5 ms·

The mere fact that a lot of people believe something, doesn't make it right or just. Justice is protecting the weak and the powerless from the powerful, not vot

The mere fact that a lot of people believe something, doesn't make it right or just. Justice is protecting the weak and the powerless from the powerful, not voting on who has human rights and who doesn't from week to week. Also, Prop 8 was in 2008. He was appointed to the CEO position in 2014 - 6 years later. He had every opportunity to apologize. Everyone makes mistakes, even big ones. But, he refused to apologize. He held the same opinion in 2014 that he did in 2008 and he made that clear. Why would he have the right to express his opinion on same-sex-marriage but Mozilla employees wouldn't have the right to express their opinion on his fitness to be their CEO?

manfredo 8y ago
And who gets to say what protections people should and should not receive? If a company genuinely believes that pro-LGBT views are harmful, then in your framework they're equally justified to fire employees that donated in opposition to Proposition 8. I think a lot of people forget that there's a world beyond liberal urban areas. Allowing it to become socially acceptable for companies to fire employees for their political views is also handing a tool for conservatives to suppress their employees' liberal politics. And again, it's sending the message that the majority of Californians are not welcome at the company. It makes Mozilla hypocrites whenever they purport to support diversity or inclusion, and gives credence to the idea that Silicon Valley companies are deliberately hostile towards non-liberals.
- dagenix 8y ago
  You can't just throw your hands up in the air and say that because there is no absolute scale with which to measure human rights, everything goes. And I think its also not good policy to say that because an organization might* fire a pro-LGTB employee for their views, that everyone should be let to act however they want without consequences. In your view, what publicly expressed opinions would disqualify someone to be a CEO? Anything? Views on gay marriage shifted rapidly between 2008 and 2014. I think its wrong to assume that just because 52% of people voted to support Prop 8 in 2008 that 6 years later opinions hadn't changed. And lets not forget that Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional in 2010 - 4 years before he was made CEO and continued to publicly support Prop 8. * - By "might", I mean "has happened a lot for a long time". LGTB people have faced discrimination for a long time for wanting to live their life in a way that harms literally no one. Anti-LGBT people facing consequences for their actions to discriminate against others in a way that benefits literally no one is a relatively recent occurrence.
  - manfredo 8y ago
    > You can't just throw your hands up in the air and say that because there is no absolute scale with which to measure human rights, everything goes. And I think its also not good policy to say that because an organization might* fire a pro-LGTB employee for their views, that everyone should be let to act however they want without consequences. In your view, what publicly expressed opinions would disqualify someone to be a CEO? Anything? No political views should be inherently fireable offenses, only things like harassment that have nonpartisan criteria. E.g. Supporting proposition 8 is not a fireable offense, actually calling gay employees slurs is. Conversely, opposing stricter border controls is not a fireable offense on its own, saying that anyone who supports Trump's border policies is a Nazi that deserves to be punched is a fireable offense because it's a threat of violence. Firing must be made on non-partisan criteria. > Views on gay marriage shifted rapidly between 2008 and 2014. I think its wrong to assume that just because 52% of people voted to support Prop 8 in 2008 that 6 years later opinions hadn't changed. And lets not forget that Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional in 2010 - 4 years before he was made CEO and continued to publicly support Prop 8. Should anyone that supported the McCain–Feingold Act (the act overturned by the Citizens United case), or Chicago's handgun ban be fired as well? Both of those were found to be infringements on people's constitutional liberties. Again, this is what I'm referring to when I say that people many of the justifications for Eich's termination aren't really well thought out, and end up justifying the termination of lots of other people as well. The blanket statement that a certain political view should be a fireable offense because it was later determined to be unconstitutional is going to end up justifying the firing of lots of other people.
    - dagenix 8y ago
      If all political views are valid, what about someone that has documented pro-segregation views? Is that person qualified to make decisions that impact the lives of a diverse workforce? If not, where do you draw the line? I'm not trying to make a strawman argument - I'm seriously asking why would this be any different? The problem isn't that he had some thought in his head - its that he took that thought in his head and turned it into action. And those publicly documented actions made it impossible for his employees to trust him to make decisions in their best interest. Having the trust of his employees is 100% part of his job - the fact that he lacked that made him unfit to be CEO. Supporting something that turns out to be unconstitutional clearly shouldn't be a fireable offense. But, both of the examples you cite are cases where a person can cite reasonable reason for their support that aren't merely about controlling the lives of others for no purpose. I probably made a mistake in mentioning it was overturned at all - I'm just saying, he continued to argue for something that wasn't even relevant anymore - in 2014 when this controversy erupted, same sex marriages were actively occurring in California. It seems likely that some of his employees may have benefited from this. And, yet, in 2014 he continued to support the prohibition of same-sex marriage - actively advocating against the life choices that his employees were making at that very time.
- CamperBob2 8y ago
  And who gets to say what protections people should and should not receive? In the US, the notion of equal protection under law is stated unequivocally in our founding documents. It is not the government's business to sanction some personal relationships but not others. Not debatable at all, IMO, when looked at objectively,
  - manfredo 8y ago
    So to support policies that are later determined to be unconstitutional become fireable offenses? That means anyone that supports public school racial integration policies (as in, deliberately balancing out student populations to counteract de-facto segregation) should be fired. This was determined unconstitutional in 2007 [1]. Anyone that supports racial quotas in higher education also needs to be fired, because that was ruled illegal back in Bakke vs. Regents. Using constitutionality as a basis for whether certain political beliefs are fireable offenses is going to entail the firing of lots of liberals in addition to anti-gay marriage proponents. I don't think this justification was thought through. It's also worth mentioning that at the time of his firing, the Supreme Court had yet to rule that banning gay marriage was illegal. Eich was fired before the Supreme Court made Proposition 8 unconstitutional. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desegregation_busing#Reaction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desegregation_busing#Reaction
    - CamperBob2 8y ago
      In most jobs, there are plenty of ways to get fired even if you haven't broken any laws. This was just one of those ways, for one of those employees, at one of those jobs. At-will employment goes both ways.
      - manfredo 8y ago
        Sure, it's legal. What we're discussing is what justification there is to make it socially acceptable to fire or tell people to resign based on political views.
        8y ago

manfredo 8y ago

And who gets to say what protections people should and should not receive? If a company genuinely believes that pro-LGBT views are harmful, then in your framework they're equally justified to fire employees that donated in opposition to Proposition 8. I think a lot of people forget that there's a world beyond liberal urban areas. Allowing it to become socially acceptable for companies to fire employees for their political views is also handing a tool for conservatives to suppress their employees' liberal politics. And again, it's sending the message that the majority of Californians are not welcome at the company. It makes Mozilla hypocrites whenever they purport to support diversity or inclusion, and gives credence to the idea that Silicon Valley companies are deliberately hostile towards non-liberals.

dagenix 8y ago
You can't just throw your hands up in the air and say that because there is no absolute scale with which to measure human rights, everything goes. And I think its also not good policy to say that because an organization might* fire a pro-LGTB employee for their views, that everyone should be let to act however they want without consequences. In your view, what publicly expressed opinions would disqualify someone to be a CEO? Anything? Views on gay marriage shifted rapidly between 2008 and 2014. I think its wrong to assume that just because 52% of people voted to support Prop 8 in 2008 that 6 years later opinions hadn't changed. And lets not forget that Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional in 2010 - 4 years before he was made CEO and continued to publicly support Prop 8. * - By "might", I mean "has happened a lot for a long time". LGTB people have faced discrimination for a long time for wanting to live their life in a way that harms literally no one. Anti-LGBT people facing consequences for their actions to discriminate against others in a way that benefits literally no one is a relatively recent occurrence.
- manfredo 8y ago
  > You can't just throw your hands up in the air and say that because there is no absolute scale with which to measure human rights, everything goes. And I think its also not good policy to say that because an organization might* fire a pro-LGTB employee for their views, that everyone should be let to act however they want without consequences. In your view, what publicly expressed opinions would disqualify someone to be a CEO? Anything? No political views should be inherently fireable offenses, only things like harassment that have nonpartisan criteria. E.g. Supporting proposition 8 is not a fireable offense, actually calling gay employees slurs is. Conversely, opposing stricter border controls is not a fireable offense on its own, saying that anyone who supports Trump's border policies is a Nazi that deserves to be punched is a fireable offense because it's a threat of violence. Firing must be made on non-partisan criteria. > Views on gay marriage shifted rapidly between 2008 and 2014. I think its wrong to assume that just because 52% of people voted to support Prop 8 in 2008 that 6 years later opinions hadn't changed. And lets not forget that Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional in 2010 - 4 years before he was made CEO and continued to publicly support Prop 8. Should anyone that supported the McCain–Feingold Act (the act overturned by the Citizens United case), or Chicago's handgun ban be fired as well? Both of those were found to be infringements on people's constitutional liberties. Again, this is what I'm referring to when I say that people many of the justifications for Eich's termination aren't really well thought out, and end up justifying the termination of lots of other people as well. The blanket statement that a certain political view should be a fireable offense because it was later determined to be unconstitutional is going to end up justifying the firing of lots of other people.
  - dagenix 8y ago
    If all political views are valid, what about someone that has documented pro-segregation views? Is that person qualified to make decisions that impact the lives of a diverse workforce? If not, where do you draw the line? I'm not trying to make a strawman argument - I'm seriously asking why would this be any different? The problem isn't that he had some thought in his head - its that he took that thought in his head and turned it into action. And those publicly documented actions made it impossible for his employees to trust him to make decisions in their best interest. Having the trust of his employees is 100% part of his job - the fact that he lacked that made him unfit to be CEO. Supporting something that turns out to be unconstitutional clearly shouldn't be a fireable offense. But, both of the examples you cite are cases where a person can cite reasonable reason for their support that aren't merely about controlling the lives of others for no purpose. I probably made a mistake in mentioning it was overturned at all - I'm just saying, he continued to argue for something that wasn't even relevant anymore - in 2014 when this controversy erupted, same sex marriages were actively occurring in California. It seems likely that some of his employees may have benefited from this. And, yet, in 2014 he continued to support the prohibition of same-sex marriage - actively advocating against the life choices that his employees were making at that very time.
CamperBob2 8y ago
And who gets to say what protections people should and should not receive? In the US, the notion of equal protection under law is stated unequivocally in our founding documents. It is not the government's business to sanction some personal relationships but not others. Not debatable at all, IMO, when looked at objectively,
- manfredo 8y ago
  So to support policies that are later determined to be unconstitutional become fireable offenses? That means anyone that supports public school racial integration policies (as in, deliberately balancing out student populations to counteract de-facto segregation) should be fired. This was determined unconstitutional in 2007 [1]. Anyone that supports racial quotas in higher education also needs to be fired, because that was ruled illegal back in Bakke vs. Regents. Using constitutionality as a basis for whether certain political beliefs are fireable offenses is going to entail the firing of lots of liberals in addition to anti-gay marriage proponents. I don't think this justification was thought through. It's also worth mentioning that at the time of his firing, the Supreme Court had yet to rule that banning gay marriage was illegal. Eich was fired before the Supreme Court made Proposition 8 unconstitutional. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desegregation_busing#Reaction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desegregation_busing#Reaction
  - CamperBob2 8y ago
    In most jobs, there are plenty of ways to get fired even if you haven't broken any laws. This was just one of those ways, for one of those employees, at one of those jobs. At-will employment goes both ways.
    - manfredo 8y ago
      Sure, it's legal. What we're discussing is what justification there is to make it socially acceptable to fire or tell people to resign based on political views.
      - 8y ago