6 ms·

What type of person you choose to head your operations obviously reflects your ideals. It really doesn't matter if Mr. Eich donated 1000 dollars or a million d

by hugi 13y ago

What type of person you choose to head your operations obviously reflects your ideals. It really doesn't matter if Mr. Eich donated 1000 dollars or a million dollars, he opposes basic human rights. And apparently Mozilla is fine with that.

eridius 13y ago
He opposed basic human rights. Does Mr. Eich still feel the same now as he did when he made that donation? I haven't done any research on this topic outside of the linked Ars article, but I find it interesting that Eich's own statement[1] about his donation completely avoids talking about his motivations for the donation. He even implied that he does not feel animosity towards gay people (although what he explicitly said was that the donation does not constitute evidence of animosity). So I'm left wondering as to what Mr. Eich actually feels on the topic. Yes, he donated money to a cause that opposed basic human rights, and that's undeniably an action worthy of condemnation. But in isolation, this 6-year-old action does not prove anything about his feelings on the matter today. What matters right now is how Mr. Eich will lead Mozilla going forward, not personal acts taken 6 years ago that were not on behalf of Mozilla. [1]: https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/ https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/
Mikeb85 13y ago
Gay marriage isn't a 'basic human right'. It's subscribing to a governmental institution.
- alexqgb 13y ago
  This isn't about gay marriage, per se. It's about carving out exceptions to the general writ of legal equality for all guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.
  - Mikeb85 13y ago
    Then where's my native (do you still call them 'indians' in the US?) status card, my veteran benefits, and my handicapped parking permit? While we're at it why can't I get maternity leave or diplomatic immunity? I'm actually married (religious ceremony) but not officially 'married' (according to the government) and I don't care nor does it really matter where I live (common-law spouses get benefits anyway). And I'm not even against gay marriage, I just don't 'get' why it's a big deal... Anyhow, I'm sure there's plenty of other exceptions when it comes to equality... Old people, minorities, pregnant women all get preferential treatment in a variety of circumstances, and it's not a bad thing...
    - hkphooey 13y ago
      In the UK, civil partnerships were introduced for same-sex couples, which gave AFAIK the exact same legal rights and tax benefits as heterosexual marriage. However, campaigners for gay marriage said this was not good enough so the Prime Minister eventually pushed through a vote for gay marriage. So it seems the issue wasn't really about legal rights, that just comes along for the ride, it was more about using the word "marriage". Similar thing when it comes to marriage ceremonies. Why lobby the state to try and force a religious institution to hold a same-sex marriage ceremony when the teachings of that religion are clearly against same-sex relationships? Can't we accept that in the diversity of opinions out there, some are like chalk and cheese? They simply don't go together so why force the issue and make everybody unhappy? What I find interesting about this last point is that campaigners only focus on the Christian religion. It seems nobody wants to try and force mosques and synagogues to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. Why is that?
      - johnny22 13y ago
        nobody anywhere (in the US) is forcing any religious institution to do anything. where did you get that idea?
        arg01 13y ago
        The Commonwealth has different restrictions on interference with churches. There is no constitutional guarantee in the UK. Similar to how common law countries generally limit freedom of expression to not include hate speech.
        Mikeb85 13y ago
        You'd be surprised, some people think non-profits shouldn't be allowed to follow their beliefs (if those beliefs discriminate against whatever the cause célèbre is).
        hkphooey 13y ago
        Here is an example from the UK, August 2013 (not sure what the current status is). I have no dog in this fight but to me this does not seem like tolerance on the part of the gay couple, this action comes across as somewhat spiteful. "Millionaire gay fathers to sue the Church of England for not allowing them to get married in the church. The first legal challenge to the Church of England's ban on same-sex marriage was launched today - months before the first gay wedding can take place. Gay father Barrie Drewitt-Barlow declared: 'I want to go into my church and marry my husband.' He added: 'The only way forward for us now is to make a challenge in the courts against the Church.' The legal move means an early test for David Cameron's promise to the CofE and Roman Catholic bishops that no church would be forced to conduct same-sex weddings against the will of its leaders and its faithful. ... 'It upsets me because I want it so much - a big lavish ceremony, the whole works.' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2383686/Millionaire-gay-fathers-sue-Church-England-allowing-married-church.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2383686/Millionaire-...
- jbeja 13y ago
  So equality is not a "basic huma right"?
  - Mikeb85 13y ago
    When gays are forced to sit at the back of the bus, or not allowed to go to the same schools, or vote, then you can argue your equality angle...
    - TheZenPsycho 13y ago
      Or be allowed to be included in the will of your loved one, or be allowed to visit them in the hospital, or be allowed to attend their funeral if your loved one's parents don't like you... Can we argue it now? Prohibiting same sex marriage is the government asserting that it is not possible for two people of the same sex to love one another, by any definition that would allow them to be considered legally "family", and that is definitely not equality.
hkphooey 13y ago
This is silly, almost fascist. What next? If a person doesn't donate to a campaign supporting gay marriage, does that mean the person is a bigot and homophobic?
- Fomite 13y ago
  Not doing something and making an active, affirmative, financially-backed choice are miles apart.
- eropple 13y ago
  How about a guy who donates to people who are homophobic bigots and who make being homophobic bigots a central part of their schtick? Like this guy, who Eich donated money to (it's on OpenSecrets): http://www.tommcclintock.com/press-releases/mcclintock-called-the-california-supreme-courts-decision-to-permit-gay-marriage-a-tra http://www.tommcclintock.com/press-releases/mcclintock-calle... There's a pattern here. This issue is one that's important to Eich. I will certainly judge him on that and judge those who empower him and there's absolutely nothing fascist about exercising my freedom of association.
- mikeash 13y ago
  What a crazy idea, that it's somehow "fascist" to criticize a company based on the political activities of their CEO, but I can only assume "not fascist" to restrict the rights of minorities.

by hugi 13y ago

eridius 13y ago

He opposed basic human rights. Does Mr. Eich still feel the same now as he did when he made that donation? I haven't done any research on this topic outside of the linked Ars article, but I find it interesting that Eich's own statement[1] about his donation completely avoids talking about his motivations for the donation. He even implied that he does not feel animosity towards gay people (although what he explicitly said was that the donation does not constitute evidence of animosity). So I'm left wondering as to what Mr. Eich actually feels on the topic. Yes, he donated money to a cause that opposed basic human rights, and that's undeniably an action worthy of condemnation. But in isolation, this 6-year-old action does not prove anything about his feelings on the matter today. What matters right now is how Mr. Eich will lead Mozilla going forward, not personal acts taken 6 years ago that were not on behalf of Mozilla. [1]: https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/ https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/

Mikeb85 13y ago

Gay marriage isn't a 'basic human right'. It's subscribing to a governmental institution.

alexqgb 13y ago
This isn't about gay marriage, per se. It's about carving out exceptions to the general writ of legal equality for all guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.
- Mikeb85 13y ago
  Then where's my native (do you still call them 'indians' in the US?) status card, my veteran benefits, and my handicapped parking permit? While we're at it why can't I get maternity leave or diplomatic immunity? I'm actually married (religious ceremony) but not officially 'married' (according to the government) and I don't care nor does it really matter where I live (common-law spouses get benefits anyway). And I'm not even against gay marriage, I just don't 'get' why it's a big deal... Anyhow, I'm sure there's plenty of other exceptions when it comes to equality... Old people, minorities, pregnant women all get preferential treatment in a variety of circumstances, and it's not a bad thing...
  - hkphooey 13y ago
    In the UK, civil partnerships were introduced for same-sex couples, which gave AFAIK the exact same legal rights and tax benefits as heterosexual marriage. However, campaigners for gay marriage said this was not good enough so the Prime Minister eventually pushed through a vote for gay marriage. So it seems the issue wasn't really about legal rights, that just comes along for the ride, it was more about using the word "marriage". Similar thing when it comes to marriage ceremonies. Why lobby the state to try and force a religious institution to hold a same-sex marriage ceremony when the teachings of that religion are clearly against same-sex relationships? Can't we accept that in the diversity of opinions out there, some are like chalk and cheese? They simply don't go together so why force the issue and make everybody unhappy? What I find interesting about this last point is that campaigners only focus on the Christian religion. It seems nobody wants to try and force mosques and synagogues to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. Why is that?
    - johnny22 13y ago
      nobody anywhere (in the US) is forcing any religious institution to do anything. where did you get that idea?
      - arg01 13y ago
        The Commonwealth has different restrictions on interference with churches. There is no constitutional guarantee in the UK. Similar to how common law countries generally limit freedom of expression to not include hate speech.
      - Mikeb85 13y ago
        You'd be surprised, some people think non-profits shouldn't be allowed to follow their beliefs (if those beliefs discriminate against whatever the cause célèbre is).
      - hkphooey 13y ago
        Here is an example from the UK, August 2013 (not sure what the current status is). I have no dog in this fight but to me this does not seem like tolerance on the part of the gay couple, this action comes across as somewhat spiteful. "Millionaire gay fathers to sue the Church of England for not allowing them to get married in the church. The first legal challenge to the Church of England's ban on same-sex marriage was launched today - months before the first gay wedding can take place. Gay father Barrie Drewitt-Barlow declared: 'I want to go into my church and marry my husband.' He added: 'The only way forward for us now is to make a challenge in the courts against the Church.' The legal move means an early test for David Cameron's promise to the CofE and Roman Catholic bishops that no church would be forced to conduct same-sex weddings against the will of its leaders and its faithful. ... 'It upsets me because I want it so much - a big lavish ceremony, the whole works.' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2383686/Millionaire-gay-fathers-sue-Church-England-allowing-married-church.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2383686/Millionaire-...
jbeja 13y ago
So equality is not a "basic huma right"?
- Mikeb85 13y ago
  When gays are forced to sit at the back of the bus, or not allowed to go to the same schools, or vote, then you can argue your equality angle...
  - TheZenPsycho 13y ago
    Or be allowed to be included in the will of your loved one, or be allowed to visit them in the hospital, or be allowed to attend their funeral if your loved one's parents don't like you... Can we argue it now? Prohibiting same sex marriage is the government asserting that it is not possible for two people of the same sex to love one another, by any definition that would allow them to be considered legally "family", and that is definitely not equality.

hkphooey 13y ago

This is silly, almost fascist. What next? If a person doesn't donate to a campaign supporting gay marriage, does that mean the person is a bigot and homophobic?

Fomite 13y ago
Not doing something and making an active, affirmative, financially-backed choice are miles apart.
eropple 13y ago
How about a guy who donates to people who are homophobic bigots and who make being homophobic bigots a central part of their schtick? Like this guy, who Eich donated money to (it's on OpenSecrets): http://www.tommcclintock.com/press-releases/mcclintock-called-the-california-supreme-courts-decision-to-permit-gay-marriage-a-tra http://www.tommcclintock.com/press-releases/mcclintock-calle... There's a pattern here. This issue is one that's important to Eich. I will certainly judge him on that and judge those who empower him and there's absolutely nothing fascist about exercising my freedom of association.
mikeash 13y ago
What a crazy idea, that it's somehow "fascist" to criticize a company based on the political activities of their CEO, but I can only assume "not fascist" to restrict the rights of minorities.