Mozilla chief resigns over same-sex marriage controversy

[GentlemanJim]

I haven't used Firefox for years! "You were all" , where do you get this stuff, dude? Gays are not a monolith.

Give it a rest? Apparently masses of vicious homophobes are posting hate speech quite unrest-fully on the Mozilla site. Just reporting the truth. Hopefully, that can be handled.

What does "Gays are not a monolith" mean?

I am not a 'dude' and at your age it is a slightly silly word to be using isn't it?

"Apparently, masses of vicious homophobes" well I read the text you quoted and visited the site and see no evidence in either of 'masses of vicious homophobes', but you say 'apparently' with absolutely no justification for doing so, other than some 'hetrophobic' drama' speech.

[Jingthing]

Gay are not this:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monolith

Monolith:

a very large and powerful organization that acts as a single unit

The Big Gay Mafia boss doesn't say Gays use Firefox or Gays uninstall Firefox and "all" the gays do this or do that. It just doesn't work that way.

The Advocate article speaks for itself. It's pretty filthy, sorry, that's how homophobes talk.

[jamhar]

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.

I dont know what one has to do with the other. One is a popularity contest for votes, the other is business. If you jeopardize the bottom line as a CEO with no upside, you're out. You can debate it if you want. You cant debate the bottom line. (alto a good accountant can fudge 555)

PS, Nice go steering this topic lol. I didnt see that one coming!

[Ulysses G.]

I dont know what one has to do with the other.

Then maybe you should Google "The First Amendment" and proceed from there.

[Ulysses G.]

Gay are not this:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monolith

Monolith:

a very large and powerful organization that acts as a single unit[/size]

In America, gay political activists come pretty darn close to it.

[Credo]

Nobody has infringed on his rights. He resigned. He was not fired. Remaining might have been uncomfortable for him, but he would not have been fired. Firing him would have gotten into some major legal battles and the biggest winner would have been the lawyers followed by Eich. The loser would have been Mozilla.

I am sure his severance package will more than make up for any discomfort he may experience.

[RuamRudy]

Gay are not this:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monolith

Monolith:

a very large and powerful organization that acts as a single unit[/size]

In America, gay political activists come pretty darn close to it.

Disparate people with similar aims find greater traction when working together - hardly unique and hardly the illuminati.

[Ulysses G.]

Remaining might have been uncomfortable for him, but he would not have been fired.

Sounds like an opinion. You have no way of knowing that other than conjecture.

[Credo]

The article clearly says he resigned. That's not an opinion.

[chuckd]

The article clearly says he resigned. That's not an opinion.

"...but he would not have been fired."

Unless you have some direct contact with the Mozilla Board of Directors, I would surmise this part of your statement IS opinion.

[Goat Roper]

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.

I totally agree on so-called same sex marriages. I don't give a crap if someone marries their boyfriend, dog, or a two headed Unicorn, it means nothing to me. But when the Gay community starts dictating to me how I must be PC on the issue is where it stops with me. Go about your business but leave me to hell alone.

[Credo]

The article clearly says he resigned. That's not an opinion.

"...but he would not have been fired."

Unless you have some direct contact with the Mozilla Board of Directors, I would surmise this part of your statement IS opinion.

You, along with a lot of other people seem to have trouble reading, or perhaps comprehending. The OP says he resigned. Nothing about being fired, nothing about being threatened to be fired in the OP. The article also says he donated thousands, not a thousand dollars.

[GentlemanJim]

The article clearly says he resigned. That's not an opinion.

"...but he would not have been fired."

Unless you have some direct contact with the Mozilla Board of Directors, I would surmise this part of your statement IS opinion.

You, along with a lot of other people seem to have trouble reading, or perhaps comprehending. The OP says he resigned. Nothing about being fired, nothing about being threatened to be fired in the OP. The article also says he donated thousands, not a thousand dollars.

You also seem to have trouble reading or perhaps comprehending.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-26868536

My underline.

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.

Not much of a commitment or a political statement from a man worth many many millions. More a case of tossing in some loose change when someone was passing the hat around.

What I find most disturbing about this entire story is that for the first time since I joined I find myself agreeing with every post made by Ulysses G!

[sustento]

I dont know what one has to do with the other.

Then maybe you should Google "The First Amendment" and proceed from there.

"The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights."

The First Amendment has nothing at all to do with the way a business decides to treat its workforce.

[Credo]

Well, I read the OP on this thread. I didn't read the BBC report. The OP says thousands, with an 's'. So my reading and comprehension is fine. But a brief review of a few other links also show that the name Mozilla also appeared next to his name along with the donation.

http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/28/after-supporting-prop-8-brendan-eich-comes-under-fire-from-mozilla-employees-upon-ceo-appointment/

Another review shows that he has supported other anti-gay causes. There were 3 other high level executives who resigned once Eich was appointed because of his support for anti-gay causes.

There was no hint of an apology on his part, either.

I personally don't care much about him or his politics. I don't pay much attention to these things when I open a browser. But, just to be clear, he is far from being persecuted and it wasn't just a matter of him expressing an opinion he disagreed with, it was a matter of him acting on that opinion. There is a difference.

[Ulysses G.]

I dont know what one has to do with the other.

Then maybe you should Google "The First Amendment" and proceed from there.

"The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights."

The First Amendment has nothing at all to do with the way a business decides to treat its workforce.

Maybe you overlooked the freedom of speech part.

[Ulysses G.]

What I find most disturbing about this entire story is that for the first time since I joined I find myself agreeing with every post made by Ulysses G!

I had the same thought, except backwards.

[sustento]

I dont know what one has to do with the other.

Then maybe you should Google "The First Amendment" and proceed from there.

"The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights."

The First Amendment has nothing at all to do with the way a business decides to treat its workforce.

Maybe you overlooked the freedom of speech part.

Maybe you overlooked the fact that the First Amendment deals with the way that the Government interacts with its citizens not the way that private corporations deal with their employees. Mozilla is not part of the Federal, State or local government and is not subject to the First Amendment.

[chuckd]

The article clearly says he resigned. That's not an opinion.

"...but he would not have been fired."

Unless you have some direct contact with the Mozilla Board of Directors, I would surmise this part of your statement IS opinion.

You, along with a lot of other people seem to have trouble reading, or perhaps comprehending. The OP says he resigned. Nothing about being fired, nothing about being threatened to be fired in the OP. The article also says he donated thousands, not a thousand dollars.

Talk about comprehension...here is what you said in a post #157, which I only partially quoted:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

" Remaining might have been uncomfortable for him, but he would not have been fired."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I still stand behind my statement that the last part of your quoted sentence IS your opinion.

How can you possibly say what the Board of Directors was planning unless you have some insight. In other words, it is your opinion that he would NOT have been fired.

[Credo]

It seems that you can't discuss the topic, so instead you decide to pick apart posts and read more into them than is there.

Fact: He resigned.

No where does it say there was any attempt to force him to leave. I also said that if they had tried to fired him, the big winner would be the lawyers.

Not only did he donate money, but the company name appeared next to his name.

[Scott]

An off-topic post containing profanity was removed.

[Jingthing]

What if it had been revealed that some CEO had donated to a campaign that had successfully nullified the marriages of STRAIGHT PEOPLE? Broken up LEGAL established families of STRAIGHT people. People would just ignore that, do you think? Prop 8 wasn't only anti-gay marriage, it was designed to actively TAKE AWAY the marriages of people who were already married.

Absurd! Outrageous! That could never happen!

Dudes and dudesses, Prop. 8 should have never happened either ... and some decades down the line that it DID ever happen will seem just as absurd and outrageous.

[casualposter]

What if it had been revealed that some CEO had donated to a campaign that had successfully nullified the marriages of STRAIGHT PEOPLE? Broken up LEGAL established families of STRAIGHT people. People would just ignore that, do you think?

People would just ignore that, do you think?

They would. They'd just laugh at him. They'd do so because he was wrong.

You're way too sensitive.

In England we have a famous poof called Elton John. Everyone loves him. Everyone accepts that he has married his boyfriend. No one cares about his homosexuality. People just accept him.

JT -- you're obviously a poof. What you fail to understand is that you're accepted and welcomed to a far greater extent than you imagine.

England accepts poofs and has done so for years. Ever heard of Boy George?

We had problems in the past. I'm sure you know about Quentin Crisp and Oscar Wilde.

But that's all in the past.

Have a great day tomorrow, Mr JT.

[Jingthing]

What if it had been revealed that some CEO had donated to a campaign that had successfully nullified the marriages of STRAIGHT PEOPLE? Broken up LEGAL established families of STRAIGHT people. People would just ignore that, do you think?

People would just ignore that, do you think?

They would. They'd just laugh at him. They'd do so because he was wrong.

You're way too sensitive.

In England we have a famous poof called Elton John. Everyone loves him. Everyone accepts that he has married his boyfriend. No one cares about his homosexuality. People just accept him.

JT -- you're obviously a poof. What you fail to understand is that you're accepted and welcomed to a far greater extent than you imagine.

England accepts poofs and has done so for years. Ever heard of Boy George?

We had problems in the past. I'm sure you know about Quentin Crisp and Oscar Wilde.

But that's all in the past.

Have a great day tomorrow, Mr JT.

Nobody who had their existing established legal marriages annulled by a proposition of hatred and unfair discrimination based on sexual orientation would ignore and laugh. You sir with your slur word obviously don't understand what Proposition 8 was about. It passed and the existing marriages were indeed made illegal. Happily this disgusting injustice was later reversed, but the history remains, Prop 8 was a mean spirited and bigoted proposition designed to strip away legal family relationships that already existed, just because the people were gay.

Bottom line -- for people who don't "agree with" or "support" marriage equality for gay people, just don't get gay married. Sorted.

[casualposter]

What if it had been revealed that some CEO had donated to a campaign that had successfully nullified the marriages of STRAIGHT PEOPLE? Broken up LEGAL established families of STRAIGHT people. People would just ignore that, do you think?

People would just ignore that, do you think?

They would. They'd just laugh at him. They'd do so because he was wrong.

You're way too sensitive.

In England we have a famous poof called Elton John. Everyone loves him. Everyone accepts that he has married his boyfriend. No one cares about his homosexuality. People just accept him.

JT -- you're obviously a poof. What you fail to understand is that you're accepted and welcomed to a far greater extent than you imagine.

England accepts poofs and has done so for years. Ever heard of Boy George?

We had problems in the past. I'm sure you know about Quentin Crisp and Oscar Wilde.

But that's all in the past.

Have a great day tomorrow, Mr JT.

Nobody who had their existing established legal marriages annulled by a proposition of hatred and unfair discrimination based on sexual orientation would ignore and laugh. You sir with your slur word obviously don't understand what Proposition 8 was about. It passed and the existing marriages were indeed made illegal. Happily this disgusting injustice was later reversed, but the history remains, Prop 8 was a mean spirited and bigoted proposition designed to strip away legal family relationships that already existed, just because the people were gay.

Bottom line -- for people who don't "agree with" or "support" marriage equality for gay people, just don't get gay married. Sorted.

Prop 8 was a mean spirited and bigoted proposition designed to strip away legal family relationships that already existed

And Prop 8 is gone. Per Wikipedia:

Proposition 8 was also ultimately ruled unconstitutional by a federal court (on different grounds) in 2010, although only confirmed on June 26, 2013 following the conclusion of proponents' appeals.

Why not just laugh at this stupidity?

Better still, why not try to understand the underlying cause of this stupidity.

[Jingthing]

On your personal comments, yes I am quite aware now in the USA a slim majority of Americans now supports marriage equality and even more full non-marriage related civil rights for gay Americans. But the decades long gay civil rights movement continues and is nowhere near completed ... as right now the majority of U.S. states do not allow marriage equality and bigoted discrimination only based on sexual orientation in important matters such as employment and housing remains legal in many states as well. All of that needs to be fixed. It takes time.

Also, no. I do not believe supporting "purges" of people like Eich will be at all helpful in speeding this up.

BTW. It says a lot that you think it's OK to use that slur word here. That shows total disrespect. I seriously doubt you would feel emboldened to use a racial slur word here. Yeah, I can guess your reaction to that comment ... why don't you just laugh? Ha. Ha. Ha.

[casualposter]

On your personal comments, yes I am quite aware now in the USA a slim majority of Americans now supports marriage equality and even more full civil rights for gay Americans. But the civil rights movement continues ... right now the majority of U.S. states do not allow marriage equality and bigoted discrimination only based on sexual orientation in important matters such as employment and housing remains legal in many states as well. All of that needs to be fixed. It takes time. Also, no. I do not believe supporting "purges" of people like Eich will be at all helpful in speeding this up.

I am quite aware now in the USA a slim majority of Americans now supports marriage equality and even more full civil rights for gay Americans

The "slim majority" you refer to is less slim in many European countries. I think England is way ahead in terms of tolerance and civil rights.

All of that needs to be fixed. It takes time

Agreed 100%. The trial of Oscar Wilde was an abomination.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Wilde

I guess you guys in the States still have the Bible bashers to contend with. That'll be tough. The religious lobby is generously funded and well orchestrated.

Like you said, it takes time.

[Jingthing]

Each country is at a different place on these issues. The progress in the USA has actually already been much faster than most would have ever predicted. This Eich thing, whatever it is, will be hardly a footnote in the big picture. There will still be plenty of setbacks (recently in Mississippi) but the direction towards civil rights equality is clear at least in the USA.

[casualposter]

Each country is at a different place on these issues. The progress in the USA has actually already been much faster than most would have ever predicted. This Eich thing, whatever it is, will be hardly a footnote in the big picture. There will still be plenty of setbacks (recently in Mississippi) but the direction towards civil rights equality is clear at least in the USA.

This Eich thing, whatever it is, will be hardly a footnote in the big picture

I'm not so sure.

I think this "Eich thing" may have some serious repercussions.

I think some of you guys may experience a fair amount of homophobic backlash.

[Jingthing]

I think you're wrong. The people voicing the backlash were ALREADY enemies of civil rights for gay people. There's a certain percentage that will never be decent on this issue (and most of them are OLDER people). Also you say you're not American so maybe you don't know -- stories like this have a life of ONE WEEK ... max. The counter gay rights movement was already focused on this reverse discrimination garbage ... it's ridiculous, how can a tiny minority group that doesn't enjoy first class citizenship rights be any kind of real threat to the majority?