14 ms·

The fact that they can come out and say this demonstrates that these employees, the people best able to assess this, don't believe that Eich will retaliate. Tha

The fact that they can come out and say this demonstrates that these employees, the people best able to assess this, don't believe that Eich will retaliate. That Mozilla is and remains a place where any employee can express their views on political issues, even if they know they're contrary to the CEO's. And that destroys any argument for Eich's role as CEO creating a conflict with Mozilla's ability to welcome LGBTQ employees and community members. You have a right to work for whom you choose, but not to demand that everyone above you in a company concurs with your political views. This is the social media witch hunts we've seen in last few years reaching into actual corporate boardrooms and tossing out a man's career because he holds a view that is not only mainstream, but that he has demonstrated he won't bring into the workplace. Let me be clear: I believe Brendan Eich is wrong about gay marriage. But I don't think the price of his convictions should be his career at Mozilla, a company he's played a large role in building, when there is no documented instance of him ever disparaging or otherwise harming LGBTQ employees or community members.

hkphooey 13y ago
People are employed on what they contribute to the company, not on their social or political views. If these employees are such bigots and fascists, that they can't fathom someone having a different opinion to their own, they should resign and work elsewhere. Mozilla is a technology company with the mission to promote a free and open web. If these employees believed that Mozilla was some kind of political organisation, they are wrong and have been deluding themselves.
- m0a0t0 13y ago
  So preventing equality is not bigotry then? I would argue that calling out something like that is noble, not fascist. Labelling the people who criticised Eich as fascists is as bad as calling him one for his beliefs.
  - hkphooey 13y ago
    Does Eich refuse to work with gay people? Is he suddenly firing people because of their sexual orientation or political beliefs? No. So who is the fascist? Looks like the mob who demand he resign or be fired because they don't like his views. BTW: Marriage equality? So why doesn't the campaign include polygamous families? They exist, they have kids, they even have TV shows, and there has been a cultural history of polygamy around the world for thousands of years until modern times. The campaign for gay marriage is exactly that, gay marriage, but it is not a campaign for civil rights for everyone, because if it were, it would support the right for polygamous marriages to be recognized.
    - m0a0t0 13y ago
      But he did give money that denied people's rights, so by your (weird, wrong and stupid definition) of fascist he is one. There is no mob, there are a few people and the "demand" is worded rather weakly. I would have expected a bit more of your fascists to be honest.
- TDL 13y ago
  Please articulate how they are being bigots. Also, how exactly are they fascists? I don't see any of them advocating for the subjugation of individuality or economic freedom for the furtherance of the state. Fascism has an actual meaning, it's not just some mud to sling around.
hapless 13y ago
We have secret ballots for a reason: what you do in public has consequences. When you speak in public, it's possible that you will face censure from your employers, your employees, or your customers. You can't control how other people feel about what your actions.
- twoodfin 13y ago
  Sure it's possible, and of course legal. But it behooves your employers, employees and customers to remember that we live in a civil society, and banishing the heretics rather than gracefully tolerating and persuading them is poisonous for that society.
  - hapless 13y ago
    No one is being banished or burned at the stake. His suitability for a leadership position is openly questioned by employees in light of his publicly espoused views. Nothing more, nothing less.
    - mcphage 13y ago
      > His suitability for a leadership position is openly questioned by employees in light of his publicly espoused views. Nothing more, nothing less. No, it's more than that: people are actively calling him to step down.
      - lotsofmangos 13y ago
        Asking someone to step down is openly questioning their suitability for a leadership position. That is the general method.
        mcphage 13y ago
        Questioning their suitability is saying "I don't know if X is right for the job". Saying "X should step down" is answering that question.
jackmaney 13y ago
> The fact that they can come out and say this demonstrates that these employees, the people best able to assess this, don't believe that Eich will retaliate. Or they're willing to risk speaking out, regardless.
Jormundir 13y ago
I wouldn't call it a witch hunt. Now every Mozilla employee's work is contributing to Eich's paycheck. The paycheck with which he will (has) donate(d) to oppose gay marriage. If I was a Mozilla employee, this is not something I would want to be contributing to. This argument can obviously be applied to any employee in the company, but it's severely exacerbated when it's applied to the CEO, who's getting a huge paycheck and is serving as the face of the company. It would be nice if we could separate his work from his personal life, but that separation does not actually exist. His personal endeavors are fueled by his professional life. (This is why we all work, really).
- Mikeb85 13y ago
  It definitely is a witch hunt. What next? Are you going to fire any employee that goes on vacation to Russia, Turkey, or gasp Cuba? Or anyone that contributes to a charity you don't agree with?
  - wonderzombie 13y ago
    There're any number of reasons why someone might visit those countries. When you put up $1K towards a political campaign whose raison d'etre is to deny gay people the right to marry, it's rather well defined what the expectation is. I don't understand what charities have to do with this, though. Surely there are charities which would be morally objectionable. If he'd donated to a charity with similar aims to the Prop 8 campaign, I imagine it would change people's opinions rather little. Or how about a charity which campaigned against interracial marriage?
    - hkphooey 13y ago
      > There're any number of reasons why someone might visit those countries. People were calling for a boycott of all things Russian, or did you forget that? The irony of course being that Russia decriminalized same-sex relationships in 1993 long before the US, effectively, did the same in 2003 even though 14 states still ban sodomy.
angersock 13y ago
Yeah, wouldn't it be terrible if you were persecuted and had your career ruined because of your perceived feelings on marriage or political commentary/donations? EDIT: Downvote away, but it's pretty obvious that these folks are abusing the freedom they have to attack somebody who deserves our respect and admiration, and are tarnishing the reputation of their cause. This witch-hunt isn't helping anyone--it's saying that those involved care more about politics and sex and gender and bullshit than about creating good code and leading well and supporting freedom.
- TDL 13y ago
  This isn't a witch hunt. Publicly professing your convictions has ramifications. "these folks are abusing the freedom they have to attack somebody..." What abuse? These people are exercising their freedom. Their freedom of speech, their freedom of association. There is no abuse here, this is exactly what people have a right to do. "politics and sex and gender and bullshit..." There is more to life than technical ability.
  - angersock 13y ago
    He didn't "profess" anything--there was a note in a public ledger saying "so and so donated thus and such to this cause". That's a far cry from hopping up on a podium and decrying the evils of the homosexual agenda. Had a muckrake not come across it, nobody would've known, and fewer still would've cared.
  - figglesonrails 13y ago
    "What abuse?" -> Demanding that he resign and step down and/or pressuring people to force him to resign? If that comes to pass, that he is forced out of his position against his will, then that isn't free speech at work, it's tyranny of the majority. He will have been effectively fired for his religious beliefs. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Section 703(a)(1) and (2) "(a) Employer practices It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer - (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." What the hell else do you (rhetorical you) need? Why is anyone suggesting that he should be forced out of his position and that he "should have known that there would be ramifications". Perhaps a shitstorm, but never unemployment. This violates the law. http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm
davidgerard 13y ago
>when there is no documented instance of him ever disparaging or otherwise harming LGBTQ employees or community members. Except the bit where he contributed $1000 to a campaign to vilify them and take away their rights.
- angersock 13y ago
  Here's the proposition's full text: http://www.ag.ca.gov/cms_pdfs/initiatives/i737_07-0068_Initiative.pdf http://www.ag.ca.gov/cms_pdfs/initiatives/i737_07-0068_Initi... It hardly vilifies anyone--it's pretty stupidly worded as is ("marriage"? What is that? How does it compare with "civil union"?) Look, did you vote for Obama or Bush? Then you too have actively vilified people and acted to take away their rights. We can't punish people for participating in our form of government, even if we disagree with them. Aaargh.
  - freehunter 13y ago
    >"marriage"? What is that? Marriage is a defined legal construct, not an abstract idea. >We can't punish people for participating in our form of government, even if we disagree with them. Of course we can. It's the government that can't. We can freely choose who we associate with, and we can freely choose to not associate with people who hold opinions that we feel are immoral, even if the opinion isn't illegal.
    - slantyyz 13y ago
      >> Of course we can. It's the government that can't. Is that true? I'm not American or a lawyer so I don't know what workplace discrimination laws are like, but I would assume that in many western countries, you can't legally discriminate against or harass workers or fellow employees based on their beliefs. This opens up a legal question to which I don't know the answer: Where would these "step down" tweets tread legally with respect to workplace harassment?
      - freehunter 13y ago
stormcrowsx 13y ago
Eich was actively trying to stop what many people think should be a human right. He should face flak, and get a hard time over it, they should threaten his position. Even if they don't get him out of CEO it will make the next idiot that's high up in a company think twice before donating to stop human rights.
- simias 13y ago
  Come on, he didn't fund the war in Uganda. I don't share his views or anything but I don't see why "not liking the gays" or whatever should have any influence at all on whether or not he's suitable to run a tech company. It's not a political office.
  - cdmckay 13y ago
    So if he donated to the KKK, would you still think "not liking non-white people" or whatever should have any influence on whether or not he's suitable to run a tech company? It's not a political office.
    - bentruyman 13y ago
      Just so you understand, you're comparing the KKK to Prop 8 supporters.
      - wpietri 13y ago
        The hullabaloo 50 years ago about interracial marriage followed a very similar course to what's happening today: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia For a long time, everybody was opposed, but now it's just fine with most people: http://www.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-whites.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-wh... Hardcore racists now know that talking about "miscegenation" will get them ostracized. So yeah, the KKK is a pretty reasonable parallel here.
  - MattGrommes 13y ago
mquander 13y ago
Let me be clear: I believe Brendan Eich is wrong about gay marriage. But I don't think the price of his convictions should be his career at Mozilla, a company he's played a large role in building, when there is no documented instance of him ever disparaging or otherwise harming LGBTQ employees or community members. I don't know what the price of Eich's convictions should be, but I think that a good way to find out is for people who have been strongly affected by his convictions to say clearly what they think about it. I don't know whether Eich will (or should) remain CEO, but whether he does or not, having people speak up in this fashion seems unambiguously positive.
- joyeuse6701 13y ago
  No, it's not always positive. Mob mentality like this could be 'good' when applied to civil rights, the fact that he is not a minority and his views not popular in the zeitgeist makes him a good target. Of course this sort of things is considered bad when the target is a minority. Basically, what matters is whether or not you are part of a group that is perceived to have power. That will determine how the mob treats you.
  - mquander 13y ago
    I think that there's a real difference between types of behavior in this category. For example, if the same employees were calling him at night to yell the same message at him, I'm sure you'd agree that would be a terrible reaction. There are some pretty rude acts like that which are legal, but probably bad; e.g. the employees could go stand outside protesting loudly at his hypothetical kids' kindergarten, or spam all the Mozilla repositories with fake issues. However, the specific behavior in the article does not seem like that. It is employees making tweets like "I love @mozilla but I'm disappointed this week" and "I'm an employee of @mozilla and cannot reconcile having @BrendanEich as CEO with our org's culture & mission. Brendan, please step down." That doesn't seem to be harassing or threatening or a witch hunt to me; it's individuals doing an honest job of saying their opinion. Time will tell whether people start behaving worse than that, but I feel that so far this is an OK model of something you can do in a society when you feel strongly like someone has wronged you (but have no direct recourse.)
bhitov 13y ago
> That Mozilla is and remains a place where any employee can express their views on political issues, even if they know they're contrary to the CEO's. And that destroys any argument for Eich's role as CEO creating a conflict with Mozilla's ability to welcome LGBTQ employees and community members. Not that I necessarily think having Eich as CEO would make Mozilla unable to welcome LGBTQ employees, but this argument is absurd. It is not at all difficult to imagine a rule set that permits free speech while still discriminating against LGBTQ employees in some other way.
kylerush 13y ago
I actually consider it worse for an individual to have contributed to the marginalization of a group (in this case financially) of American citizens than to just have a documented instance of disparaging comments towards the group. In the former the individual is actively involved in marginalizing the group whereas with the latter the individual is stating an opinion. Your opinion matters, but what you do with your opinion matters even more.
wonderzombie 13y ago
He expressed his views publicly. They are subject to public criticism. It's absurd to characterize any form of criticism, especially something relatively mild as this, as a witch-hunt. Anti-gay bigotry is socially unacceptable. Honestly anyone who thought about it at length ought to have realized we were heading in this direction. And the bar for denying an entire category of people's rights out to be relatively high, personal religious beliefs or not. He might not have personally expressed bigotry, sure. But putting up $1K to a cause is almost worse, given that it's one of the more efficacious ways to support a cause. That cause happened to be in favor of denying civil rights.
- burntroots 13y ago
  Try to see this from another angle. It's 1970 and you've donated to an organization that advocates equal rights to blacks. As a consequence, when you rise through the ranks at your company and have the opportunity to be considered for CEO, your board of directors rejects you on the basis of that contribution. What you're saying is it's ok to deprive a man of his livelihood based on the current state of public opinion, which shifts by the decade. Tell me you see how wrong that is.
  - wonderzombie 13y ago
    Um, it's wrong, but only because of the particulars of this example, in that the board is probably racist. And to close the loop on your example, it would be open season on the board once public opinion caught up with them. I think you're presupposing that principles are interchangeable and I don't accept that. I believe in some inherent human rights, and the merits of this particular issue are incredibly relevant. The gentleman in question made a substantial monetary contribution aimed at denying a collection of people a set of privileges. The reasons for why society ought to privilege views like his over the rights of other people are flimsy at best; it's just a lousy idea given that the basis is wholly religious. Substitute something interracial marriage if you prefer. The fact is that some views are not just immoral in the face of society's avowed principles but unsound as well.
    - 13y ago
josephlord 13y ago
Mozilla, much more than most is a political organisation (about freedom and openness) not just a commercial one. It has a mission, it will succeed with community support and goodwill. The political views of the CEO matter. People are not saying (as far as I have heard) that there should be no place at Mozilla for Brendan Eich due to his political views but they are clearly uncomfortable with him leading a political organisation. A commitment and career somewhere does not entitle you to be CEO of the organisation if that is not what is best for the organisation.
- Mikeb85 13y ago
  > Mozilla, much more than most is a political organisation (about freedom and openness) not just a commercial one. What about the freedom to have personal beliefs, and do what you want with your own money and time? If anything the people criticizing Brendan Eich are trying to take away his freedom...
  - npizzolato 13y ago
    No, they're not. Freedom has to do with what the government is allowed to punish you for. No one is saying he shouldn't have been allowed to donate money in support of Prop 8. But actions have consequences outside of what the government can do.
  - josephlord 13y ago
    Trading freedoms for employment is quite normal (my speech was constrained while employed - mostly about my company and it's products) but anyway Eich used his freedom which he is welcome to. However, having done that and expressed his political views (money is speech etc.) it should not be surprising that his political views are relevant to his ability in a political leadership role. If he can't take the community with him he is the wrong man for that role.
  - amputect 13y ago
    > If anything the people criticizing Brendan Eich are trying to take away his freedom... Freedom of speech isn't freedom from criticism, and criticism isn't censorship. Freedom of speech isn't freedom from social consequences for speech. Freedom of speech isn't an unconditional guarantee of employment. Sometimes, freedom of speech becomes distasteful. I don't feel like this is one of those times, but I can understand why someone might disagree. In this situation, I see one person exercising their freedom of speech (in the form of a campaign donation) and a group of people responding with their own speech. That seems fine to me; if you disagree, could you elaborate on why, or describe what you think these employees should do instead? It seems to me that people responding to Brendan Eich should not have less freedom of speech than him.
MBlume 13y ago
> The fact that they can come out and say this demonstrates that these employees, the people best able to assess this, don't believe that Eich will retaliate. That Mozilla is and remains a place where any employee can express their views on political issues, even if they know they're contrary to the CEO's. And that destroys any argument for Eich's role as CEO creating a conflict with Mozilla's ability to welcome LGBTQ employees and community members. Or these employees have consciously chosen that they'd rather the knife come, if it's going to come, sooner than later.
- hkphooey 13y ago
  Or maybe these employees have cynically protected themselves from layoffs... because they could claim the CEO targeted them due to a difference in opinion!
- wpietri 13y ago
  Definitely. Or that it's better to stand together than to fall separately. Or that during this moment of transition they're mostly likely to win out. Or that they want to be on record so that if something does happen, they'll have better material for a press push or a lawsuit. Or that they figure they might as well give fixing things a try before they leave Mozilla. Or a bunch of other things. The notion that them speaking out now proves that they have nothing to worry about is ridiculous. If nobody had spoken out, that would also have been used as proof that everything is fine.
  - notdonspaulding 13y ago
    Have these employees been harmed in any way? Has Brendan Eich ever even been accused of mistreating another Mozillian because of his views on this issue? In short, are they speaking out against real offenses, or merely hypothetical ones?
    - hkphooey 13y ago
      These are employees who are dogmatic and who may have mistakenly believed they were working for a political organization rather than a technology company. If Brendan Eich being CEO means they are not able to perform their duties as stipulated in their employment contract, they should resign.
freyrs3 13y ago
Exactly right, until he demonstrates an inability to bracket his personal affairs from his professional life (which he hasn't done) we as a enlightened pluralistic society should assume good faith and accept that he rose to this position based on his merit and contributions to the company and is probably a great candidate for the position.
bowlofpetunias 13y ago
There is a documented instance of him supporting treating gay people, including Mozilla employees, as second class humans. You expect employees to keep working for a CEO who doesn't consider them equal human beings? Why do people keep pretending this is a valid political view? This is about vicious hatred, and if he can keep that under control I admire his discipline, but no employee should have to work under that threat.
- slantyyz 13y ago
  >> You expect employees to keep working for a CEO who doesn't consider them equal human beings? Not to be cheeky, but in my experience, many CEOs don't consider their workers to be equal beings (and I find this to be more true with very large organizations), and it has less to do with demographics/politics/religion than it does with the status that comes with the position of power. --edited a word for clarity
FireBeyond 13y ago
"when there is no documented instance of him ever disparaging or otherwise harming LGBTQ employees or community members." Other than financially supporting and lobbying for the passage of Proposition 8, you mean?

hkphooey 13y ago

People are employed on what they contribute to the company, not on their social or political views. If these employees are such bigots and fascists, that they can't fathom someone having a different opinion to their own, they should resign and work elsewhere. Mozilla is a technology company with the mission to promote a free and open web. If these employees believed that Mozilla was some kind of political organisation, they are wrong and have been deluding themselves.

m0a0t0 13y ago
So preventing equality is not bigotry then? I would argue that calling out something like that is noble, not fascist. Labelling the people who criticised Eich as fascists is as bad as calling him one for his beliefs.
- hkphooey 13y ago
  Does Eich refuse to work with gay people? Is he suddenly firing people because of their sexual orientation or political beliefs? No. So who is the fascist? Looks like the mob who demand he resign or be fired because they don't like his views. BTW: Marriage equality? So why doesn't the campaign include polygamous families? They exist, they have kids, they even have TV shows, and there has been a cultural history of polygamy around the world for thousands of years until modern times. The campaign for gay marriage is exactly that, gay marriage, but it is not a campaign for civil rights for everyone, because if it were, it would support the right for polygamous marriages to be recognized.
  - m0a0t0 13y ago
    But he did give money that denied people's rights, so by your (weird, wrong and stupid definition) of fascist he is one. There is no mob, there are a few people and the "demand" is worded rather weakly. I would have expected a bit more of your fascists to be honest.
TDL 13y ago
Please articulate how they are being bigots. Also, how exactly are they fascists? I don't see any of them advocating for the subjugation of individuality or economic freedom for the furtherance of the state. Fascism has an actual meaning, it's not just some mud to sling around.

hapless 13y ago

We have secret ballots for a reason: what you do in public has consequences. When you speak in public, it's possible that you will face censure from your employers, your employees, or your customers. You can't control how other people feel about what your actions.

twoodfin 13y ago
Sure it's possible, and of course legal. But it behooves your employers, employees and customers to remember that we live in a civil society, and banishing the heretics rather than gracefully tolerating and persuading them is poisonous for that society.
- hapless 13y ago
  No one is being banished or burned at the stake. His suitability for a leadership position is openly questioned by employees in light of his publicly espoused views. Nothing more, nothing less.
  - mcphage 13y ago
    > His suitability for a leadership position is openly questioned by employees in light of his publicly espoused views. Nothing more, nothing less. No, it's more than that: people are actively calling him to step down.
    - lotsofmangos 13y ago
      Asking someone to step down is openly questioning their suitability for a leadership position. That is the general method.
      - mcphage 13y ago
        Questioning their suitability is saying "I don't know if X is right for the job". Saying "X should step down" is answering that question.

jackmaney 13y ago

> The fact that they can come out and say this demonstrates that these employees, the people best able to assess this, don't believe that Eich will retaliate. Or they're willing to risk speaking out, regardless.

Jormundir 13y ago

I wouldn't call it a witch hunt. Now every Mozilla employee's work is contributing to Eich's paycheck. The paycheck with which he will (has) donate(d) to oppose gay marriage. If I was a Mozilla employee, this is not something I would want to be contributing to. This argument can obviously be applied to any employee in the company, but it's severely exacerbated when it's applied to the CEO, who's getting a huge paycheck and is serving as the face of the company. It would be nice if we could separate his work from his personal life, but that separation does not actually exist. His personal endeavors are fueled by his professional life. (This is why we all work, really).

Mikeb85 13y ago
It definitely is a witch hunt. What next? Are you going to fire any employee that goes on vacation to Russia, Turkey, or gasp Cuba? Or anyone that contributes to a charity you don't agree with?
- wonderzombie 13y ago
  There're any number of reasons why someone might visit those countries. When you put up $1K towards a political campaign whose raison d'etre is to deny gay people the right to marry, it's rather well defined what the expectation is. I don't understand what charities have to do with this, though. Surely there are charities which would be morally objectionable. If he'd donated to a charity with similar aims to the Prop 8 campaign, I imagine it would change people's opinions rather little. Or how about a charity which campaigned against interracial marriage?
  - hkphooey 13y ago
    > There're any number of reasons why someone might visit those countries. People were calling for a boycott of all things Russian, or did you forget that? The irony of course being that Russia decriminalized same-sex relationships in 1993 long before the US, effectively, did the same in 2003 even though 14 states still ban sodomy.

angersock 13y ago

Yeah, wouldn't it be terrible if you were persecuted and had your career ruined because of your perceived feelings on marriage or political commentary/donations? EDIT: Downvote away, but it's pretty obvious that these folks are abusing the freedom they have to attack somebody who deserves our respect and admiration, and are tarnishing the reputation of their cause. This witch-hunt isn't helping anyone--it's saying that those involved care more about politics and sex and gender and bullshit than about creating good code and leading well and supporting freedom.

TDL 13y ago
This isn't a witch hunt. Publicly professing your convictions has ramifications. "these folks are abusing the freedom they have to attack somebody..." What abuse? These people are exercising their freedom. Their freedom of speech, their freedom of association. There is no abuse here, this is exactly what people have a right to do. "politics and sex and gender and bullshit..." There is more to life than technical ability.
- angersock 13y ago
  He didn't "profess" anything--there was a note in a public ledger saying "so and so donated thus and such to this cause". That's a far cry from hopping up on a podium and decrying the evils of the homosexual agenda. Had a muckrake not come across it, nobody would've known, and fewer still would've cared.
- figglesonrails 13y ago
  "What abuse?" -> Demanding that he resign and step down and/or pressuring people to force him to resign? If that comes to pass, that he is forced out of his position against his will, then that isn't free speech at work, it's tyranny of the majority. He will have been effectively fired for his religious beliefs. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Section 703(a)(1) and (2) "(a) Employer practices It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer - (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." What the hell else do you (rhetorical you) need? Why is anyone suggesting that he should be forced out of his position and that he "should have known that there would be ramifications". Perhaps a shitstorm, but never unemployment. This violates the law. http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm

davidgerard 13y ago

>when there is no documented instance of him ever disparaging or otherwise harming LGBTQ employees or community members. Except the bit where he contributed $1000 to a campaign to vilify them and take away their rights.

angersock 13y ago
Here's the proposition's full text: http://www.ag.ca.gov/cms_pdfs/initiatives/i737_07-0068_Initiative.pdf http://www.ag.ca.gov/cms_pdfs/initiatives/i737_07-0068_Initi... It hardly vilifies anyone--it's pretty stupidly worded as is ("marriage"? What is that? How does it compare with "civil union"?) Look, did you vote for Obama or Bush? Then you too have actively vilified people and acted to take away their rights. We can't punish people for participating in our form of government, even if we disagree with them. Aaargh.
- freehunter 13y ago
  >"marriage"? What is that? Marriage is a defined legal construct, not an abstract idea. >We can't punish people for participating in our form of government, even if we disagree with them. Of course we can. It's the government that can't. We can freely choose who we associate with, and we can freely choose to not associate with people who hold opinions that we feel are immoral, even if the opinion isn't illegal.
  - slantyyz 13y ago
    >> Of course we can. It's the government that can't. Is that true? I'm not American or a lawyer so I don't know what workplace discrimination laws are like, but I would assume that in many western countries, you can't legally discriminate against or harass workers or fellow employees based on their beliefs. This opens up a legal question to which I don't know the answer: Where would these "step down" tweets tread legally with respect to workplace harassment?
    - freehunter 13y ago

stormcrowsx 13y ago

Eich was actively trying to stop what many people think should be a human right. He should face flak, and get a hard time over it, they should threaten his position. Even if they don't get him out of CEO it will make the next idiot that's high up in a company think twice before donating to stop human rights.

simias 13y ago
Come on, he didn't fund the war in Uganda. I don't share his views or anything but I don't see why "not liking the gays" or whatever should have any influence at all on whether or not he's suitable to run a tech company. It's not a political office.
- cdmckay 13y ago
  So if he donated to the KKK, would you still think "not liking non-white people" or whatever should have any influence on whether or not he's suitable to run a tech company? It's not a political office.
  - bentruyman 13y ago
    Just so you understand, you're comparing the KKK to Prop 8 supporters.
    - wpietri 13y ago
      The hullabaloo 50 years ago about interracial marriage followed a very similar course to what's happening today: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia For a long time, everybody was opposed, but now it's just fine with most people: http://www.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-whites.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-wh... Hardcore racists now know that talking about "miscegenation" will get them ostracized. So yeah, the KKK is a pretty reasonable parallel here.
- MattGrommes 13y ago

mquander 13y ago

Let me be clear: I believe Brendan Eich is wrong about gay marriage. But I don't think the price of his convictions should be his career at Mozilla, a company he's played a large role in building, when there is no documented instance of him ever disparaging or otherwise harming LGBTQ employees or community members. I don't know what the price of Eich's convictions should be, but I think that a good way to find out is for people who have been strongly affected by his convictions to say clearly what they think about it. I don't know whether Eich will (or should) remain CEO, but whether he does or not, having people speak up in this fashion seems unambiguously positive.

joyeuse6701 13y ago
No, it's not always positive. Mob mentality like this could be 'good' when applied to civil rights, the fact that he is not a minority and his views not popular in the zeitgeist makes him a good target. Of course this sort of things is considered bad when the target is a minority. Basically, what matters is whether or not you are part of a group that is perceived to have power. That will determine how the mob treats you.
- mquander 13y ago
  I think that there's a real difference between types of behavior in this category. For example, if the same employees were calling him at night to yell the same message at him, I'm sure you'd agree that would be a terrible reaction. There are some pretty rude acts like that which are legal, but probably bad; e.g. the employees could go stand outside protesting loudly at his hypothetical kids' kindergarten, or spam all the Mozilla repositories with fake issues. However, the specific behavior in the article does not seem like that. It is employees making tweets like "I love @mozilla but I'm disappointed this week" and "I'm an employee of @mozilla and cannot reconcile having @BrendanEich as CEO with our org's culture & mission. Brendan, please step down." That doesn't seem to be harassing or threatening or a witch hunt to me; it's individuals doing an honest job of saying their opinion. Time will tell whether people start behaving worse than that, but I feel that so far this is an OK model of something you can do in a society when you feel strongly like someone has wronged you (but have no direct recourse.)

bhitov 13y ago

> That Mozilla is and remains a place where any employee can express their views on political issues, even if they know they're contrary to the CEO's. And that destroys any argument for Eich's role as CEO creating a conflict with Mozilla's ability to welcome LGBTQ employees and community members. Not that I necessarily think having Eich as CEO would make Mozilla unable to welcome LGBTQ employees, but this argument is absurd. It is not at all difficult to imagine a rule set that permits free speech while still discriminating against LGBTQ employees in some other way.

kylerush 13y ago

I actually consider it worse for an individual to have contributed to the marginalization of a group (in this case financially) of American citizens than to just have a documented instance of disparaging comments towards the group. In the former the individual is actively involved in marginalizing the group whereas with the latter the individual is stating an opinion. Your opinion matters, but what you do with your opinion matters even more.

wonderzombie 13y ago

He expressed his views publicly. They are subject to public criticism. It's absurd to characterize any form of criticism, especially something relatively mild as this, as a witch-hunt. Anti-gay bigotry is socially unacceptable. Honestly anyone who thought about it at length ought to have realized we were heading in this direction. And the bar for denying an entire category of people's rights out to be relatively high, personal religious beliefs or not. He might not have personally expressed bigotry, sure. But putting up $1K to a cause is almost worse, given that it's one of the more efficacious ways to support a cause. That cause happened to be in favor of denying civil rights.

burntroots 13y ago
Try to see this from another angle. It's 1970 and you've donated to an organization that advocates equal rights to blacks. As a consequence, when you rise through the ranks at your company and have the opportunity to be considered for CEO, your board of directors rejects you on the basis of that contribution. What you're saying is it's ok to deprive a man of his livelihood based on the current state of public opinion, which shifts by the decade. Tell me you see how wrong that is.
- wonderzombie 13y ago
  Um, it's wrong, but only because of the particulars of this example, in that the board is probably racist. And to close the loop on your example, it would be open season on the board once public opinion caught up with them. I think you're presupposing that principles are interchangeable and I don't accept that. I believe in some inherent human rights, and the merits of this particular issue are incredibly relevant. The gentleman in question made a substantial monetary contribution aimed at denying a collection of people a set of privileges. The reasons for why society ought to privilege views like his over the rights of other people are flimsy at best; it's just a lousy idea given that the basis is wholly religious. Substitute something interracial marriage if you prefer. The fact is that some views are not just immoral in the face of society's avowed principles but unsound as well.
  - 13y ago

josephlord 13y ago

Mozilla, much more than most is a political organisation (about freedom and openness) not just a commercial one. It has a mission, it will succeed with community support and goodwill. The political views of the CEO matter. People are not saying (as far as I have heard) that there should be no place at Mozilla for Brendan Eich due to his political views but they are clearly uncomfortable with him leading a political organisation. A commitment and career somewhere does not entitle you to be CEO of the organisation if that is not what is best for the organisation.

Mikeb85 13y ago
> Mozilla, much more than most is a political organisation (about freedom and openness) not just a commercial one. What about the freedom to have personal beliefs, and do what you want with your own money and time? If anything the people criticizing Brendan Eich are trying to take away his freedom...
- npizzolato 13y ago
  No, they're not. Freedom has to do with what the government is allowed to punish you for. No one is saying he shouldn't have been allowed to donate money in support of Prop 8. But actions have consequences outside of what the government can do.
- josephlord 13y ago
  Trading freedoms for employment is quite normal (my speech was constrained while employed - mostly about my company and it's products) but anyway Eich used his freedom which he is welcome to. However, having done that and expressed his political views (money is speech etc.) it should not be surprising that his political views are relevant to his ability in a political leadership role. If he can't take the community with him he is the wrong man for that role.
- amputect 13y ago
  > If anything the people criticizing Brendan Eich are trying to take away his freedom... Freedom of speech isn't freedom from criticism, and criticism isn't censorship. Freedom of speech isn't freedom from social consequences for speech. Freedom of speech isn't an unconditional guarantee of employment. Sometimes, freedom of speech becomes distasteful. I don't feel like this is one of those times, but I can understand why someone might disagree. In this situation, I see one person exercising their freedom of speech (in the form of a campaign donation) and a group of people responding with their own speech. That seems fine to me; if you disagree, could you elaborate on why, or describe what you think these employees should do instead? It seems to me that people responding to Brendan Eich should not have less freedom of speech than him.

MBlume 13y ago

> The fact that they can come out and say this demonstrates that these employees, the people best able to assess this, don't believe that Eich will retaliate. That Mozilla is and remains a place where any employee can express their views on political issues, even if they know they're contrary to the CEO's. And that destroys any argument for Eich's role as CEO creating a conflict with Mozilla's ability to welcome LGBTQ employees and community members. Or these employees have consciously chosen that they'd rather the knife come, if it's going to come, sooner than later.

hkphooey 13y ago
Or maybe these employees have cynically protected themselves from layoffs... because they could claim the CEO targeted them due to a difference in opinion!
wpietri 13y ago
Definitely. Or that it's better to stand together than to fall separately. Or that during this moment of transition they're mostly likely to win out. Or that they want to be on record so that if something does happen, they'll have better material for a press push or a lawsuit. Or that they figure they might as well give fixing things a try before they leave Mozilla. Or a bunch of other things. The notion that them speaking out now proves that they have nothing to worry about is ridiculous. If nobody had spoken out, that would also have been used as proof that everything is fine.
- notdonspaulding 13y ago
  Have these employees been harmed in any way? Has Brendan Eich ever even been accused of mistreating another Mozillian because of his views on this issue? In short, are they speaking out against real offenses, or merely hypothetical ones?
  - hkphooey 13y ago
    These are employees who are dogmatic and who may have mistakenly believed they were working for a political organization rather than a technology company. If Brendan Eich being CEO means they are not able to perform their duties as stipulated in their employment contract, they should resign.

freyrs3 13y ago

Exactly right, until he demonstrates an inability to bracket his personal affairs from his professional life (which he hasn't done) we as a enlightened pluralistic society should assume good faith and accept that he rose to this position based on his merit and contributions to the company and is probably a great candidate for the position.

bowlofpetunias 13y ago

There is a documented instance of him supporting treating gay people, including Mozilla employees, as second class humans. You expect employees to keep working for a CEO who doesn't consider them equal human beings? Why do people keep pretending this is a valid political view? This is about vicious hatred, and if he can keep that under control I admire his discipline, but no employee should have to work under that threat.

slantyyz 13y ago
>> You expect employees to keep working for a CEO who doesn't consider them equal human beings? Not to be cheeky, but in my experience, many CEOs don't consider their workers to be equal beings (and I find this to be more true with very large organizations), and it has less to do with demographics/politics/religion than it does with the status that comes with the position of power. --edited a word for clarity

FireBeyond 13y ago

"when there is no documented instance of him ever disparaging or otherwise harming LGBTQ employees or community members." Other than financially supporting and lobbying for the passage of Proposition 8, you mean?