5 ms·

Maybe I don't get it, but I think asking him to resign is over the top, especially when he could be so good for Mozilla as a CEO. I think a honest apology, and

Maybe I don't get it, but I think asking him to resign is over the top, especially when he could be so good for Mozilla as a CEO. I think a honest apology, and guaranteeing that there will be absolutely no backlash against gay people within the company, ever, should be enough to settle things, wouldn't it? I mean gay people within the company don't really think that if he promises that he would not do that, he would still do it later, and fight against their rights either within the company or outside? I don't know, I just get the feeling that this has been blown out of proportion a bit, and it's starting to seem similar to the outrage against Google buses, in some ways.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- ubernostrum 13y ago
  Why should he have to apologize for holding a mainstream and legal opinion? Proposition 8 removed an already-existing right of certain persons, denying them equality before the law. Proposition 8 was not merely an "opinion" -- it was the enshrining of inequality into the law. It also was blatantly unconstitutional.
  - esrauch 13y ago
    It seems disingenuous to call something "blatant" or "obvious" when that how obvious it is seems to be exactly aligned with people's political views. Not that my politics disagree with yours, but you are in effect just claiming that your side is obviously right a priori. More than half the country thinks you are wrong.
    - ubernostrum 13y ago
      More than half the country thinks you are wrong. And the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, and half-century-old widely-accepted jurisprudence on how it applies to marriage, says clearly that I'm right. It's a thoroughly settled question. The only people hoping for something to align with their political views are those who hope the Fourteenth Amendment would suddenly stop applying for their causes.
      - esrauch 13y ago
        Many courts don't agree with your interpretation of the "half-century-old widely-accepted jurisprudence". How can you possibly claim it is a "thoroughly settled question" when gay marriage is only currently legal in 17 states?
    - nknighthb 13y ago
      You're pretty badly out of date. More than half the country has supported same-sex marriage for some time. Nearly 3/5ths now support it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/support-for-same-sex-marriage-hits-new-high-half-say-constitution-guarantees-right/2014/03/04/f737e87e-a3e5-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/support-for-same-sex-...
      - tomcorrigan 13y ago
        For some time being a couple of years since Prop 8 PASSED framed against a history of human existence of how many years?
      - esrauch 13y ago
        Forgive me if I'm skeptical of the accuracy of an online poll. Prop 8 failed the popular vote 6 years ago in what is generally characterized as the most gay-friendly state in the country. I am skeptical that the politics have shifted sufficiently that the median state now is further than the maximum state was in 2008. Realize that only 17 states have legalized gay marriage, and only three of those states have passed a popular vote (all three of which were in the past 18 months). I am skeptical that the median of this country is really as progressive as you think it is. Edit: in the three states that passed a popular vote, none were as high as you are claiming the entire country is. Maryland: 52%, Maine: 53%, Washington 54%
        nknighthb 13y ago
        Online poll? What are you talking about? It's a Washington Post/ABC poll, those are conducted through standard phone methods[0]. It is widely known that the full population is more liberal than the voting population. Why do you think Republicans try to block voter registration and lower turnout? [0] http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/washington-post-abc-news-poll-march-2014-politics-obama-and-2014-midterms/855/ http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/washington-po...
- matthewmacleod 13y ago
  Because in this position, he's a visible public figure and community leader, and in the past he's been actively campaigning for the removal of certain civil rights from members of the organisation he works for. In my opinion, that requires an apology and public statement that such policies will not be promoted as part of his work with Mozilla. If that isn't forthcoming, it seems perfectly reasonably to perform "civil disobedience" as it were.
- lmm 13y ago
  Suppose I took the view that slavery should be legalized and donated money to support that cause. Would you say that's a legal opinion that I shouldn't have to apologize for?
kevingadd 13y ago
I think asking him to resign is the correct and reasonable way to express your unhappiness over his beliefs and his financial support of Prop 8. It keeps things in the personal sphere - it's a request from one person to another person - and ensures that the views of Firefox users (and people in general) are clearly represented to Brendan and to Mozilla's board. It also means that any final decision on whether he remains as CEO needs not be a decision about faith or personal beliefs; it can be a rational, objective choice about whether he is equipped to represent the company based on how the public feels about him. There's still a bit of tension there, in that it is ultimately one's personal beliefs entering the workplace, but it's at least better than your boss firing you because they found out you tithed to a fundamentalist church or because you're queer.
- danielweber 13y ago
  This seems like a good measured response. I'm always nervous when people say "we are just applying social pressure!" when applying social pressure has been used in the past to harm these same causes. Heck, forget the past, it can be used, right now, in places that aren't California. I was on the losing side of my state's gay marriage ban. I could lump it if someone made a conscientious decision as an individual to not work with me, but it's another thing entirely if the people on the other side were to try to get me fired or boycott anyone who employs me.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

ubernostrum 13y ago
Why should he have to apologize for holding a mainstream and legal opinion? Proposition 8 removed an already-existing right of certain persons, denying them equality before the law. Proposition 8 was not merely an "opinion" -- it was the enshrining of inequality into the law. It also was blatantly unconstitutional.
- esrauch 13y ago
  It seems disingenuous to call something "blatant" or "obvious" when that how obvious it is seems to be exactly aligned with people's political views. Not that my politics disagree with yours, but you are in effect just claiming that your side is obviously right a priori. More than half the country thinks you are wrong.
  - ubernostrum 13y ago
    More than half the country thinks you are wrong. And the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, and half-century-old widely-accepted jurisprudence on how it applies to marriage, says clearly that I'm right. It's a thoroughly settled question. The only people hoping for something to align with their political views are those who hope the Fourteenth Amendment would suddenly stop applying for their causes.
    - esrauch 13y ago
      Many courts don't agree with your interpretation of the "half-century-old widely-accepted jurisprudence". How can you possibly claim it is a "thoroughly settled question" when gay marriage is only currently legal in 17 states?
  - nknighthb 13y ago
    You're pretty badly out of date. More than half the country has supported same-sex marriage for some time. Nearly 3/5ths now support it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/support-for-same-sex-marriage-hits-new-high-half-say-constitution-guarantees-right/2014/03/04/f737e87e-a3e5-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/support-for-same-sex-...
    - tomcorrigan 13y ago
      For some time being a couple of years since Prop 8 PASSED framed against a history of human existence of how many years?
    - esrauch 13y ago
      Forgive me if I'm skeptical of the accuracy of an online poll. Prop 8 failed the popular vote 6 years ago in what is generally characterized as the most gay-friendly state in the country. I am skeptical that the politics have shifted sufficiently that the median state now is further than the maximum state was in 2008. Realize that only 17 states have legalized gay marriage, and only three of those states have passed a popular vote (all three of which were in the past 18 months). I am skeptical that the median of this country is really as progressive as you think it is. Edit: in the three states that passed a popular vote, none were as high as you are claiming the entire country is. Maryland: 52%, Maine: 53%, Washington 54%
      - nknighthb 13y ago
        Online poll? What are you talking about? It's a Washington Post/ABC poll, those are conducted through standard phone methods[0]. It is widely known that the full population is more liberal than the voting population. Why do you think Republicans try to block voter registration and lower turnout? [0] http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/washington-post-abc-news-poll-march-2014-politics-obama-and-2014-midterms/855/ http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/washington-po...
matthewmacleod 13y ago
Because in this position, he's a visible public figure and community leader, and in the past he's been actively campaigning for the removal of certain civil rights from members of the organisation he works for. In my opinion, that requires an apology and public statement that such policies will not be promoted as part of his work with Mozilla. If that isn't forthcoming, it seems perfectly reasonably to perform "civil disobedience" as it were.
lmm 13y ago
Suppose I took the view that slavery should be legalized and donated money to support that cause. Would you say that's a legal opinion that I shouldn't have to apologize for?

kevingadd 13y ago

I think asking him to resign is the correct and reasonable way to express your unhappiness over his beliefs and his financial support of Prop 8. It keeps things in the personal sphere - it's a request from one person to another person - and ensures that the views of Firefox users (and people in general) are clearly represented to Brendan and to Mozilla's board. It also means that any final decision on whether he remains as CEO needs not be a decision about faith or personal beliefs; it can be a rational, objective choice about whether he is equipped to represent the company based on how the public feels about him. There's still a bit of tension there, in that it is ultimately one's personal beliefs entering the workplace, but it's at least better than your boss firing you because they found out you tithed to a fundamentalist church or because you're queer.

danielweber 13y ago
This seems like a good measured response. I'm always nervous when people say "we are just applying social pressure!" when applying social pressure has been used in the past to harm these same causes. Heck, forget the past, it can be used, right now, in places that aren't California. I was on the losing side of my state's gay marriage ban. I could lump it if someone made a conscientious decision as an individual to not work with me, but it's another thing entirely if the people on the other side were to try to get me fired or boycott anyone who employs me.