Mozilla chief resigns over same-sex marriage controversy

[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 success<deleted>l 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) re<deleted>se 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 success<deleted>l enterprise.

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

The IRS made that information public, and eventually some IRS people (hope<deleted>lly 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 <deleted>ture 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.

That is an improvement in terms of brevity, but you could still do better: all those unfounded accusations and you don't even know me. Well, you gave me a good laugh if nothing else.

Edited April 9, 2014 by RuamRudy

[sustento]

No. I don't seek to force anything. I'll be any way I wish, as there seems to be no <deleted>ture 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,

If you promise not to tell anyone I'll let you into a secret. We don't have an 'inner sanctum'. We are all individual people with individual opinions. Sometimes they coincide - sometimes they don't. Just like other individual people who are part of some sort of group if we feel we're being attacked we tend to forget our differences (many and varied though they are) and circle the wagons.

[Jingthing]

Some background on this recent "gay mafia" meme related to the Eich thingie.

Bill Maher, I love the guy and love his show REAL TIME, but I think his comment was made in the spirit of comedic entertainment, and by no means to be taken LITERALLY.

http://www.billmaher.com/

It will be interesting to see if Maher makes a followup comment about the gay mafia comment on his next week's show. He sometimes does that when his comments becomes part of news stories.

Last week, Bill Maher stirred the pot even more, suggesting that Eich's resignation was the result of pressure from a "gay mafia." Not surprisingly, Maher's remarks have since sparked heated social media debate -- and some lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights advocates say his words are ripe for misinterpretation.

"What happened in the Brendan Eich situation was actually not as a result of pressure that came from within the LGBT movement," said Freedom to Marry's John Becker, who's also a HuffPost Gay Voices blogger. Noting that Maher has been an outspoken ally to the LGBT community in the past, he added, "This is all about internal pressure from within the Mozilla community itself."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/08/brendan-eich-gay-mafia-_n_5111602.html

Edited April 9, 2014 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

I think that Maher meant it literally and I watched the show. He certainly has a point about many gay activists. It will be interesting to see if he backs down after the hoopla from his fans.

Edited April 10, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

I think that Maher meant it literally and I watched the show. He certainly has a point about many gay activists. It will be interesting to see if he backs down after the hoopla from his fans.

If he meant it literally, he's wrong.

[cup-O-coffee]

No. I don't seek to force anything. I'll be any way I wish, as there seems to be no <deleted>ture 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,

If you promise not to tell anyone I'll let you into a secret. We don't have an 'inner sanctum'. We are all individual people with individual opinions. Sometimes they coincide - sometimes they don't. Just like other individual people who are part of some sort of group if we feel we're being attacked we tend to forget our differences (many and varied though they are) and circle the wagons.

Curious! If being individual on this matter were true, as you state, then I surmise that you, yourself, would not abuse the pronoun "we", and instead properly use the pronoun "I", wouldn't you?

More spin?

[sustento]

No. I don't seek to force anything. I'll be any way I wish, as there seems to be no <deleted>ture 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,

If you promise not to tell anyone I'll let you into a secret. We don't have an 'inner sanctum'. We are all individual people with individual opinions. Sometimes they coincide - sometimes they don't. Just like other individual people who are part of some sort of group if we feel we're being attacked we tend to forget our differences (many and varied though they are) and circle the wagons.

Curious! If being individual on this matter were true, as you state, then I surmise that you, yourself, would not abuse the pronoun "we", and instead properly use the pronoun "I", wouldn't you?

More spin?

[hawker9000]

How like this is to Brandeis University deciding to withdraw its offer of an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who speaks out regularly against muslim treatment of women, after pressure from CAIR (which bills itself as an Islamic free-speech group...). 'Guess gays & CAIR have been exchanging notes. (Psssst, you might want to inquire into their views on homosexuality before skipping too far down the road together...)

Edited April 10, 2014 by hawker9000

[Credo]

So any perceived wrong is now attributable to gays or the gay mafia or the gay illuminati, or whatever the chosen term for the closet homophobes is? There is no relation between Brandeis withdrawing an honorary degree and Eich resigning. Oh, and lest we forget, Eich resigned. Oh and in case you didn't realize it, those putting pressure on him included others, not just gays.

I am sure that Eich will land on his feet. Oh, and since we seem to be going way off-topic, the owner of Chick-Filet (spelling?) seems to have had a change in his stand on gay issues. Unlike your example, that is at least on the issue of gays.

I doubt there is much of a relationship between gays and CAIR.

[ChiangMike]

I work with systems deployments entertainment and healthcare industry, a huge chunk of my colleagues... for whatever reason, are gay. A few are friends, a few I can't stand. Just like straights. I happen to know several personally that aren't gloating the way the OP is here and trumpeting a major victory but see it as sad. I find myself in the peculiar position of defending someone I don't agree with (Eich) because of the bullshit. And there most certainly is bullshit.

There is not a whole lot separating a leading political figure coming out - publicly - against gay marriage, and a citizen making a 1,000 dollar donation 6 years ago to a bill designed to block legalizing gay marriage - at a time when people were paranoid about it eroding their traditions (it didn't). This Obama is Lincoln and Eich is satan dichotomy is beyond absurd.

Have you ever been to a big gay marriage ceremony? I have, at city hall in San Fancisco, there were like 300 female couples and about 6 male couples. My friends were laughing about this and at how the breeders think gay is uniform when there is an enormous gap there in lifestyles. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert or lapse off topic too much. When we get to the point that nobody cares, then we're somewhere.

The annoying thing here is the gloating and boasting like a great thing has been accomplished. I don't see it that way. This didn't achieve any kind of dialog to make life better or promote understanding. It was a power play... so be it - but don't mask it as a great victory for civil rights. Also I voted for Obama and think he's a little above average as president, but the whole messiah thing gets perplexing. And I'm sure if he did donate to prop 8 we'd see some more circular logic to romanticize it.

In short, Eich was a guy who was against gay marriage. But he didn't hate gays and didn't mistreat them. Want to chastise him as an exercise in consumer power? Fine. Want to publicize it as a great civil rights victory... we start to enter into the realm of dumb.

[ChiangMike]

Ps. The Colbert/Sullivan exchange on the matter was alright: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/andrew-sullivan-blows-colberts-mind-with-defense-of-brendan-eich/

[Credo]

Eich gave money to undo a right that was already given. Prop 8 dissolved marriages which had been performed. He also resigned, he wasn't fired.

[Ulysses G.]

He was forced out. He did not resign voluntarily.

Edited April 11, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[RuamRudy]

He was forced out. He did not resign voluntarily.

Hey wasn't forced out by me, nor, as far as I know, by any of my mafia brothers.

What I do know is that OKCupid came out of this looking very good. Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?

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

Edited April 11, 2014 by RuamRudy

[Jingthing]

Exactly. The right wing anti-gay civil rights forces are using this blown up and distorted event as an excuse to demonize gay people as a class of people. This is kind of thing that has happened to unpopular minority groups throughout history. The progress towards legal equality is too fast for them, they want gay people back in the closets, uppity gays, go and hide like in Russia.

Yes they are trying to invent inflammatory "reverse discrimination" ammunition to add fuel to the fire of a backlash against the great civil rights progress that has happened but is not nearly finished. It's so obvious.

Edited April 11, 2014 by Jingthing

[hawker9000]

Absolutely right! Something must be done about this insidious anti-gay crowd. Cut out their tongues and divest them of their free speech (and the rest of their civil liberties while we're at it)! I propose some simple litmus test that will clearly identify anyone with an opinion unacceptable to the gay central committee. After finding politically qualified replacements for these misfits, they can then be herded into ghettos somewhere and their diseased, pathetic, regressive influence removed from the rest of the population.

[Jingthing]

That's a great example of the paranoid right wing inventions. Yes I know it was sarcasm but that sarcasm reveals the root of their tactics. They don't actually believe that tripe, sarcastic or not. They are just using it whip up fear, hatred, and resentment against an already unpopular minority (one that can still be legally fired just for being gay in many U.S. states) to further their agenda to keep gay people from ever achieving full civil rights. Get this straight -- DUDES -- there is no gay mafia determined to "fire" all people who do not agree with equal civil rights for gay people. That inflamed fear is just NOT REAL.

Again, let's break this down in a facts based way:

1. Gay people are a tiny minority by population.

2. Gay people don't have the kind of power implied by the paranoid accusations.

3. If gay people ever did have that kind power, why would you think so poorly of gay people as a group as to think as a group they would behave like intolerant fascists and oppress the majority? Perhaps some collective guilt over the way gay people have been treated? Worried about revenge, is that it?

4. Worried about revenge or not, I don't see any rational basis for believing that gay people being such a small minority could ever have so much power as to act out these paranoid right wing fantasies.

Equal civil rights, it's really not that threatening if you approach it rationally.

This reminds me a little bit about white fears about revenge in South Africa after apartheid fell. Those whites were correct to fear revenge. It was logical. They were a definite minority who had treated the majority in a very horrific manner. Compare to this whipping up of straight revenge fears now by the anti-gay civil rights right wing. It's just not rational. Even if gay people wanted such revenge, they will always be a small minority compared to the majority so it couldn't happen anyway. No, don't flame, I am not suggesting the level of oppression of gay people in the USA approaches the injustice of apartheid. But I still think it's a comparison worth making to show how IRRATIONAL the right wing attacks are now.

Edited April 11, 2014 by Jingthing

[Goat Roper]

That's a great example of the paranoid right wing inventions. Yes I know it was sarcasm but that sarcasm reveals the root of their tactics. They don't actually believe that tripe, sarcastic or not. They are just using it whip up fear, hatred, and resentment against an already unpopular minority (one that can still be legally fired just for being gay in many U.S. states) to further their agenda to keep gay people from ever achieving full civil rights. Get this straight -- DUDES -- there is no gay mafia determined to "fire" all people who do not agree with equal civil rights for gay people. That inflamed fear is just NOT REAL.

Again, let's break this down in a facts based way:

1. Gay people are a tiny minority by population.

2. Gay people don't have the kind of power implied by the paranoid accusations.

3. If gay people ever did have that kind power, why would you think so poorly of gay people as a group as to think as a group they would behave like intolerant fascists and oppress the majority? Perhaps some collective guilt over the way gay people have been treated? Worried about revenge, is that it?

4. Worried about revenge or not, I don't see any rational basis for believing that gay people being such a small minority could ever have so much power as to act out these paranoid right wing fantasies.

Equal civil rights, it's really not that threatening if you approach it rationally.

This reminds me a little bit about white fears about revenge in South Africa after apartheid fell. Those whites were correct to fear revenge. It was logical. They were a definite minority who had treated the majority in a very horrific manner. Compare to this whipping up of straight revenge fears now by the anti-gay civil rights right wing. It's just not rational. Even if gay people wanted such revenge, they will always be a small minority compared to the majority so it couldn't happen anyway. No, don't flame, I am not suggesting the level of oppression of gay people in the USA approaches the injustice of apartheid. But I still think it's a comparison worth making to show how IRRATIONAL the right wing attacks are now.

Jing, I generally enjoy and agree with many of your posts. I am not gay nor am I anti Gay as I have expressed on TV several times. Why do I get the feeling with this post you are trying to sell me something about Gay people?

[Jingthing]

How would I know why you feel what you feel?

I wouldn't.

I can say I strongly identify with the gay civil rights movement in America, as I have had contact with some of the pioneers of it, and my strong personal feeling even though I could NEVER dream to speak for the movement or all American gay people, is that the desire is for equal civil rights under the law and the desire is NOT to be a fascist power to wage revenge war on the majority. That would be crazy!

If you want to discuss something specific about what I have said, then we can have a discussion about it.

Edited April 11, 2014 by Jingthing

[Goat Roper]

How would I know why you feel what you feel?

I wouldn't.

If you want to discuss something specific about what I have said, then we can have a discussion about it.

I don't wish to discuss your's or other people's habits or lifestyles as it's not my business. As I have said go about your business as you wish and don't expect me to be PC about other's way of living. I just do not like all the long explanations/examples of what others say about the gay community. That's about it.

[Jingthing]

We're talking about different things. I'm talking about legal civil rights for a minority identity group -- American GLBT PEOPLE. You're talking irrelevant words like lifestyle and habits. GLBT people in the USA are a minority identity group that now sorely lack adequate legal protection against discrimination, seeking equal civil rights under the law in the exact same way that that American black people did in their civil rights movement, which is not over either.

Edited April 11, 2014 by Jingthing

[Goat Roper]

We're talking about different things. I'm talking about legal civil rights for a minority identity group -- American GLBT PEOPLE. You're talking irrelevant words like lifestyle and habits. GLBT people in the USA are a minority identity group that now sorely lack adequate legal protection against discrimination, seeking equal civil rights under the law in the exact same way that that American black people did in their civil rights movement, which is not over either.

Jing with all due respect, I am not anti anything when it comes to people's rights. I really do get tired of all the discussions about all this, I feel like it's a sales pitch. I think you and I must have come from an entire other generation and that alone might explain my feelings.

[Jingthing]

We're talking about different things. I'm talking about legal civil rights for a minority identity group -- American GLBT PEOPLE. You're talking irrelevant words like lifestyle and habits. GLBT people in the USA are a minority identity group that now sorely lack adequate legal protection against discrimination, seeking equal civil rights under the law in the exact same way that that American black people did in their civil rights movement, which is not over either.

Jing with all due respect, I am not anti anything when it comes to people's rights. I really do get tired of all the discussions about all this, I feel like it's a sales pitch. I think you and I must have come from an entire other generation and that alone might explain my feelings.

OK. Your feelings are your feelings. You don't even seem willing to discuss any specific issues, so I think that's that. Can't discuss things with someone whose position is no interest in discussion. Cheers.

Edited April 11, 2014 by Jingthing

[transam]

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.

Gawd..........not this stuff again surely.............

[Jingthing]

Not until you pushed it forward from back in the thread ...

We're kind of on other stuff now. This thread is already kind of long enough without dredging especially if just to launch a pot shot.

Edited April 11, 2014 by Jingthing

[Scott]

Troll posts and replies deleted.

[Credo]

Were the 3 other executives that resigned over this controversy forced out? Were they gay as well? If so, was that discrimination?