4 ms·

I see that Eich put up a small amount of money to support a bill against gay marriage. This says nothing about the way he treats people, or how he might serve

I see that Eich put up a small amount of money to support a bill against gay marriage. This says nothing about the way he treats people, or how he might serve as CEO. Is there something more, or is it really all about his political ideals?

jbeja 13y ago
Just the state that he doesn't believe in equality is enough for me.
- grannyg00se 13y ago
  The marriage issue is complicated by many factors, one of which is religion. It doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't believe in equality.
  - wpietri 13y ago
    If you work to strip civil rights from a group of people, you pretty much have to not believe in their equality in any meaningful sense. Sure, he might "believe in" their equality in the same way that most people "believe in" getting enough niacin. That is: they might state that belief, but they will never act for it and will often act against it. And I'd add that if Eich believes in their equality and now regrets working against it, he could just say so. That he has energetically dodged the issue when it is of obvious concern to the people he can now fire says something on its own.
- foolinaround 13y ago
  >he doesn't believe in equality what you mean is "he does'nt believe in the definition of equality as you believe it to be". I believe that he should be penalized if he has demonstrated any hatred towards people in the workplace. I believe that a man is free to exercise his right to free speech in his private life, and this is what I deem it to be. There is a reasonable fear that the gay employees may find themselves cornered under his leadership, and this was addressed in his letter and in the steps Mozilla took to assuage those fears. Anything after this is a witch hunt, and folks taking up the pitchforks are the ones who have been affected the most. Its sad, but happens all the time.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    Would you really extend this to any opinion one might have? Suppose a large percentage of women in your state thought men were unfit to vote. Supposed they were enough to legally remove men's right to vote. Now suppose a supporter of that position was hired as your boss. Would you really be OK with that? Feel free to picture more repugnant positions. Would you really not draw the line anywhere? If you would, then you're not really any different than people around here, you just disagree where you draw the line. And frankly, I find it very hard to believe that someone wouldn't.
TazeTSchnitzel 13y ago
Somehow, I doubt a CEO who is against same-sex marriage will be terribly friendly to LGBT employees.
- grannyg00se 13y ago
  A lot of people are against same sex marriage for various reasons but aren't necessarily against homosexuality or LGBT. More specifically, Brendan has publicly indicated that he intends to actively pursue equality throughout the organization[1]. So people seem to be calling him a liar with no evidence. And they're also bullying him solely based on his beliefs, rather than his actions. [1]https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/
  - TazeTSchnitzel 13y ago
    They might not be "against homosexuality", but their reasons are usually still homophobic.
    - gocarsno 13y ago
      Key word: usually. If there is a reasonable way to reconcile opposition to gay marriage with acceptance of gays, then we ought to give the opponents the benefit of the doubt before ostracizing them. And I'm pretty sure there is such a way.
      - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 13y ago
        Essentially, there isn't. There are gays living and loving now, who are being discriminated against now. This effect that the affected are feeling now does not go away by giving anyone a benefit of the doubt. If we need time to sort out how exactly to handle this whole marriage business, it still is inacceptable to just keep discriminating until a consensus has been found. "I accept gays but I still do treat them differently than other people" doeesn't really compute. It is generally instructive to try and apply the arguments to similar struggles of the past, that tends to make it much much clearer how wrong those arguments are. "If there is a reasonable way to reconcile opposition to mixed marriage with acceptance of black people, then we ought to give the opponents the benefit of the doubt before ostracizing them." How does that read?

jbeja 13y ago

Just the state that he doesn't believe in equality is enough for me.

grannyg00se 13y ago
The marriage issue is complicated by many factors, one of which is religion. It doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't believe in equality.
- wpietri 13y ago
  If you work to strip civil rights from a group of people, you pretty much have to not believe in their equality in any meaningful sense. Sure, he might "believe in" their equality in the same way that most people "believe in" getting enough niacin. That is: they might state that belief, but they will never act for it and will often act against it. And I'd add that if Eich believes in their equality and now regrets working against it, he could just say so. That he has energetically dodged the issue when it is of obvious concern to the people he can now fire says something on its own.
foolinaround 13y ago
>he doesn't believe in equality what you mean is "he does'nt believe in the definition of equality as you believe it to be". I believe that he should be penalized if he has demonstrated any hatred towards people in the workplace. I believe that a man is free to exercise his right to free speech in his private life, and this is what I deem it to be. There is a reasonable fear that the gay employees may find themselves cornered under his leadership, and this was addressed in his letter and in the steps Mozilla took to assuage those fears. Anything after this is a witch hunt, and folks taking up the pitchforks are the ones who have been affected the most. Its sad, but happens all the time.
- icebraining 13y ago
  Would you really extend this to any opinion one might have? Suppose a large percentage of women in your state thought men were unfit to vote. Supposed they were enough to legally remove men's right to vote. Now suppose a supporter of that position was hired as your boss. Would you really be OK with that? Feel free to picture more repugnant positions. Would you really not draw the line anywhere? If you would, then you're not really any different than people around here, you just disagree where you draw the line. And frankly, I find it very hard to believe that someone wouldn't.

TazeTSchnitzel 13y ago

Somehow, I doubt a CEO who is against same-sex marriage will be terribly friendly to LGBT employees.

grannyg00se 13y ago
A lot of people are against same sex marriage for various reasons but aren't necessarily against homosexuality or LGBT. More specifically, Brendan has publicly indicated that he intends to actively pursue equality throughout the organization[1]. So people seem to be calling him a liar with no evidence. And they're also bullying him solely based on his beliefs, rather than his actions. [1]https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/
- TazeTSchnitzel 13y ago
  They might not be "against homosexuality", but their reasons are usually still homophobic.
  - gocarsno 13y ago
    Key word: usually. If there is a reasonable way to reconcile opposition to gay marriage with acceptance of gays, then we ought to give the opponents the benefit of the doubt before ostracizing them. And I'm pretty sure there is such a way.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 13y ago
      Essentially, there isn't. There are gays living and loving now, who are being discriminated against now. This effect that the affected are feeling now does not go away by giving anyone a benefit of the doubt. If we need time to sort out how exactly to handle this whole marriage business, it still is inacceptable to just keep discriminating until a consensus has been found. "I accept gays but I still do treat them differently than other people" doeesn't really compute. It is generally instructive to try and apply the arguments to similar struggles of the past, that tends to make it much much clearer how wrong those arguments are. "If there is a reasonable way to reconcile opposition to mixed marriage with acceptance of black people, then we ought to give the opponents the benefit of the doubt before ostracizing them." How does that read?