Mozilla chief resigns over same-sex marriage controversy

[webfact]

Mozilla chief resigns over same-sex marriage controversy

San Francisco - Brandon Eich resigned Thursday as the chief executive of Mozilla, maker of the popular Firefox browser, after it emerged that he had supported a controversial law that banned same-sex marriages.

Mozilla announced the resignation in a blog posting in which it said that its "organisational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness.

"Eich came under fire last month when numerous websites, including the popular dating site OK Cupid, urged users to boycott Firefox after it was revealed that Eich had donated thousands of dollars to Proposition 8, a 2008 constitutional amendment in California that disallowed same sex marriages.

The amendment has since been rejected by federal courts as violating the US Constitution.


-- The Nation 2014-04-04

[casualbiker]

So Mozilla's "organisational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness" only works one way!

Sent from my XT1032 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[rotary]

How much more silly can we get. This guy believes in something on a personal basis so he supports that cause. What does that have to do with his job?

[RuamRudy]

So Mozilla's "organisational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness" only works one way!

Sent from my XT1032 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

That is a somewhat Kafkaesque way of thinking - that one can only be considered as inclusive if one embraces and supports those who seek to exclude.

[RuamRudy]

How much more silly can we get. This guy believes in something on a personal basis so he supports that cause. What does that have to do with his job?

He was the most senior leader in a high profile company. He also espouses views which many people consider repugnant. From a commercial perspective, the company decided that they did not want him as a liability. It was not the gays who kicked him out, it was his own company who realised that his ideas were out of step with a significant number of their customers.

[Gulfsailor]

So Mozilla's "organisational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness" only works one way!

Sent from my XT1032 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

That is a somewhat Kafkaesque way of thinking - that one can only be considered as inclusive if one embraces and supports those who seek to exclude.

I agree with that. It is not like this guy had certain beliefs, while allowing others with different ideas express themselves as well. He actively tried to stop those others expressing their beliefs via marriage, by giving money to help prevent it.

[Jingthing]

I detest the man's political beliefs and I think they reflect anti-gay bigotry the same way supporting banning interracial marriage reflects racism. However, I do not support kicking out such a a person from a high profile job at this particular point in history. Right now, there is a transition period where the understanding that such beliefs do reflect bigotry is becoming more prevalent. There wouldn't be any question that he would have even been offered such a job with a record of racial bigotry. Basically I think kicking him would be bad PR for the gay civil rights movement, because they will be accused incorrectly of reverse discrimination. It would be better for him to stay and stew in it ... However, from the companies POV it was bad business for him to stay, they did not fire him though, he quit. I realize some people say it is not bigotry because most RELIGIONS still support anti-gay discrimination, Yes they do, but it's still bigotry. When the Mormon dogma was viciously racist, they used the same excuse, and later they changed their religions views on racial equality.

[Jonmarleesco]

How much more silly can we get. This guy believes in something on a personal basis so he supports that cause. What does that have to do with his job?

He was the most senior leader in a high profile company. He also espouses views which many people consider repugnant. From a commercial perspective, the company decided that they did not want him as a liability. It was not the gays who kicked him out, it was his own company who realised that his ideas were out of step with a significant number of their customers.

I doubt his company has any realistic idea of the majority of their customers' views on numerous aspects of life, including gay marriage.

Just like most governments, voted in by a majority to administer the country's affairs and deal with issues relevant to the country as a whole, before then spending valuable parliamentary time debating and pushing for the often outrageous demands of some vociferous minorities - Cameron's pushing through of gay marriage legislation is a prime example - they neither seek the views of the majority nor care much what those views are.

For the record, since you claim many people consider a negative view of gay marriage - the main thrust of the Mozilla dispute - to be repugnant, I, for one, disagree with the very idea of gay marriage.

[Jingthing]

It's probably more about the company's culture. Silicon Valley is basically economically more right wing libertarian but VERY liberal on social issues.

[Steely Dan]

Whilst I have no objection to so called same sex marriages I do object to illiberal politically correct activists acting like a troop of Stalinist gibbons crushing every viewpoint contrary to their own. It will imho do more harm than good to the cause they are supposedly so concerned about.

[Jingthing]

Whilst I have no objection to so called same sex marriages I do object to illiberal politically correct activists acting like a troop of Stalinist gibbons crushing every viewpoint contrary to their own. It will imho do more harm than good to the cause they are supposedly so concerned about.

In the U.S. such tactics will cause backlash. So there's no point of doing that even if it was effective. The pro gay civil rights side is dramatically winning, and it just keeps getting better and better. There is no need to risk giving strength to the reverse discrimination arguers. In 20 years probably much less at least in the U.S. anti-gay civil rights views will be as socially unacceptable as racism.

[RuamRudy]

How much more silly can we get. This guy believes in something on a personal basis so he supports that cause. What does that have to do with his job?

He was the most senior leader in a high profile company. He also espouses views which many people consider repugnant. From a commercial perspective, the company decided that they did not want him as a liability. It was not the gays who kicked him out, it was his own company who realised that his ideas were out of step with a significant number of their customers.

I doubt his company has any realistic idea of the majority of their customers' views on numerous aspects of life, including gay marriage.

Just like most governments, voted in by a majority to administer the country's affairs and deal with issues relevant to the country as a whole, before then spending valuable parliamentary time debating and pushing for the often outrageous demands of some vociferous minorities - Cameron's pushing through of gay marriage legislation is a prime example - they neither seek the views of the majority nor care much what those views are.

For the record, since you claim many people consider a negative view of gay marriage - the main thrust of the Mozilla dispute - to be repugnant, I, for one, disagree with the very idea of gay marriage.

The tone of your writing suggests that you are quite upset. Why it is that you should get upset about what other individuals chose to do, as long as it is within the law and hurts nobody else, is beyond me.

But you are perfectly entitled to your views and, while I do not share them, I respect your right to them - and your right to express them.

[Jingthing]

Yeah. I respect the right of racists and anti-semites to reveal themselves as well. It's useful to self identify that way so that others will know you.

[Jingthing]

This reverse discrimination gambit has now become the most powerful tool of the anti-gay civil rights political movement in the USA. I think this story will help them a little bit, for the short term, but they've still already LOST.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/647712-interesting-new-flavor-of-backlash-in-the-us-reverse-bigotry-panic/

[HeavyDrinker]

I just had to look up 'Kafkaesque". You're never too old to learn....I always thought he made "It's a Wonderful Life"

[GentlemanJim]

Yeah. I respect the right of racists and anti-semites to reveal themselves as well. It's useful to self identify that way so that others will know you.

Wow, a thread about a Mozilla executive with anti-gay views and you manage to get a mention of anti -semitism in again. Are you suffering withdrawal symptoms? Calm down I am sure there will be an 'Israel' thread pop up in world news soon and you can say anti-semite as much as your keyboard will stand.

[GentlemanJim]

I detest the man's political beliefs and I think they reflect anti-gay bigotry the same way supporting banning interracial marriage reflects racism. However, I do not support kicking out such a a person from a high profile job at this particular point in history. Right now, there is a transition period where the understanding that such beliefs do reflect bigotry is becoming more prevalent. There wouldn't be any question that he would have even been offered such a job with a record of racial bigotry. Basically I think kicking him would be bad PR for the gay civil rights movement, because they will be accused incorrectly of reverse discrimination. It would be better for him to stay and stew in it ... However, from the companies POV it was bad business for him to stay, they did not fire him though, he quit. I realize some people say it is not bigotry because most RELIGIONS still support anti-gay discrimination, Yes they do, but it's still bigotry. When the Mormon dogma was viciously racist, they used the same excuse, and later they changed their religions views on racial equality.

You want your cake and eat it. Look, I really have no gripe whoever wants to get married to who, but kicking up a fuss about anything whatever your viewpoint is bigotry as far as someone is concerned. You may well 'detest the mans political views', and you are saying so publicly on here, the guy in question obviously has personal issues with the idea of gays getting married and he is entitled to those views, and to speak of them to who he wants as long as he is not hurting anybody.

You do not want him to lose his job because 'why should he lose his job and family security over a view he is entitled to have'. You want him not to lose his job because it furthers your own aim and goal. And it IS reverse discrimination.

Just to reiterate I care not one way or the other what people do, so I do not want one of your rants in return.

[Gulfsailor]

I detest the man's political beliefs and I think they reflect anti-gay bigotry the same way supporting banning interracial marriage reflects racism. However, I do not support kicking out such a a person from a high profile job at this particular point in history. Right now, there is a transition period where the understanding that such beliefs do reflect bigotry is becoming more prevalent. There wouldn't be any question that he would have even been offered such a job with a record of racial bigotry. Basically I think kicking him would be bad PR for the gay civil rights movement, because they will be accused incorrectly of reverse discrimination. It would be better for him to stay and stew in it ... However, from the companies POV it was bad business for him to stay, they did not fire him though, he quit. I realize some people say it is not bigotry because most RELIGIONS still support anti-gay discrimination, Yes they do, but it's still bigotry. When the Mormon dogma was viciously racist, they used the same excuse, and later they changed their religions views on racial equality.

You want your cake and eat it. Look, I really have no gripe whoever wants to get married to who, but kicking up a fuss about anything whatever your viewpoint is bigotry as far as someone is concerned. You may well 'detest the mans political views', and you are saying so publicly on here, the guy in question obviously has personal issues with the idea of gays getting married and he is entitled to those views, and to speak of them to who he wants as long as he is not hurting anybody.

You do not want him to lose his job because 'why should he lose his job and family security over a view he is entitled to have'. You want him not to lose his job because it furthers your own aim and goal. And it IS reverse discrimination.

Just to reiterate I care not one way or the other what people do, so I do not want one of your rants in return.

"You want your cake and eat it. Look, I really have no gripe whoever wants to get married to who, but kicking up a fuss about anything whatever your viewpoint is bigotry as far as someone is concerned. You may well 'detest the mans political views', and you are saying so publicly on here, the guy in question obviously has personal issues with the idea of gays getting married and he is entitled to those views, and to speak of them to who he wants as long as he is not hurting anybody."

The last sentence is key though. This guy was hurting people. He was hurting the gays who like to be married and have the same rights associated with marriage that others get. He didn't just express his views, he donated quite a lot of money to further this goal of stopping them getting married.

Similarly I do not believe in marriage, regardless of the sexes involved. But morally it would be very wrong for me to actively try to stop others from marrying be it through intimidation, violence or silly laws. I leave such 'moral' actions to our religious friends.

[ggt]

How much more silly can we get. This guy believes in something on a personal basis so he supports that cause. What does that have to do with his job?

Economic extortion...is the hallmark punishment for anyone who opposes the gay agenda...many have lost jobs and sponsors due to a personal stand against same-sex marriage...

[Jingthing]

I don't want to have my cake or eat it.

As this is about American issues and I am American, what I want is equal civil rights under the law for all American citizens.

That's the gay agenda, dudes, just about legal equality.

It's understood you can't enforce people to like or love you, but you can at least change the laws to provide legal equality, and hopefully social attitudes will become more tolerant over time, as they already have to a great extent.

You can have any personal stand you want, even one that is BLATANTLY against equal civil rights for your fellow citizens.

You can speak up in a pubic square and say you are against interracial marriage. Go for it! But people know now that is wrongly bigoted and more and more people are knowing that the same thing targeted against gays is wrongly bigoted as well.

Cheers.

[RuamRudy]

How much more silly can we get. This guy believes in something on a personal basis so he supports that cause. What does that have to do with his job?

Economic extortion...is the hallmark punishment for anyone who opposes the gay agenda...many have lost jobs and sponsors due to a personal stand against same-sex marriage...

This is what I don't get - why is it his, yours or my business what two consenting adults want to do. I do not own marriage and neither do you. Why are you so concerned that two people of the same sex feel it is right for them?

[Jingthing]

How much more silly can we get. This guy believes in something on a personal basis so he supports that cause. What does that have to do with his job?

Economic extortion...is the hallmark punishment for anyone who opposes the gay agenda...many have lost jobs and sponsors due to a personal stand against same-sex marriage...

This is what I don't get - why is it his, yours or my business what two consenting adults want to do. I do not own marriage and neither do you. Why are you so concerned that two people of the same sex feel it is right for them?

It's just very mean spirited. Gay marriage doesn't hurt them at all. Before gay marriage, divorce rates were already very high and people can get married in a drive in Las Vegas, like buying a burger. The U.S. is not a THEOCRACY. People in all states can get married in city hall without any religious involvement at all. Marriage equality under the law isn't about forcing religions to marry gay people. Some do now, more will later, but that's an internal issue WITHIN the religions themselves. For marriage in general, religious dogma should not determine secular legal civil rights.

[JesseFrank]

In other news today :

The US emphasized once again that they are the most democratic nation on earth where everyone has the right of freedom of expression without being punished for it.

[Jingthing]

In other news today :

The US emphasized once again that they are the most democratic nation on earth where everyone has the right of freedom of expression without being punished for it.

You know, there is no law against this man's speech or his political action. Going to the racism thing again, if the same thing happened and the man was hired and then it was revealed later he had contributed to a racist political cause, he would be gone even quicker and most likely fired directly, rather than the way this happened. NOBODY would be squawking about reverse discrimination either! Because racism in the U.S. though still common is pretty much totally socially unacceptable. But the same attitudes towards gays are still socially acceptable among many though that is changing rapidly. Talking about a high profile person, not everyday people, with such people, it likely wouldn't come up.

[JesseFrank]

In other news today :

The US emphasized once again that they are the most democratic nation on earth where everyone has the right of freedom of expression without being punished for it.

You know, there is no law against this man's speech or his political action. Going to the racism thing again, if the same thing happened and the man was hired and then it was revealed later he had contributed to a racist political cause, he would be gone even quicker and most likely fired directly, rather than the way this happened. Talking about a high profile person, for everyday people, it likely wouldn't come up.

What has not supporting same sex marriage to do with racism ? Are we gonna play that card again ?

[GentlemanJim]

I detest the man's political beliefs and I think they reflect anti-gay bigotry the same way supporting banning interracial marriage reflects racism. However, I do not support kicking out such a a person from a high profile job at this particular point in history. Right now, there is a transition period where the understanding that such beliefs do reflect bigotry is becoming more prevalent. There wouldn't be any question that he would have even been offered such a job with a record of racial bigotry. Basically I think kicking him would be bad PR for the gay civil rights movement, because they will be accused incorrectly of reverse discrimination. It would be better for him to stay and stew in it ... However, from the companies POV it was bad business for him to stay, they did not fire him though, he quit. I realize some people say it is not bigotry because most RELIGIONS still support anti-gay discrimination, Yes they do, but it's still bigotry. When the Mormon dogma was viciously racist, they used the same excuse, and later they changed their religions views on racial equality.

You want your cake and eat it. Look, I really have no gripe whoever wants to get married to who, but kicking up a fuss about anything whatever your viewpoint is bigotry as far as someone is concerned. You may well 'detest the mans political views', and you are saying so publicly on here, the guy in question obviously has personal issues with the idea of gays getting married and he is entitled to those views, and to speak of them to who he wants as long as he is not hurting anybody.

You do not want him to lose his job because 'why should he lose his job and family security over a view he is entitled to have'. You want him not to lose his job because it furthers your own aim and goal. And it IS reverse discrimination.

Just to reiterate I care not one way or the other what people do, so I do not want one of your rants in return.

"You want your cake and eat it. Look, I really have no gripe whoever wants to get married to who, but kicking up a fuss about anything whatever your viewpoint is bigotry as far as someone is concerned. You may well 'detest the mans political views', and you are saying so publicly on here, the guy in question obviously has personal issues with the idea of gays getting married and he is entitled to those views, and to speak of them to who he wants as long as he is not hurting anybody."

The last sentence is key though. This guy was hurting people. He was hurting the gays who like to be married and have the same rights associated with marriage that others get. He didn't just express his views, he donated quite a lot of money to further this goal of stopping them getting married.

Similarly I do not believe in marriage, regardless of the sexes involved. But morally it would be very wrong for me to actively try to stop others from marrying be it through intimidation, violence or silly laws. I leave such 'moral' actions to our religious friends.

Come on Gulfsailor, the guy donated $1000 6 years ago. He wasn't hurting anybody he donated to a fund that supported something he is against. Just like people who want to promote Gay rights donate to a fund that will support those aims. $1000 is enough to pay for your upgrade to business at the airport on a flight to the middle east or a good weekend out in London. It is hardly a lot of money.

Mr Eich, who co-founded Mozilla and was also the creator of the JavaScript scripting language, made a $1,000 (£600) donation in 2008 in support of Californian anti-gay marriage law Proposition 8.

There are people all over the world that donate to causes that either promote a cause or want to prevent it. Mormonism springs to mind. The guy concerned maybe a homophobe he may also be very religious, I have no idea, but a $1000 dollar donation done quietly 6 years ago is hardly a protest wearing a placard screaming all gays go to hell like the Westboro Baptist Church get up to. The guy not only resigns but is then vilified by an unnecessary PR statement from the Executive Chairwoman that will likely stop him ever getting a job again.

We hear nothing of the glitzy fund raising dinners that have gone in to promoting gay rights, funded by Bank of America, Coke, Nike and BP to name but a few. All jumping on the band wagon to get a bit of PR from the latest vote catcher. The same companies that exploit some of the most marginalised minorities on the planet, and poison the planet and it's ecology claiming to be great because they support an (unfairly) marginalised minority in a bid to court favour with the consumer. The vilification of Eich by the Mozzila Chairwoman and certain members of the Gay community is staggering. He had a different view and is entitled to support that view. Meanwhile, the gays now getting married can now reflect that their cause was agreeably funded by organisations guilty of encouraging child labour and destruction of the environment - the organisations that are REALLY hurting people!. Check the books of LGBT rights and all will be revealed.

Again, this is not something I am the least bit bothered in or interested in, in that everyone should be free to do whatever they wish and whilst Churches can discriminate against whoever they want just as any 'club' or peer group does, Governments should not, simple. A couple is a couple and it should not even be newsworthy. What I AM bothered about is when the positive discrimination bus leaves the terminal, full of yelling people.

[Jingthing]

In other news today :

The US emphasized once again that they are the most democratic nation on earth where everyone has the right of freedom of expression without being punished for it.

You know, there is no law against this man's speech or his political action. Going to the racism thing again, if the same thing happened and the man was hired and then it was revealed later he had contributed to a racist political cause, he would be gone even quicker and most likely fired directly, rather than the way this happened. Talking about a high profile person, for everyday people, it likely wouldn't come up.

What has not supporting same sex marriage to do with racism ? Are we gonna play that card again ?

Just read the history of why the supreme court has moved this issue for gay Americans. Then you will know the DIRECT relationship of these two issues, the historical banning of interracial marriages in some U.S. states with the historical banning of same sex marriages in now most U.S. states now, but changing rapidly. The supreme court acting fully against the racist interracial marriage bans, and has now acted half way on the homophobic same sex bans ... but every indication is that they will go all the way as the smaller cases are indicating that the interpretation of the first supreme court decision is leading to the declaration that banning same sex marriage in ANY state will be UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

This isn't a card. It is history.

You can act like this history didn't happen or that the decision to make interracial marriage bans unconstitutional did not bear on the later same sex marriage supreme court decision (and the final BIG one that predictably now will make banning same sex marriage unconstitutional as well), but the supreme court justices, and informed Americans know better.

[GentlemanJim]

I don't want to have my cake or eat it.

As this is about American issues and I am American, what I want is equal civil rights under the law for all American citizens.

That's the gay agenda, dudes, just about legal equality.

It's understood you can't enforce people to like or love you, but you can at least change the laws to provide legal equality, and hopefully social attitudes will become more tolerant over time, as they already have to a great extent.

You can have any personal stand you want, even one that is BLATANTLY against equal civil rights for your fellow citizens.

You can speak up in a pubic square and say you are against interracial marriage. Go for it! But people know now that is wrongly bigoted and more and more people are knowing that the same thing targeted against gays is wrongly bigoted as well.

Cheers.

You have no concept what equality is. Instead of fighting to eradicate violent homophobia we should be fighting to eradicate violence and hatred towards any group. The fight should not be about health care for same sex couples but health care to be available for all. Isn't it a little ironic that LGBT a movement for equality and justice is funded by the forces in the world most responsible for widespread economic and social inequality. You even say 'As this is about American Issues', so take care of your own little minority group and sod the rest around the world, THAT is what inequality is about. It is about looking after your own and the rest can all sod off. You are part of that Jingthing with your ranting, funded by eco terrorists and employers of child slaves, who are not interested at all in your right to marry the companion of your choice, they just want you to buy more Coke, wear their shoes and put their fuel in your car, that's all. There is no equality in that, it is a house of cards.

What has not supporting same sex marriage to do with racism ? Are we gonna play that card again ?

Just read the history of why the supreme court has moved this issue for gay Americans. Then you will know the DIRECT relationship of these two issues, the historical banning of interracial marriages in some U.S. states with the historical banning of same sex marriages in now most U.S. states now, but changing rapidly. The supreme court acting fully against the racist interracial marriage bans, and has now acted half way on the homophobic same sex bans ... but every indication is that they will go all the way as the smaller cases are indicating that the interpretation of the first supreme court decision is leading to the declaration that banning same sex marriage in ANY state will be UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

This isn't a card. It is history.

What is the fuss. Marriage is a concept from the church. Americans are always saying that Government should not interfere with Church etc, that is in your constitution, but now some people want the Government to tell the Church what they should and should not do. A marriage outside Church for same sex or different sex couples is meaningless. The Church is a private club, it is up to them, it's all fruitcake anyway. The Government should recognise permanent unions of couples in law, regardless of gender and the same, equal rights should apply. The Government should not discriminate in this respect, it is simple, then their would be absolutely no need for this to even be a news item.

[Jingthing]

Again, I am in favor of equal civil rights under the law for ALL Americans and the USA is not a theocracy. Each U.S. state has it's own marriage laws, there is federal recognition of all state marriages (including same sex ones), and these state and federal laws are CIVIL laws not religious laws.

In case some people don't know, technically the U.S.A. is now a marriage equality country already at the NATIONAL level.

But still not the majority of states.

So things are in a messy phase now, to put it mildly, but a resolution is now in view.

Cheers!

[RubbaJohnny]

I just had to look up 'Kafkaesque". You're never too old to learn....I always thought he made "It's a Wonderful Life"

Franz Kafka (Fanny Jackdaw).DasSchloss ( Castle or lock is possibly the greatest German novel,albeit by a possibly gay Czech jew,the little bird chose the language of Goethe and Lessing.

Amongst his masterpieces Hochzeitreise auf dem land a wedding journey.

He also wrote Amerika

Metamorphosis

and perhaps the best known the Trial (Prozess) it's critique of faceless laws very fresh here and now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Kafka