose to, perhaps, stop using a product his company produces, making it less profitable and making the company re-think their choice to elect him.

We didn't hold a fucking gun to his head. We didn't enact a law saying that if he says that he has to be fired. We voted with our wallets, and it worked. For once it actually worked. But who am I kidding, you don't care. All you see is the big bad liberals using their rights to make something happen that YOU don't like. It doesn't matter that those rights are exactly the same as yours. Because you don't agree with what they are saying, you want them to just shut the fuck up. Isn't that right? Last time I looked, the liberals aren't passing laws saying that straight people can't get married, or that gay people have the legal right to discriminate against Christians.

You sir, are a bigot. Don't hide behind psudeo-free-speech to cry foul when people call you on it.

Manual quoting for the win. No you didnt, but you didnt leave it at free speech. You essentially held a gun to his head, either he resigns, or the company suffers, a company full of people who may or may not agree with the one person who just happens to be at the top currently, the same guy who has been at that company for 9 Years and made a silly donation 6 years ago.

What was that about OKCupid again? Please stop using Firefox because the CEO, one guy out of MANY PEOPLE who supported Prop-8 is the CEO there. Thats basicly DOXing, or is there a list somewhere where i can look up publicly who voted for Prop8 or gave donations towards the same cause? No, its one guy being singled out because he happens to be the CEO at a company that makes a popular browser. He exercised his rights to support what he feels he wants to support. Sure People can also not support him, but its not about him, its about Mozilla, he is the CEO, so what? He is one guy at the company, one guy out of how many? Yet its perfectly fine to DESTROY the reputation of an entire company, even ruin it financially because the one dude working there thinks that Gays can have civil unions and not church marriages?

You are hiding behind some pseudo-nonsense that is actually hard to grasp because..i dont wanna be rude, but that shit isnt even remotely logical. But yeah i want those people i named to shut up, i dont wanna hear about "Women need more rights without obligations"-Feminists, or "Kill all men"-Feminists. I dont want to hear about stupid vacuous tumblr keyboard warriors. I dont want to hear from people who turn EVERYTHING into a "Us versus Them" thing and if you so much as disagree with them on a single thing, they try to ruin your life forever. Look up what Scientology did with "Suppressive Persons", this applies to quite alot of Feminists, especially those on freethoughtblogs and atheism plus.

But sure, it makes me a bigot when i object to one party discriminating against another. It doesnt matter whether your cause is good or not, if you use the same bullshit tactics then you arent good, you arent better. You are just as vile, evil and reprehensible as the ones you claim to oppose.

Also, for future reference, false equivalency fallacy right there.

Do you know what the problem is? You're approaching this from the assumption that both sides are equal. Eich was the head of a massive company, has money to spare, and is in the majority privileged. The other side have to suffer through discrimination every day of their lives. But if they even try to fight back, they get beaten down hard.

Reminds me of school bullies, you know the ones that torment the kids who can't stand up for themselves? When the little kids finally DO, they cry foul and get them in trouble. Because they only fight when they know they have absolute power. Maybe Eich isn't homophobic, maybe all he cares about is "traditional" marriage (itself a fallacy, since "traditional" has been re-negotiated multiple times). If he doesn't get what he wants, what exactly does he lose? He gets to gnash his teeth and cry about how America is dead, or whatever. It doesn't affect him in any signifigant way. Not a jot.

While the gays, if THEY lose, get to be treated like social pariahs, told they are second-class citizens, essentially punished for being themselves. They have a lot more to gain in this fight, and a LOT more to lose.

And, I have to add AGAIN (because people don't seem to get it), a boycott is not holding a gun to a company's head. If they choose to ignore it, it's a wager whether they'll lose or win in the long run. There have been plenty of boycotts that go nowhere. Heck, Bill Donahue just told his Catholic League to boycott Guinness for choosing to support the 'gay agenda'. Does that mean he's discriminating against gays? Of course not.

 

[Lightknight]

Alright, good to see public shaming can encourage discriminatory hiring practices in the work place. I guess now Eich has to dissolve into the ether since groups like OKcupid would have him die penniless in a ditch for his personal beliefs.

Yay, fight to end discrimination by encouraging discrimination.

Yup.

This is how I can tell I'm getting old: I can actually remember a time when liberals thought that hounding someone from public life for having a controversial opinion was a bad thing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist]. Can you imagine?

I support gay marriage. I think Prop 8 was stupid, and would have voted against it had I lived in California. I still find it kind of amazing that anyone who holds essentially the same opinion that Barack Obama expressed in 2008 [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/3375059/Barack-Obama-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman.html] is now considered an unconscionable bigot.

Well, it's also important to note that that law got voted into place. Right or wrong, this guy is a member of a majority of people who think that the term Marriage actually means something. By OKCupid's standards more than half of Americans should be out of work. This is why I keep advocating to stop calling the government issued license a marriage license. It blurs the line between government and religious/cultural practices in a system people generally insist on being separate. These people don't think that they're preventing gays' access to unions, they just think that they're protecting a term that means something to them. Most of the people I've spoken with don't care about the actual rights involved and just care about the term. That's why Civil unions have become a thing. An attempt to give all the rights of marriage without controversially stepping on the actual term marriage (even though a marriage license shouldn't be confused with a marriage ceremony).

To all the people cheering this news: just pray none of your opinions ever become unfashionable.

Exactly. Regardless of our view of gay marriage, something you and I favor, this is a terrible precedence harming laws that everyone relies on. Nobody should be hounded out of their jobs for personal beliefs or political stances or anything else that is a breach of discrimination laws.

As I stated elsewhere. This is very much a "First they came for..." scenario. Somewhere along the line we lost the desire to protect the rights of even those we disagree with to ensure they're still there when we or our children need them. Because it isn't impacting us, this time.

 

[Redd the Sock]

Can we at least be honest that this guy is just being held up as a sacrificial lamb? There's a full database of Prop 8 supporters here

http://projects.latimes.com/prop8/

And it includes a lot of people from Google, Apple, Adobe, Intel, Hewlet-Packard, Micorosoft, Sony, Yahoo, and other tech firms. Heck he was the only Mozilla employee to donate to support it, yet we put him on the alter because he was in charge for all of 5 minutes.

You're free to do as your heart feels, but I reserve the right to laugh if you jump to chrome when google had more employees donate more to prop 8 that mozilla did.

 

[chikusho]

you have been personally hurt by Eich? Did he hit you? did you call the police?
He supported a law, which is his legal right as US citizen, which was later supported by 52% of California voters. why are you singling him out? What exactly has he done to you?

Not me. His employees.
Also, yeah, just as it's his right as a US citizen to donate to this organisation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association
The fact that it's legal doesn't make it any less tasteless.

Did he? I havent heard about that. care to share the link?

https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/

But the thing about civil rights is that we create and remove them all the time. For example we recently removed a right to smoke in public buildings. I supported that law. am i against civil rights now?

Wait a minute... in what world is smoking a civil right?

oh yes, "ill stop using your browser because i dont like your CEOs personal beliefs and want him gone" is certainly not demanding resignation.

You're right, it isn't.

Wanna know about some people who DID demand he step down? His employees.
Now tell me, in what way is Eich a good CEO if his employees don't respect him?
Also, why would you want to work for someone who wants to deny you your civil rights?

Im glad i got your permission. I would ask for more, but this forum has strict rules.

You keep bringing up freedom of speech (for some ungodly reason), so I just thought you might need that pointed out. You're welcome.

 

[balfore]

What was that about OKCupid again? Please stop using Firefox because the CEO, one guy out of MANY PEOPLE who supported Prop-8 is the CEO there. Thats basicly DOXing, or is there a list somewhere where i can look up publicly who voted for Prop8 or gave donations towards the same cause? No, its one guy being singled out because he happens to be the CEO at a company that makes a popular browser. He exercised his rights to support what he feels he wants to support. Sure People can also not support him, but its not about him, its about Mozilla, he is the CEO, so what? He is one guy at the company, one guy out of how many? Yet its perfectly fine to DESTROY the reputation of an entire company, even ruin it financially because the one dude working there thinks that Gays can have civil unions and not church marriages?

Unless I am misunderstanding you, you actually can look up who made the donations. By California law if you donate $100 or more to a political campaign or potential law then your information is public and anyone can look up who made the contributions, where they live, and how much of a donation was made.

In which case, why not go after other people? Nope, only after the one dude who just happened to be made CEO recently. Thats the epitome of being vindictive. Which basicly proves the point, if people actually think that ruining someones personal life and reputation is not as bad as hanging a black guy, you need to get your priorities straight. Because from where im standing, at least the KKK had the decency to actually end your life, not ruin it and then let you live with that reputation for the rest of your life.

So ya know, pot meet kettle and all that. Prop-8 People are dumb, SJW's who think forcing a guy out of a job is fair are equally vile and evil.

Murdering someone and briefly hurting the reputation of a millionaire who represents a whole company are two different things. I can guarantee you his life is not ruined, nor his reputation. He is an amazing programmer and I'm sure someone will hire him, just not as the face or leader of a company. Or he could just retire and roll around in his piles of cash all day and not care what you think about him.