3 ms·

> 1. Mozilla has appointed as a CEO someone who not only doesn't support same-sex marriage, but who has actively contributed to the campaign against it Why i

> 1. Mozilla has appointed as a CEO someone who not only doesn't support same-sex marriage, but who has actively contributed to the campaign against it Why is "active" support relevant. Surely it is his views that make so many uneasy. > 2. The CEO is the public face of Mozilla, and to some extent sets the agenda. This is true, but of what relevance? Mozilla is not an organisation with an agenda about marriage or LGBTQ rights. > 3. There are quite a number of developers and others in the community, some of whom work at Mozilla, who are either in or will consider a same-sex marriage at some point in the future. I expect there are also some Mormons and Muslims who may wish to practice polygamy, perhaps even some Jews who feel obliged to enter in to a levirate marriage despite already being married. I suspect that any alternative CEO would probably support monogamous marriages only. Presumably the board must enquire as to any candidate's opinion on this matter and woe betide any CEO anywhere who doesn't support polygamy. They too could be in for this kind of treatment. > 4. These people are disappointed (reasonably so) that a person who is campaigning against their civil rights has been appointed to a relatively important and visible position. Brendan Eich is not and never has campaigned against their civil rights. Furthermore, before this appointment Brendan Eich already held a "relatively important and visible position." Brendan Eich simply donated money towards a campaign that he supported for reasons we do not know. He was joined in his view by a MAJORITY of voters at that time.

masklinn 13y ago
> Mozilla is not an organisation with an agenda about marriage or LGBTQ rights. They disagree with you: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/03/29/mozilla-supports-lgbt-equality/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/03/29/mozilla-supports-lg... > Brendan Eich is not and never has campaigned against their civil rights. Brendan Eich has given $1000 to remove access to marriage from same-sex couples. Marriage being a civil right (Loving v. Virginia) and money being speech (Buckley v. Valeo), yes he has campaigned against their civil rights. > before this appointment Brendan Eich already held a "relatively important and visible position." He was CTO, he didn't get to decide of Mozilla's overall. > He was joined in his view by a MAJORITY of voters at that time. And he was just as wrong[0] as they were, why does the majority being idiotic make things any different? [0] since it was a majority voting for something which was later found unconstitutional
- tomcorrigan 13y ago
  >> Mozilla is not an organisation with an agenda about marriage or LGBTQ rights. >They disagree with you: Perhaps I was careless with terminology, perhaps you took an unusual interpretation of what I said (see below.) I will let each reader draw their own conclusion. What I meant was that Mozilla is not an organisation established with the specific aim of advancing LGBTQ rights, nor equal marriage rights for all. >> Brendan Eich is not and never has campaigned against their civil rights. >Brendan Eich has given $1000 to remove access to marriage from same-sex couples. Marriage being a civil right (Loving v. Virginia) and money being speech (Buckley v. Valeo), yes he has campaigned against their civil rights. Well done, you quoted some cases and used them to redefine "campaign" far away from any natural and commonly accepted meaning of the word. If you want to argue semantics not substance we could around in circles all day except that I am not interested and won't bother. >> He was joined in his view by a MAJORITY of voters at that time. >And he was just as wrong[0] as they were, why does the majority being idiotic make things any different? The people of California were voting for what they thought marriage should be, not whether gay marriage was constitutional. They were therefore not wrong.
  - nknighthb 13y ago
    Their opinion on what marriage should be was morally wrong. Their action was also constitutionally wrong. When voters vote on propositions, they exercise legislative powers much as elected representatives do. As with elected legislators, they are required to adhere to the state and federal constitutions, even though, as with elected legislators, they are not individually punished by law for their unconstitutional acts.
    - thescribe 13y ago
      Lets not pretend this is a universal moral. Their opinion on what marriage should be is morally wrong according to you.
      - nknighthb 13y ago
        If the standard were whether something is universal, there would be literally nothing bad enough to justify not hiring someone. Should serial killers be CEOs?

masklinn 13y ago

> Mozilla is not an organisation with an agenda about marriage or LGBTQ rights. They disagree with you: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/03/29/mozilla-supports-lgbt-equality/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/03/29/mozilla-supports-lg... > Brendan Eich is not and never has campaigned against their civil rights. Brendan Eich has given $1000 to remove access to marriage from same-sex couples. Marriage being a civil right (Loving v. Virginia) and money being speech (Buckley v. Valeo), yes he has campaigned against their civil rights. > before this appointment Brendan Eich already held a "relatively important and visible position." He was CTO, he didn't get to decide of Mozilla's overall. > He was joined in his view by a MAJORITY of voters at that time. And he was just as wrong[0] as they were, why does the majority being idiotic make things any different? [0] since it was a majority voting for something which was later found unconstitutional

tomcorrigan 13y ago
>> Mozilla is not an organisation with an agenda about marriage or LGBTQ rights. >They disagree with you: Perhaps I was careless with terminology, perhaps you took an unusual interpretation of what I said (see below.) I will let each reader draw their own conclusion. What I meant was that Mozilla is not an organisation established with the specific aim of advancing LGBTQ rights, nor equal marriage rights for all. >> Brendan Eich is not and never has campaigned against their civil rights. >Brendan Eich has given $1000 to remove access to marriage from same-sex couples. Marriage being a civil right (Loving v. Virginia) and money being speech (Buckley v. Valeo), yes he has campaigned against their civil rights. Well done, you quoted some cases and used them to redefine "campaign" far away from any natural and commonly accepted meaning of the word. If you want to argue semantics not substance we could around in circles all day except that I am not interested and won't bother. >> He was joined in his view by a MAJORITY of voters at that time. >And he was just as wrong[0] as they were, why does the majority being idiotic make things any different? The people of California were voting for what they thought marriage should be, not whether gay marriage was constitutional. They were therefore not wrong.
- nknighthb 13y ago
  Their opinion on what marriage should be was morally wrong. Their action was also constitutionally wrong. When voters vote on propositions, they exercise legislative powers much as elected representatives do. As with elected legislators, they are required to adhere to the state and federal constitutions, even though, as with elected legislators, they are not individually punished by law for their unconstitutional acts.
  - thescribe 13y ago
    Lets not pretend this is a universal moral. Their opinion on what marriage should be is morally wrong according to you.
    - nknighthb 13y ago
      If the standard were whether something is universal, there would be literally nothing bad enough to justify not hiring someone. Should serial killers be CEOs?