Corporations already extensively vet their executive appointments for their politics, personal life, and appearance. Sometimes specifically and overtly, and so

Corporations already extensively vet their executive appointments for their politics, personal life, and appearance. Sometimes specifically and overtly, and sometimes via social systems within the company. To think otherwise is the height of naivety. I'm fine with adding "publicly opposes same-sex marriage" to the already long list of disqualifications for leading an organization, particularly one like Mozilla. I've found that a good check on arguments involving same-sex marriage is to see if the same argument could be swapped out for interracial marriage (i.e. in this case, would people find it as upsetting if someone was unable to become the CEO of a progressive, civil-rights-focused organization because they supported anti-miscegenation laws).