Mozilla chief resigns over same-sex marriage controversy

[sustento]

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...

Any many of us (me included) have lost jobs and been beaten up quite badly simply because we're gay.

[RuamRudy]

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.

I cannot speak about the US but in the more enlightened UK, the concept of marriage had greater significance than the church. There are legal implications that marriage confers upon the partners that they cannot enjoy without. It is much more important than simply an archaic convention of superstition.

Sent from my SM-P600 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[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...

Any many of us (me included) have lost jobs and been beaten up quite badly simply because we're gay.

That's a relevant point here as well. In the U.S., marriage equality is not the only gay civil rights issue. There is now no federal law protecting gay Americans from employment discrimination based on their orientation and it is legal in many U.S. states. That's being worked on and of course will eventually pass in some years, but I wouldn't be surprised if the bans on same sex marriage become unconstitutional before then. The employment thing is actually more important to more people.

[GentlemanJim]

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...

Any many of us (me included) have lost jobs and been beaten up quite badly simply because we're gay.

That's a relevant point here as well. In the U.S., marriage equality is not the only gay civil rights issue. There is now no federal law protecting gay Americans from employment discrimination based on their orientation and it is legal in many U.S. states. That's being worked on and of course will eventually pass in some years, but I wouldn't be surprised if the bans on same sex marriage become unconstitutional before then. The employment thing is actually more important to more people.

So if 4 guys go for a job, one is gay three are straight. The best all round candidate for the job who is subsequently chosen for his qualifications and all round experience is one of the straight guys. the other 2 straight guys, say 'sh*t" never mind on to the next interview, does the gay guy claim discrimination because he wasn't picked? Because that has happened. how do you identify discrimination against gays in terms of employment?

[earthpig]

So. This buffoonish company claims that its "organisational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness" and then forces out its most high profile employee because his views are too diverse to be included. To be blind to irony is be blind to understanding.

What is fascinating about the subject of homosexual acceptability is that it is as old as the practice itself. Different eras have witnessed wildly different levels of social acceptability of overt homosexual practices. Famously, the ancient greeks accepted it, even adorning pottery with homosexual pornography. The Romans went back and forth on the issue. But social acceptability of homosexuality has never quite reached escape velocity sufficient to put it into the high orbit of permanent social acceptance; eventually, that temporary acceptability has always crashed back to earth. It is a commonplace today, in certain circles in certain countries, to hope and loudly proclaim that, finally, escape velocity has been attained. Has it?

A clue lies in the historical ebb and flow that homosexuality has experienced in gaining wide spread social acceptance. The source of the flow is clear enough: the self interest of homosexuals. But so is the source of the historical ebbs: action is followed by reaction in social matters as surely as in physical ones. In times past it seemed like a good idea to burn witches or heretics; perverse behavior is difficult to sustain as a new generation comes of age and chooses to accept or reject the various components of their parents' legacy.

And why is perverse behavior unlikely to find long term acceptance? For the same reason that this CEO lost his job. For all the bleating of some to the contrary, humans just dont much like diversity in their societies.

[Jingthing]

He quit. He wasn't forced out.

http://www.theawl.com/2014/04/gays-assassinate-ceo

And now the gays are being blamed for their pesky "interference" in this important company. And we're getting straightsplained about how we "politicized" Mozilla. Why did we do this terrible thing! Why did we "shoot" one of "the good ones," in the classic language of Dave Winer? Yes, and why did we make those board members go away? How can we want to live in a society where people with despicable views won't defend them long enough to make the situation better, and instead, huff off, quit their jobs and apparently delete their Twitter accounts? One minute Eich was blogging about how he'd show everyone that he could deal with a complicated situation, celebrate diversity and the company, and ensure that everyone could trust in his leadership. Eight days later, his willingness to see that process through had apparently evaporated. Mozilla politicized Mozilla. And the gays didn't make Eich quit. He didn't want to do the actual work. He flounced.

Edited April 4, 2014 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

So. This buffoonish company claims that its "organisational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness" and then forces out its most high profile employee because his views are too diverse to be included. To be blind to irony is be blind to understanding.

What is fascinating about the subject of homosexual acceptability is that it is as old as the practice itself. Different eras have witnessed wildly different levels of social acceptability of overt homosexual practices. Famously, the ancient greeks accepted it, even adorning pottery with homosexual pornography. The Romans went back and forth on the issue. But social acceptability of homosexuality has never quite reached escape velocity sufficient to put it into the high orbit of permanent social acceptance; eventually, that temporary acceptability has always crashed back to earth. It is a commonplace today, in certain circles in certain countries, to hope and loudly proclaim that, finally, escape velocity has been attained. Has it?

A clue lies in the historical ebb and flow that homosexuality has experienced in gaining wide spread social acceptance. The source of the flow is clear enough: the self interest of homosexuals. But so is the source of the historical ebbs: action is followed by reaction in social matters as surely as in physical ones. In times past it seemed like a good idea to burn witches or heretics; perverse behavior is difficult to sustain as a new generation comes of age and chooses to accept or reject the various components of their parents' legacy.

And why is perverse behavior unlikely to find long term acceptance? For the same reason that this CEO lost his job. For all the bleating of some to the contrary, humans just dont much like diversity in their societies.

It is true homosexual sex has always been with us in humans and many other animal species.

What you've got wrong is equating homosexuality in older cultures with the totally MODERN concept of GAY as a self identified POLITICAL identity group, on par with ethnicity, etc. The historical roots of this probably started in Germany well before the Nazis took power.

That's a huge difference in our era which you act doesn't exist, when actually it is has been hugely important in the global gay civil rights movement.

Gay people aren't SEX ACTS. They are people.

The ancient Greeks who yes celebrated the love of what would currently be called underage youth which is very taboo today, were not gay men in the modern sense. Sex between grown men of similar ages was NOT part of their ideal culture, it happened but it was a strong taboo.

There have also been many cultures where third gender identity is a very accepted and even CELEBRATED part of the culture for ages (Thais might say ladyboys, Native Americans would say berdache two spirit people), but that is NOT the same thing as modern GAY identity, as that refers largely to gender identity rather than sexual orientation (gay men identify as MEN).

BTW. you like to throw around the word PERVERSE, don't you?

While I agree that nobody can predict the future, on the gay thing, we're at a new place in human history. In that sense, I seriously doubt the past in ancient cultures is any guide. That said, on a more micro level, there is indeed sometimes a backlash when social change is deemed too rapid or too threatening to the culture, such as has happened in Russia.

Edited April 4, 2014 by Jingthing

[sustento]

So if 4 guys go for a job, one is gay three are straight. The best all round candidate for the job who is subsequently chosen for his qualifications and all round experience is one of the straight guys. the other 2 straight guys, say 'sh*t" never mind on to the next interview, does the gay guy claim discrimination because he wasn't picked? Because that has happened. how do you identify discrimination against gays in terms of employment?

If he didn't get the job because he wasn't the best candidate then there's no problem. If they employed and then fired him because they subsequently found out he was gay then that's discrimination. Simple isn't it?

[gandalf12]

I must be living on the planet Zarg but I thought there was in the US a thing called freedom of speech! Even so to me, and I assume many others on TV, marriage is something that can as a result produce a child. I have yet to see two women a=or two men achieve that and I am referring to the natural process.

He is completely within his right to be against same sex marriage and I for one whole heatedly support his opinion

[hawker9000]

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.

'Just got done uninstalling Firefox from my PCs... And it'll stay uninstalled. The local policies on my PCs do not include political correctness.

[sustento]

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.

'Just got done uninstalling Firefox from my PCs... And it'll stay uninstalled. The local policies on my PCs do not include political correctness.

I'm sure that Mozilla will be devastated.

[hawker9000]

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.

'Just got done uninstalling Firefox from my PCs... And it'll stay uninstalled. The local policies on my PCs do not include political correctness.

I'm sure that Mozilla will be devastated.

Well, I doubt they'll be filing for a restraining order. But I do like your idea of keeping the discussion going so we can both help ensure as many people as possible get the word!

[GentlemanJim]

He quit. He wasn't forced out.

http://www.theawl.com/2014/04/gays-assassinate-ceo

And now the gays are being blamed for their pesky "interference" in this important company. And we're getting straightsplained about how we "politicized" Mozilla. Why did we do this terrible thing! Why did we "shoot" one of "the good ones," in the classic language of Dave Winer? Yes, and why did we make those board members go away? How can we want to live in a society where people with despicable views won't defend them long enough to make the situation better, and instead, huff off, quit their jobs and apparently delete their Twitter accounts? One minute Eich was blogging about how he'd show everyone that he could deal with a complicated situation, celebrate diversity and the company, and ensure that everyone could trust in his leadership. Eight days later, his willingness to see that process through had apparently evaporated. Mozilla politicized Mozilla. And the gays didn't make Eich quit. He didn't want to do the actual work. He flounced.

Jingthing

You say he quit, he wasn't forced out, yet you omit an important line that comes before the paragraph you quote above. A statement in the paragraph preceding the one you quote says

Employees asked Eich to step down.

That doesn't leave a guy who has just arrived much alternative now does it?

The other thing that is noticeable is the 'readers comments' everyone should have a look. Here we are with Jingthing demanding equal rights and tolerance when the gays who are commenting under the article on the website he points us to are displaying anything but tolerance and equal rights. If any member on here said any of the things the gays are saying about 'straights' on that site, then they would be banned or on holiday. I learned a new word. It seems that any member on the site who trys to condone equal rights for ALL is said to be 'straightsplainin'. I assume that is a kind of way of saying a heterosexual apologist.

This was a nice comment

there is a fundamental difference between someone in a public position (a CEO is the public face of in this case, a charitably supported organization) being ousted for beliefs incongruous with the org's mission and sexual minorities being hounded for their private lives. if you can't see the difference, you are likely suffering from a common cognitive deficiency known as "heterosexuality"

These are the people demanding equal rights, it's just they want their rights to be more equal than others. If that was the kind of attitude Eich was opposing in Prop 8 then I understand why he wanted to support it. So, most of us on here are considered to be cognitively deficient, but for Gods sake don't you say anything about gays, that would be bigoted. It reminds me a bit like it's ok for a black person to call another black person a n****r, but if a white person does it that is racist. God help my unborn Great Grand Children.

Thanks for sending us to the website Jingthing....Not!

[sustento]

The other thing that is noticeable is the 'readers comments' everyone should have a look. Here we are with Jingthing demanding equal rights and tolerance

You've got this slightly wrong. We're not asking for equal rights and tolerance - we're asking for equal rights. We've been asking for tolerance since the day the world began but it doesn't seem to have worked so we just want equal rights. We don't want tolerance from Massa - we want the same treatment under the law as everyone else.

P.S. - any answer to post 38?

Edited April 4, 2014 by sustento

[sustento]

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.

'Just got done uninstalling Firefox from my PCs... And it'll stay uninstalled. The local policies on my PCs do not include political correctness.

I'm sure that Mozilla will be devastated.

Well, I doubt they'll be filing for a restraining order. But I do like your idea of keeping the discussion going so we can both help ensure as many people as possible get the word!

And the word is that everyone deserves equal treatment under the law!

[hawker9000]

'Just got done uninstalling Firefox from my PCs... And it'll stay uninstalled. The local policies on my PCs do not include political correctness.

I'm sure that Mozilla will be devastated.

Well, I doubt they'll be filing for a restraining order. But I do like your idea of keeping the discussion going so we can both help ensure as many people as possible get the word!

And the word is that everyone deserves equal treatment under the law!

Yeap - including those who might disagree with advocates of "gay marriage".

Edited April 4, 2014 by hawker9000

[Jingthing]

Yeap - including those who might disagree with advocates of "gay marriage".

There was nothing illegal about his speech or his donation. He didn't resign because he did something illegal. Nobody said he did anything illegal. His rights of free speech are fully protected under the U.S. constitution.

Since when can underlings of a C.E.O. "force" a C.E.O. to resign? Like, never. For personal reasons, he decided he didn't fit at this company. If it had been at most other U.S. companies, he probably would have made a different decision. Of course politics is a factor ... companies have cultures ... and generally Silicon Valley type companies are socially liberal.

Edited April 4, 2014 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

I must be living on the planet Zarg but I thought there was in the US a thing called freedom of speech! Even so to me, and I assume many others on TV, marriage is something that can as a result produce a child. I have yet to see two women a=or two men achieve that and I am referring to the natural process.

He is completely within his right to be against same sex marriage and I for one whole heatedly support his opinion

Where in the world is proven FERTILITY required for a couple to legally marry? I agree he is completely in his right to oppose marriage equality just as he would be completely in his right to support banning interracial marriages. But both represent totally unfair discrimination against a class of citizens, in other words, against the best ideals of American values, not yet fully realized.

[hawker9000]

Yeap - including those who might disagree with advocates of "gay marriage".

There was nothing illegal about his speech or his donation. He didn't resign because he did something illegal. Nobody said he did anything illegal. His rights of free speech are fully protected under the U.S. constitution.

Since when can underlings of a C.E.O. "force" a C.E.O. to resign? Like, never. For personal reasons, he decided he didn't fit at this company. If it had been at most other U.S. companies, he probably would have made a different decision. Of course politics is a factor ... companies have cultures ... and generally Silicon Valley type companies are socially liberal.

Oh, OK. So if the "culture of the company" happens to be anti-gay, anti-black, anti-female, anti-liberal, or anti-union, it's OK with you if an employee of THAT company who is gay, black, female, liberal or pro-union is shamed or intimidated or hounded or "discomforted" into leaving? No, you KNOW you'd be saying the "culture" has to change! C'mon - quit with your game-playing. This is about this guy's right to speak (and contribute his own money) politically, AND be CEO of the company he helped create where others in the company were undeniably free to not share and did not happen to share his views. Period. It's such an atrocity for successful people (who don't enjoy ties to the left) to be perceived "intolerant" of something, but gays, muslims, ethnic minorities, and leftists generally can (and do) refuse to tolerate whatever they want whenever they want and at any cost to others! This CEO was purely, simply, and obviously NOT tolerated!!

Everybody, I mean EVERYBODY, KNOWS (!) it's a clear double-standard, but it works in your favor, so, hey, life is good!

What goes around, pal...

Edited April 5, 2014 by hawker9000

[RuamRudy]

Oh, OK. So if the "culture of the company" happens to be anti-gay, anti-black, anti-female, anti-liberal, or anti-union, it's OK with you if an employee of THAT company who is gay, black, female, liberal or pro-union is shamed or intimidated or hounded or "discomforted" into leaving? No, you KNOW you'd be saying the "culture" has to change! C'mon - quit with your game-playing. This is about this guy's right to speak (and contribute his own money) politically, AND be CEO of the company he helped create where others in the company were undeniably free to not share and did not happen to share his views. Period. It's such an atrocity for successful people (who don't enjoy ties to the left) to be perceived "intolerant" of something, but gays, muslims, ethnic minorities, and leftists generally can (and do) refuse to tolerate whatever they want whenever they want and at any cost to others! This CEO was purely, simply, and obviously NOT tolerated!!

Everybody, I mean EVERYBODY, KNOWS (!) it's a clear double-standard, but it works in your favor, so, hey, life is good!

What goes around, pal...

I think your prejudice is blinding you from the basic facts.

This is wholly NOT about a man who held views and was persecuted because of them. This is about the figurehead of a major tech company who actively supported and financially contributed to an organisation that aims to discriminate against a sector of society. By supporting that organisation, we has, de facto, stating that he supported said discrimination. His company felt that this would be perceived poorly by the majority of people so he had to go – I presume that their steering committee is more in touch with how the general populous feels than you are.

If he contributed to the KKK, would he still be the right man for the job?

Much has been written on this thread about the ‘gay mafia’ and the ‘gay agenda’. Sure there are militant persons who take things to extremes, but every single facet of society has its extremist elements. They do not define a people, but show the outer fringes of it. It does not take too much intelligence to discern the reality from the noise – or does it?

[Scott]

An inflammatory post has been removed. Please use the proper username when referring to other posters. Derogatory terms are against the forum rules.

[hawker9000]

@RuamRudy: I think you're the one blinded by a form of prejudice called intolerance. He wasn't contributing to the KKK. Lol. Nice try. It was a proposition that actually appeared on the ballot, and actually PASSED! And for supporting that, he had to go. And I think a real awareness of this intolerance is becoming more widespread and generating a certain amount of anger & resentment. Those who oppose things like gay marriage (which was 52% of CA voters for Prop 8 BTW -- 'not exactly a trivial number - and certainly many more throughout the US) won't appreciate being equated with the KKK. But the gay left keeps spewing that poison, just as you have now here, and I think it's gonna' cost ya' in the long run.

Edited April 5, 2014 by hawker9000

[RuamRudy]

@RR: I think you're the one blinded by a form of prejudice called intolerance. He wasn't contributing to the KKK. Lol. Nice try. It was a proposition that actually appeared on the ballot, and actually PASSED! And for supporting that, he had to go. And I think a real awareness of this intolerance is becoming more widespread and generating a certain amount of anger & resentment. Those who oppose things like gay marriage (which was 52% of CA voters for Prop 8 BTW -- 'not exactly a trivial number - and certainly many more throughout the US) won't appreciate being equated with the KKK. But the gay left keeps spewing that poison, just as you have now here, and I think it's gonna' cost ya' in the long run.

Genuine question - I don't want to cloud it with rhetoric or rant.

My understanding of the KKK is that they seek to repress those who do not meet their racial ideals; what is the difference between them and any other organisation which seeks to deny basic rights to a specific group of people? Why is one unacceptable and the other acceptable?

[hawker9000]

@RR: I think you're the one blinded by a form of prejudice called intolerance. He wasn't contributing to the KKK. Lol. Nice try. It was a proposition that actually appeared on the ballot, and actually PASSED! And for supporting that, he had to go. And I think a real awareness of this intolerance is becoming more widespread and generating a certain amount of anger & resentment. Those who oppose things like gay marriage (which was 52% of CA voters for Prop 8 BTW -- 'not exactly a trivial number - and certainly many more throughout the US) won't appreciate being equated with the KKK. But the gay left keeps spewing that poison, just as you have now here, and I think it's gonna' cost ya' in the long run.

Genuine question - I don't want to cloud it with rhetoric or rant.

My understanding of the KKK is that they seek to repress those who do not meet their racial ideals; what is the difference between them and any other organisation which seeks to deny basic rights to a specific group of people? Why is one unacceptable and the other acceptable?

OK, well, since you've descended to namecalling, I guess one good turn deserves another. If opponents of gay marriage can be hounded out of their livelihoods simply for their views & opinions, and compared to the KKK, then how are those doing the hounding and the labelling any different from the Nazis in terms of method?

I can remember a time when it was the gays who were being hounded out of their employment in exactly the same way gays are now finding it perfectly acceptable to hound out others who haven't the good sense to agree with them. The obvious, in-your-face, hypocrisy is just jaw-dropping.

[RuamRudy]

@RR: I think you're the one blinded by a form of prejudice called intolerance. He wasn't contributing to the KKK. Lol. Nice try. It was a proposition that actually appeared on the ballot, and actually PASSED! And for supporting that, he had to go. And I think a real awareness of this intolerance is becoming more widespread and generating a certain amount of anger & resentment. Those who oppose things like gay marriage (which was 52% of CA voters for Prop 8 BTW -- 'not exactly a trivial number - and certainly many more throughout the US) won't appreciate being equated with the KKK. But the gay left keeps spewing that poison, just as you have now here, and I think it's gonna' cost ya' in the long run.

Genuine question - I don't want to cloud it with rhetoric or rant.

My understanding of the KKK is that they seek to repress those who do not meet their racial ideals; what is the difference between them and any other organisation which seeks to deny basic rights to a specific group of people? Why is one unacceptable and the other acceptable?

OK, well, since you've descended to namecalling, I guess one good turn deserves another. If opponents of gay marriage can be hounded out of their livelihoods simply for their views & opinions, and compared to the KKK, then how are those doing the hounding and the labelling any different from the Nazis in terms of method?

I can remember a time when it was the gays who were being hounded out of their employment in exactly the same way gays are now finding it perfectly acceptable to hound out others who haven't the good sense to agree with them. The obvious, in-your-face, hypocrisy is just jaw-dropping.

Name calling? I am not quite sure where I did that, but I appreciate that different people have different sensibilities and if I offended yours then I offer my apologies.

Prejudice is prejudice, albeit with differing degrees of extremism. It would be an insult to the victims of the nazis to liken their experience to the denial of rights of homosexuals today. Similarly, I am not equating, on magnitude, the evils of the KKK with the anti-gay lobby of today. However the premise remains the same - one group of people working collectively to deny basic rights to another group.

Thankfully, in much of the world, freedom of expression is possible, and Mr. Eich is free to support whichever causes he feels are important to him. However, the board of Mozilla clearly saw that his views would resonate badly with many of their customers, so he had to go. If your views were shared by the majority of Mozilla customers, it is quite possible that he would still be there. But you are in the minority.

[jamhar]

This "CEO" let his personal views jeopardize the health of his company.

For that, he got what he deserved.

Just my 2 cents

[Ulysses G.]

This CEO contributed $1,000 in support of a law in 2008 that took the exact same position on gay marriage that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton espoused at the time. Forcing him to resign is absolutely ridiculous.

Edited April 5, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[RuamRudy]

This CEO contributed $1,000 in support of a law in 2008 that took the exact same position on gay marriage that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton espoused at the time. Forcing him to resign is absolutely ridiculous.

And a lot has changed in the 6 years since then. I am not sure about Hilary, but Obama has since shown enthusiastic support for equality laws. Possibly if Mr. Eich had done the same, he would still be in his job.

But think about it - why would Mozilla pander to a minority if they felt that the weight of public opinion was either with Mr. Eich or nonplussed? Clearly, they believe that society, on the whole, finds his views to be objectionable.

[GentlemanJim]

So if 4 guys go for a job, one is gay three are straight. The best all round candidate for the job who is subsequently chosen for his qualifications and all round experience is one of the straight guys. the other 2 straight guys, say 'sh*t" never mind on to the next interview, does the gay guy claim discrimination because he wasn't picked? Because that has happened. how do you identify discrimination against gays in terms of employment?

If he didn't get the job because he wasn't the best candidate then there's no problem. If they employed and then fired him because they subsequently found out he was gay then that's discrimination. Simple isn't it?

You've got this slightly wrong. We're not asking for equal rights and tolerance - we're asking for equal rights. We've been asking for tolerance since the day the world began but it doesn't seem to have worked so we just want equal rights. We don't want tolerance from Massa - we want the same treatment under the law as everyone else.

P.S. - any answer to post 38?

Your question was rhetoric, am I obliged to answer every post you write? Well if you must.

Yes, that part is simple, the best person gets the job. What puzzles me is when you say 'if the best person gets the job and then they subsequently fire him because he is gay. Considering the number of class actions in the US and the ridiculous amounts of money they reach, why would anybody fire someone because they are gay? They know they would be inviting trouble. They would not expose their prejudice. How about if the employee subsequently turns out to be inappropriate for the job or consistently under performs and the boss paying the salary thinks, no way do I want this clown on my payroll. The straight guy packs his desk and leaves, the gay guy now has an option, pack your desk and leave or claim discrimination for being gay. That is the reality of what happens. We have had it in the UK, not only with gays but also with black police officers claiming they never got the senior promotion they wanted because they were black. Nope it was just because they were not the best man for the job, but they play the discrimination card in order to reap a financial reward....and it works.

Whether you condone it or not is irrelevant, you know it happens. I personally know of a guy in the British Air Force who claimed to be gay several months before legislation came in legalising gays in the armed forces. He wasn't gay, he admitted it to me over a beer. He claimed to be gay so that he could get on the financial band wagon that he knew was coming. He claimed and received around $300K for sexual harassment. He was given the idea by his friend who was gay who told him he would be doing it as it was a dead cert. The result is positive discrimination. We have a Black Police Officers Federation in the Uk but it is racist to have a white police officers federation. We have a gay police officers federation but cannot have a heterosexual one. I really do not have an issue with any minority group, but I do have an issue with them when they start to encourage or demand positive discrimination. It is wrong.

So when the gay man is fired for being gay, how do you know he is being fired for being gay? That is not the reason the boss will give is it. The boss will give a reason that is entirely appropriate, such as lack of performance etc. The straight person can fight that decision in court or walk away because it is probably true. The gay person can fight that decision also but if the decision is true, he has the other angle he can push to make claim against the company and say "it's lies, they fired me because I am gay'. It is nonsense. You are making it up.

This "CEO" let his personal views jeopardize the health of his company.

For that, he got what he deserved.

Just my 2 cents

More nonsense by someone voicing an opinion when they have not taken the time to learn anything of the case or even read the thread. The man had only been CEO for 8 days. He made a silent donation 6 years ago. Your 2 cents is not worth 1 cent.

[GentlemanJim]

This CEO contributed $1,000 in support of a law in 2008 that took the exact same position on gay marriage that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton espoused at the time. Forcing him to resign is absolutely ridiculous.

And a lot has changed in the 6 years since then. I am not sure about Hilary, but Obama has since shown enthusiastic support for equality laws. Possibly if Mr. Eich had done the same, he would still be in his job.

But think about it - why would Mozilla pander to a minority if they felt that the weight of public opinion was either with Mr. Eich or nonplussed? Clearly, they believe that society, on the whole, finds his views to be objectionable.

And perhaps Mr Eich had changed his views also. On taking his appointment as CEO "Eich was blogging about how he'd show everyone that he could deal with a complicated situation, celebrate diversity and the company, and ensure that everyone could trust in his leadership". Wasn't Eich offering enthusiastic support just like Obama? oh no, lets drag up a $1000 donation 6 years ago and get him sacked from the job he would have excelled at, and make sure that so much s**t sticks to him he will never get a job again.

What I find objectionable are the views of the Executive Chairwoman. 10 days earlier she had picked the man for the job of CEO. After 8 days in post because she feared a backlash that may cost some money she turned her back on the man that helped bring the company into existence. Nice.

Edited April 5, 2014 by GentlemanJim