Mozilla chief resigns over same-sex marriage controversy

[Jingthing]

My bold

Why not. If everyone consents then go for it. Personally I have enough trouble with one wife so 7 or 8 would drive me nuts. Make sure the same legislation applies to straights and gays though!

Looking on the bright side I have often thought the term 'circle jerk' to be rather vulgar but now the people that engage in such activities could perhaps consider calling it a 'Mozilla', there bye remembering for ever how the Gay community got one over on Mr Eich and having a neat name for a rather dreadful activity. It will mean much more to the gay community in San Francisco I am sure.

Oh do get over yourself. You expect us to sit there and have 'tolerance' for the point of view of vile creatures like Fred Phelps (gone to heaven at last TF) yet you get your panties in a knot when a few poofs kick back? Here's the juice Jim. We tried tolerance. It didn't work. We aren't interested in tolerance any more Bwana. Too late!

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.

So here is the question Jingthing. Explain why do you not object when a Gay uses the 'slur' word but you object when a straight does? You display positive discrimination, intolerance and wanting to be 'more' equal than others and you wonder why people object to your drama queen arguments. Gays would have zero issues Jingthing if people like you would stop portraying them in an intolerant, bigoted light.

How absurd. The lack of legal equality under the law for American gays is an OBJECTIVE reality. You're blaming the discriminated against for being discriminated against? That's a familiar argument of people rationalizing crappy treatment of unpopular minority groups of many kinds. Your demanding "special rights" meme is a CLASSIC tactic of anti-gay political forces. It's loaded garbage seeking to demonize gay people. Gays are only seeking EQUAL rights. Your posts are extremely insulting and even personally abusive. You project yourself as pro gay rights. How anyone can actually believe that beggars belief. Stop calling me a drama queen. While the phrase has different usages, in this context of a discussion of gay civil rights, your usage is definitely at the level of a gay related slur.

Edited April 8, 2014 by Jingthing

[hawker9000]

<sigh> I guess I'd better enjoy my chic-fil-a now while I can... I expect they're already in the crosshairs, and will be a "footnote", too, in the not too distant future.

[Jingthing]

<sigh> I guess I'd better enjoy my chic-fil-a now while I can... I expect they're already in the crosshairs, and will be a "footnote", too, in the not too distant future.

They're doing fine. Don't worry. Eat your junk food. If gays are such a threatening monolith (they're not) then why did the most important gay civil rights lobbying group HRC not even comment on the Eich affair until he was gone? Gays as a monolith did not force anything. Whatever happened there was a process that happened within that specific corporation.

You know, it's obvious, those expressing backlash over the Eich affair are the SAME people that were ALREADY not supportive of gay civil rights.

Edited April 8, 2014 by Jingthing

[hawker9000]

<sigh> I guess I'd better enjoy my chic-fil-a now while I can... I expect they're already in the crosshairs, and will be a "footnote", too, in the not too distant future.

They're doing fine. Don't worry. Eat your junk food. If gays are such a threatening monolith (they're not) then why did the most important gay civil rights lobbying group HRC not even comment on the Eich affair until he was gone? Gays as a monolith did not force anything. Whatever happened there was a process that happened within that specific corporation.

You know, it's obvious, those expressing backlash over the Eich affair are the SAME people that were ALREADY not supportive of gay civil rights.

No, it's not obvious. Support your statement.

[Jingthing]

<sigh> I guess I'd better enjoy my chic-fil-a now while I can... I expect they're already in the crosshairs, and will be a "footnote", too, in the not too distant future.

They're doing fine. Don't worry. Eat your junk food. If gays are such a threatening monolith (they're not) then why did the most important gay civil rights lobbying group HRC not even comment on the Eich affair until he was gone? Gays as a monolith did not force anything. Whatever happened there was a process that happened within that specific corporation.

You know, it's obvious, those expressing backlash over the Eich affair are the SAME people that were ALREADY not supportive of gay civil rights.

No, it's not obvious. Support your statement.

It's my opinion. I don't believe there are many straight people who were pro gay civil rights who then saw the Eich story on the news and decided ... no, I don't want the gays to have equal rights under the law because of this one overblown incident at Mozilla. It's not logical. I have been pro black civil rights all my life. When Paula Dean got in trouble for racist stuff in the past, I didn't think DARN those blacks are taking this too far, I think I now support that they be discriminated against now.

Edited April 8, 2014 by Jingthing

[GentlemanJim]

*Deleted post edited out*

It is 100% related to the LAW. In the UK if a white person uses the N word to a black they WILL be arrested and get a criminal record. If a black uses it against a black, no problem. The LAW positively discriminates. THAT is why there is conflict between some people and minority groups.

I am twisting nothing, just as you deem some things acceptable between gays only, then some heterosexuals deem certain things acceptable between 'straights' only. You are guilty of continuing the vicious cycle of prejudice. Just stop it, it is easy.

Anyway I have no idea what the fuss is all about after all as the gays can now find out, Marriage is not a word..it's a sentence!

Edited April 8, 2014 by Scott

[Jingthing]

The fuss is to become first class citizens under the law. That's the fuss. Gay Americans aren't there yet and no, activists won't begin to rest until that standard is met. Marriage equality is only one part of that. There is much more, such as federal protection laws against employment discrimination based on LGBT status.

Edited April 8, 2014 by Jingthing

[GentlemanJim]

The fuss is to become first class citizens under the law. That's the fuss. Gay Americans aren't there yet and no, activists won't begin to rest until that standard is met. Marriage equality is only one part of that. There is much more, such as federal protection laws against employment discrimination based on LGBT status.

No, it is clear, you want a particular right of equality whilst not giving quarter to give others their right to equality. You have got it all so wrong Jingthing......Next!

[sustento]

If a black minority group person told me you are using language directed at me that I find racially insensitive so stop using it, I would just stop using it. End of. If I kept using it after such a request I would expect he would conclude I had some issues around race. If I heard a black person playing say the "N" word among black friends, I would think, that group is comfortable with each other. I wouldn't take that as an invitation to use that word myself. EVER. Cheers.

Of course some people can play games and say I don't see color, I don't see race, I don't see ethnicity, I don't see class distinctions, I don't see sexual orientation minority, blah blah ... pretty much always total BS. These things are social realities pretty much all over the world.

YOU want equality, start behaving like it.

Of course some people can play games and say I don't see color, I don't see race, I don't see ethnicity, I don't see class distinctions, I don't see sexual orientation minority, blah blah ... pretty much always total BS. These things are social realities pretty much all over the world.

It is not BS, you just have a wicked (as in not good) view of any person who disagrees with you. Some people really are like that Jingthing, they are genuinely good people, wouldn't you like to know what that is like? Why do you hate the world and everybody in it? It is WRONG for you to positively discriminate by using a word that is acceptable to call each other as Gays but unacceptable if a heterosexual says it, period. Just as it is wrong to discriminate in the use of the N word. It is either offensive or it is not.

You see just as you think it acceptable to use the 'P' word only between gays, some hetrosexuals think it is only acceptable that the marriage word should be used between 'straights', do you get that? You are just as wrong as them in your perception that something can only be right for one party of people. Accept it Jingthing, you are as bigoted and prejudiced as any right wing 'straight'.

I can't remember the last time I heard the 'marriage' word used as an insult. Perhaps you could provide us with an example?

[Scott]

A lot of off-topic posts and replies have been removed. Please stay on the topic which is about the Mozilla Chief resigning. It is not about words that can/can't be used or other posters.

Continue at your own peril.

[Jingthing]

The fuss is to become first class citizens under the law. That's the fuss. Gay Americans aren't there yet and no, activists won't begin to rest until that standard is met. Marriage equality is only one part of that. There is much more, such as federal protection laws against employment discrimination based on LGBT status.

No, it is clear, you want a particular right of equality whilst not giving quarter to give others their right to equality. You have got it all so wrong Jingthing......Next!

No, I want equal civil rights under the law for all citizens.

Eich has the right to speak, the right to contribute, the right to marry, etc.

Edited April 8, 2014 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

His actions actually promoted removing civil rights of gay citizens. It won. They were stripped of existing marriages. His action didn't sit well with the culture at Mozilla. It was Mozilla business how to deal with that (or not) the same as if he had done a similar offensive action against black people or another minority group.

Edited April 8, 2014 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

You know, it's obvious, those expressing backlash over the Eich affair are the SAME people that were ALREADY not supportive of gay civil rights.

Wrong. I lived in San Francisco for many years and have been in protests supporting gay rights and civil partnerships. What I am against is changing the traditional definition of marriage and, IMO, changing the traditional definition of marriage has nothing to do with civil rights. The whole concept of "marriage equality" is just left wing spin.

[Jingthing]

You know, it's obvious, those expressing backlash over the Eich affair are the SAME people that were ALREADY not supportive of gay civil rights.

Wrong. I lived in San Francisco for many years and have been in protests supporting gay rights and civil partnerships. What I am against is changing the traditional definition of marriage and, IMO, changing the traditional definition of marriage has nothing to do with civil rights. The whole concept "marriage equality" is just left wing spin.

That's spin. You opposed marriage equality before Eich and still do. 100 percent support is never needed for social change and never possible.

Now in US history opposing marriage equality is socially acceptable. 30 years from now after 50 state marriage equality has been in effect for 20 years or so it won't be. Then it will be an attack on the basic human rights of millions of American families, existing families, families of gay Americans. Proposition 8 was an especially hateful proposition because it sought to take away the rights that were already granted.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Edited April 9, 2014 by Jingthing

[RuamRudy]

You know, it's obvious, those expressing backlash over the Eich affair are the SAME people that were ALREADY not supportive of gay civil rights.

Wrong. I lived in San Francisco for many years and have been in protests supporting gay rights and civil partnerships. What I am against is changing the traditional definition of marriage and, IMO, changing the traditional definition of marriage has nothing to do with civil rights. The whole concept of "marriage equality" is just left wing spin.

Why are you against it? What is wrong with out of date, repressive traditions being swept away?

[hawker9000]

You know, it's obvious, those expressing backlash over the Eich affair are the SAME people that were ALREADY not supportive of gay civil rights.

Wrong. I lived in San Francisco for many years and have been in protests supporting gay rights and civil partnerships. What I am against is changing the traditional definition of marriage and, IMO, changing the traditional definition of marriage has nothing to do with civil rights. The whole concept of "marriage equality" is just left wing spin.

That's spin. You opposed marriage equality before Eich and still do. 100 percent support is never needed for social.change and never possible.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

You're telling another poster that he was already not supportive of gay civil rights even though he says he participated in protests FOR gay rights, INCLUDING civil partnerships, while YOU dispute free speech rights in the workplace actually calling them an assault on rights. So in other words, everyone else's free speech stops where what you call YOUR rights start?! But what HE says is "SPIN"?!

And you said *I* was "blinded by prejudice"!!! Coming from you, that would be a compliment, as in, "sees through the intimidation". You should get past your heterophobic intolerance. A lot of people are ambivalent and apathetic (at worst) about gay rights, including SSM, but will get very stirred up when you now tell them they have to run their exercise of free speech through you for approval or risk their jobs.

What next? Will homebuyers be denied, or mortgages cancelled, if the loan company discovers they've contributed to an "unapproved" political cause?

Edited April 9, 2014 by hawker9000

[Jingthing]

...

What next? Will homebuyers be denied, or mortgages cancelled, if the loan company discovers they've contributed to an "unapproved" political cause?

What next? In a few years the expected and FINALLY decisive supreme court decision making discrimination against sexual minorities in marriage unconstitutional creating 50 state marriage equality. All of the decisions in the lower courts are pointing now to this inevitability. The supreme court was also where discriminating against interracial couples in marriage was made unconstitutional.

Free speech rights doesn't change.

Your rhetorical fear is over the top paranoia.

Do mortgage companies screen people for racist speech and actions now? Of course they don't.

As far as high profile people like CEOs they can say what they want freely, but they can't expect there to be no consequences.

A racist acting or speaking CEO right now would not be employable at that level either.

[SeaVisionBurma]

Off topic posts and replies quoting (including a flame) have been removed.

[Jingthing]

You know, it's obvious, those expressing backlash over the Eich affair are the SAME people that were ALREADY not supportive of gay civil rights.

Wrong. I lived in San Francisco for many years and have been in protests supporting gay rights and civil partnerships. What I am against is changing the traditional definition of marriage and, IMO, changing the traditional definition of marriage has nothing to do with civil rights. The whole concept of "marriage equality" is just left wing spin.

Why are you against it? What is wrong with out of date, repressive traditions being swept away?

He has every right to be against it. No problem at all. The fact that there are many Americans who share his opinion is not going to change the result. 50 state marriage equality is inevitable, it will be finally effected by the supreme court, and that will be that. Already a slim majority of Americans are in favor anyway, and a large majority among younger Americans -- the present and future, so yes this civil rights victory is inevitable now. Of course some people on the losing side are angry now. Some of them are exporting anti-gay rights rhetoric to foreign countries (Russia, African countries, etc.) now as they know they have lost this one in the USA.

As an aside -- civil unions were brought up. In the U.S. civil unions never had a visible path towards civil union nationalization that would provide same legal equality as marriage as well as full federal recognition as well. It wasn't really just about a word, it was about legal practicalities to get actually equality before 1000 years go by. Different countries are different countries, but the U.S. legal and legislative system is a specific thing and that path simply was not practical. At THIS POINT in history the civil debate is really over. Because marriage equality has already happened in several states and is now recognized federally. So at this point in the U.S. context, it's actual very dated and even QUAINT to support civil unions as an alternative. It's too late. It would be like suggesting people trade in their smart phones for these:

Edited April 9, 2014 by Jingthing

[cup-O-coffee]

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?

I think it is simply that I don't like things.

You don't like things.

These things keep us awake at night.

The man co-founded a very successful enterprise.

The man privately made a donation to a foundation, or whatever.

The IRS made that information public, and eventually some IRS people (hopefully all of those scum) will be in jail simply because it was wrong to target this man and make this information public..

The hounds of hell out there got a hold of this information and within hours made it public. Who knows, maybe a few calls were made? I don;t know. Do you? It played out too smoothly and swiftly to be a coincidence.

What do you do in private? Yes... YOU! What thoughts to you embrace in your mind? What would happen to your life if everything about you were made public?

How many Christians and other denomination pray every Sunday or Saturday for the poor, mislead gays? What offices do they hold? Who knows. On the other hand, how many gay or lesbian people pray that us stupid homophobes wake up one morning and embrace everything you say you want, but none of you can seem to agree on in any public forum? Not many, I suspect. I suspect that your prayer mats are non-existent, and rather that your guns are well oiled and the chambers ready for action. Anyways, that is the feeling I get when cannibalized by a fanatical gay person when I submit my personal views... as Brendon Eich has discovered. If it can happen to him... then who am I?

It's not about what the CEO of Mozilla thinks or leans towards. It's about the product he delivered.

When I install Mozilla products, there is not a check box asking me if I am gay or not, hence stopping the installation process if I check the "wrong" box.

Do I care that Barack Hussein Obama donated 1 billion dollars to the Muslim Brotherhood the other month? Yes... but that is another story. Should the American people demand that this man step down? HA! Go fish.

This event is really about what people do privately, and which gets revealed by outside sources that have access to our personal information, and they do this with impunity, and the damage is already done.

I warrant that most of the people I have a pint with would not want to have a pint with me were they privy to my personal beliefs and views, or the other way around..

It's not about gays or any other special interest group, but the manner in which it was exposed has made it into a heap of fodder for the gays and every other fanatical group to come out of the woodwork and espouse their agendas.

So spare me about your views on same-sex marriages at the cost of degrading a human being who did what he did on a personal and private level, yet that information got leaked.

I am not concerned about what he did in private... I am more concerned about how people take this illicitly leaked information and turn it into a crusade.

We're all guilty were our private and personal views to be leaked into the Ethernet, bar no one.

Bottom line... get over it, and personally, I am remiss if I do not say that I believe that the gay community has made a very viable enemy by crucifying an extremely intelligent and influential man with the kind of regard that, were it turned against the gay community, would snuff them out forthwith.

But... keep it up. Keep on kicking the sleeping giant. Of course, ...of course... you are right. You are misunderstood, and anyone who crosses your path needs to be "re-educated".

I laugh at the comedy of errors which will lead to more division rather than instead cohesiveness. You want change? Then leave a trail of facts and tolerance by your own will, rather than instead a trail of devastation of the lives of decent and productive human beings.

This is the kind of information that should have never ever been leaked, and I apply that to every single gay and lesbian person out there. Our privacy is our privacy, and we need to feel assured that what we do privately is secure and confidential, and not cannon fodder for other people's agendas.

Just my opinion on that...

Edited April 9, 2014 by cup-O-coffee

[Jingthing]

My impression is that contribution information to public political campaigns is NOT privacy protected. In fact, the opposite. That the lists are publicly released in a fully legal manner. That is an interesting related issue and relevant. Can someone provide a credible link about whether such political campaign contributions are legally supposed to be private or not?

Looking for an objective credible link about that side issue of publicity of contributors, not a LOADED likely biased source from any side.

Again, no I do not support any kind of political "purges" of visible public people over political views or contributions and I don't believe there is any "monolith" of "the gays" that supports this either.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Jingthing

[GentlemanJim]

My impression is that contribution information to public political campaigns is NOT privacy protected. In fact, the opposite. That the lists are publicly released in a fully legal manner. That is an interesting related issue and relevant. Can someone provide a credible link about whether such political campaign contributions are legally supposed to be private or not?

Looking for an objective credible link about that side issue of publicity of contributors, not a LOADED likely biased source from any side.

Again, no I do not support any kind of political "purges" of visible public people over political views or contributions and I don't believe there is any "monolith" of "the gays" that supports this either.

Jingthing

Any link to anything that does not agree with what you are spouting is always considered 'loaded' by you.

Cup-O-Coffee

Excellent post. I was hoping the person to whom it was aimed at would have answered it fully, but I guess we can hope.

Edited April 9, 2014 by GentlemanJim

[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?

I think it is simply that I don't like things.

You don't like things.

These things keep us awake at night.

The man co-founded a very successful enterprise.

The man privately made a donation to a foundation, or whatever.

The IRS made that information public, and eventually some IRS people (hopefully all of those scum) will be in jail simply because it was wrong to target this man and make this information public..

The hounds of hell out there got a hold of this information and within hours made it public. Who knows, maybe a few calls were made? I don;t know. Do you? It played out too smoothly and swiftly to be a coincidence.

What do you do in private? Yes... YOU! What thoughts to you embrace in your mind? What would happen to your life if everything about you were made public?

How many Christians and other denomination pray every Sunday or Saturday for the poor, mislead gays? What offices do they hold? Who knows. On the other hand, how many gay or lesbian people pray that us stupid homophobes wake up one morning and embrace everything you say you want, but none of you can seem to agree on in any public forum? Not many, I suspect. I suspect that your prayer mats are non-existent, and rather that your guns are well oiled and the chambers ready for action. Anyways, that is the feeling I get when cannibalized by a fanatical gay person when I submit my personal views... as Brendon Eich has discovered. If it can happen to him... then who am I?

It's not about what the CEO of Mozilla thinks or leans towards. It's about the product he delivered.

When I install Mozilla products, there is not a check box asking me if I am gay or not, hence stopping the installation process if I check the "wrong" box.

Do I care that Barack Hussein Obama donated 1 billion dollars to the Muslim Brotherhood the other month? Yes... but that is another story. Should the American people demand that this man step down? HA! Go fish.

This event is really about what people do privately, and which gets revealed by outside sources that have access to our personal information, and they do this with impunity, and the damage is already done.

I warrant that most of the people I have a pint with would not want to have a pint with me were they privy to my personal beliefs and views, or the other way around..

It's not about gays or any other special interest group, but the manner in which it was exposed has made it into a heap of fodder for the gays and every other fanatical group to come out of the woodwork and espouse their agendas.

So spare me about your views on same-sex marriages at the cost of degrading a human being who did what he did on a personal and private level, yet that information got leaked.

I am not concerned about what he did in private... I am more concerned about how people take this illicitly leaked information and turn it into a crusade.

We're all guilty were our private and personal views to be leaked into the Ethernet, bar no one.

Bottom line... get over it, and personally, I am remiss if I do not say that I believe that the gay community has made a very viable enemy by crucifying an extremely intelligent and influential man with the kind of regard that, were it turned against the gay community, would snuff them out forthwith.

But... keep it up. Keep on kicking the sleeping giant. Of course, ...of course... you are right. You are misunderstood, and anyone who crosses your path needs to be "re-educated".

I laugh at the comedy of errors which will lead to more division rather than instead cohesiveness. You want change? Then leave a trail of facts and tolerance by your own will, rather than instead a trail of devastation of the lives of decent and productive human beings.

This is the kind of information that should have never ever been leaked, and I apply that to every single gay and lesbian person out there. Our privacy is our privacy, and we need to feel assured that what we do privately is secure and confidential, and not cannon fodder for other people's agendas.

Just my opinion on that...

Wow - you seek to force your point with a wall of text? Please, succinct and to the point is appreciated.

You attribute a lot of positions to me - you can discern all that from my relatively few posts, most of which are, as I prefer, are no more than a few lines? Then, I am in awe.

[Jingthing]

I'd still like to see an objective link from a relatively neutral news source. Not a right wing blog. I'm quite curious. I just searched for this information and couldn't easily find it, so if anyone has, please do share. I certainly would not approve of illegally leaking such names if that was not legal! I am just not clear yet that it really was not legal. I would have thought that IF this name publishing was actually illegal, that aspect of the story would be more prominent in mainstream media. Maybe I haven't looked hard enough ... and again, yes I do think it is very relevant to the story in general.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Jingthing

[cup-O-coffee]

I'd still like to see an objective link from a relatively neutral news source. Not a right wing blog. I'm quite curious. I just searched for this information and couldn't easily find it, so if anyone has, please do share. I certainly would not approve of illegally leaking such names if that was not legal! I am just not clear yet that it really was not legal. I would have thought that IF this name publishing was actually illegal, that aspect of the story would be more prominent in mainstream media. Maybe I haven't looked hard enough ... and again, yes I do think it is very relevant to the story in general.

The rub is that any view not yours is what? Hence the rub. Respect JT. Keep on JT'ing

[Jingthing]

On this point of the legality of the contributors names being released it's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of objective fact. It's either legal or illegal. I don't know which. I'd like to know. Does anyone know who can provide evidence of this objective fact? Whether it SHOULD be illegal or not (whichever it is) now that is a matter where subjective opinion comes into play.

Note: I have no opinion whatsoever on whether the contributors name release is legal or not. I haven't really thought much about my OPINION about whether it should be privacy protected or not. Those are two separate matters.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Jingthing

[GentlemanJim]

On this point of the legality of the contributors names being released it's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of objective fact. It's either legal or illegal. I don't know which. I'd like to know. Does anyone know who can provide evidence of this objective fact? Whether it SHOULD be illegal or not (whichever it is) now that is a matter where subjective opinion comes into play.

Note: I have no opinion whatsoever on whether the contributors name release is legal or not. I haven't really thought much about my OPINION about whether it should be privacy protected or not. Those are two separate matters.

But even if the release of Eich's name was illegal and against some sort of data protection act, you will argue that if that is the case the law should be changed and it should be legal to release their names. You display enough of yourself on here for most of us to know that would be true.

[Jingthing]

On this point of the legality of the contributors names being released it's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of objective fact. It's either legal or illegal. I don't know which. I'd like to know. Does anyone know who can provide evidence of this objective fact? Whether it SHOULD be illegal or not (whichever it is) now that is a matter where subjective opinion comes into play.

Note: I have no opinion whatsoever on whether the contributors name release is legal or not. I haven't really thought much about my OPINION about whether it should be privacy protected or not. Those are two separate matters.

But even if the release of Eich's name was illegal and against some sort of data protection act, you will argue that if that is the case the law should be changed and it should be legal to release their names. You display enough of yourself on here for most of us to know that would be true.

I have said several times here clearly that I OPPOSE any kind of political purge of such contributors. Gays are not a monolith. Mozilla man became a PR problem at his company and his company tried to deal with it, which is their right as far as I can tell. The whole thing comes off as awkward and a PR disaster for Mozilla whatever action they took. Whatever they did, they kind of couldn't win, Now they'll have to rely on time passing and people moving on to the next overblown media controversy.

What I don't accept is right wing hotheads blaming all gays for what happened at Mozilla. That's totally unfair. It suggests gays are a monolith on a witch hunt to hurt everyone who doesn't support gay civil rights. Good red meat for right wing anti-gay types doesn't make it the truth, and it is NOT the truth.

Gay people are people. Some bad actors, some saints, and mostly just average folks. Wanting full first class citizenship as in full legal equality under the law should not be a threat to the majority.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Jingthing

[cup-O-coffee]

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?

I think it is simply that I don't like things.

You don't like things.

These things keep us awake at night.

The man co-founded a very successful enterprise.

The man privately made a donation to a foundation, or whatever.

The IRS made that information public, and eventually some IRS people (hopefully all of those scum) will be in jail simply because it was wrong to target this man and make this information public..

The hounds of hell out there got a hold of this information and within hours made it public. Who knows, maybe a few calls were made? I don;t know. Do you? It played out too smoothly and swiftly to be a coincidence.

What do you do in private? Yes... YOU! What thoughts to you embrace in your mind? What would happen to your life if everything about you were made public?

How many Christians and other denomination pray every Sunday or Saturday for the poor, mislead gays? What offices do they hold? Who knows. On the other hand, how many gay or lesbian people pray that us stupid homophobes wake up one morning and embrace everything you say you want, but none of you can seem to agree on in any public forum? Not many, I suspect. I suspect that your prayer mats are non-existent, and rather that your guns are well oiled and the chambers ready for action. Anyways, that is the feeling I get when cannibalized by a fanatical gay person when I submit my personal views... as Brendon Eich has discovered. If it can happen to him... then who am I?

It's not about what the CEO of Mozilla thinks or leans towards. It's about the product he delivered.

When I install Mozilla products, there is not a check box asking me if I am gay or not, hence stopping the installation process if I check the "wrong" box.

Do I care that Barack Hussein Obama donated 1 billion dollars to the Muslim Brotherhood the other month? Yes... but that is another story. Should the American people demand that this man step down? HA! Go fish.

This event is really about what people do privately, and which gets revealed by outside sources that have access to our personal information, and they do this with impunity, and the damage is already done.

I warrant that most of the people I have a pint with would not want to have a pint with me were they privy to my personal beliefs and views, or the other way around..

It's not about gays or any other special interest group, but the manner in which it was exposed has made it into a heap of fodder for the gays and every other fanatical group to come out of the woodwork and espouse their agendas.

So spare me about your views on same-sex marriages at the cost of degrading a human being who did what he did on a personal and private level, yet that information got leaked.

I am not concerned about what he did in private... I am more concerned about how people take this illicitly leaked information and turn it into a crusade.

We're all guilty were our private and personal views to be leaked into the Ethernet, bar no one.

Bottom line... get over it, and personally, I am remiss if I do not say that I believe that the gay community has made a very viable enemy by crucifying an extremely intelligent and influential man with the kind of regard that, were it turned against the gay community, would snuff them out forthwith.

But... keep it up. Keep on kicking the sleeping giant. Of course, ...of course... you are right. You are misunderstood, and anyone who crosses your path needs to be "re-educated".

I laugh at the comedy of errors which will lead to more division rather than instead cohesiveness. You want change? Then leave a trail of facts and tolerance by your own will, rather than instead a trail of devastation of the lives of decent and productive human beings.

This is the kind of information that should have never ever been leaked, and I apply that to every single gay and lesbian person out there. Our privacy is our privacy, and we need to feel assured that what we do privately is secure and confidential, and not cannon fodder for other people's agendas.

Just my opinion on that...

Wow - you seek to force your point with a wall of text? Please, succinct and to the point is appreciated.

You attribute a lot of positions to me - you can discern all that from my relatively few posts, most of which are, as I prefer, are no more than a few lines? Then, I am in awe.

No. I don't seek to force anything. I'll be any way I wish, as there seems to be no future in any attempt to satisfy the cavernous maws of you spinners.

You spinners are all about yourselves. I am merely here to voice my opinion. I don't dance with the Devil, nor do I enter into the realm of reason with spinners, of whom you all can't agree within your own inner sanctums, yet would really rather not let that information out into the open. Instead you simply spout out utterances with the reliability of a toll meter during rush hour. I would have better fortune to attempt interpersonal communication with a granite slab than to achieve anything resembling logical and respectable discussion with your ilk.

The harder you spinners endeavor, the more clear it becomes.

This man was done an injustice and deserves better.

[Jingthing]

...

This man was done an injustice and deserves better.

Well he wasn't fired, but if he feels that way, I suggest that he seeks legal means to seek satisfaction for any perceived injustices, if he feels the same way, which I don't know if he does because I don't think he has said any thing like that.