7 ms·

Mozilla's Gay-Marriage Litmus Test Violates Liberal Values

82 points by rrrazdan 13y ago

tiles 13y ago
The strangest omission from articles like these is the effect that it had on people inside Mozilla, many of whom spoke out. You can exclude every reaction given by people on Twitter, HN, and personal blogs—and Eich stepping down as CEO still seems like the likely outcome.
- slantyyz 13y ago
  >> many of whom spoke out Curious -- Does anyone know how many Mozilla employees spoke out? I only saw the first few articles referring to tweets by a small number of Mozilla's 600+ employees, but I haven't been following this story as closely as others.
  - gcp 13y ago
    planet.mozilla.org has a blogroll.
ZanyProgrammer 13y ago
Conservatarian disagrees with progressives and concern trolls. News at 11.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  He's a self-proclaimed progressive, if I read that article right.
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 13y ago
    He can proclaim himself to be whatever he likes, but money speaks and a thousand bucks to prop 8 is a pretty regressive act.
    - sliverstorm 13y ago
      Maybe I misunderstood; I thought my parent was saying the author of this piece is conservative
crazygringo 13y ago
You know, the flagging here on HN is starting to get annoying. 30 min ago this was on the front page, now it's at position #91: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7533055 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7533055 Probably because there are 22 comments for 26 points, which is triggering something (or people are flagging it). Everyone clearly wants to talk about this -- it's getting really annoying that it has to keep jumping threads because of whatever HN's algorithms are doing. Edit: And, now THIS thread has been censored too, currently with 50 points and suddenly banished from front-page to #94. C'mon guys... the anti-Eich articles were upvoted all over the place, but now articles critical of it shouldn't be seen? I'm sorry, but that's just wrong.
- briantakita 13y ago
  Censorship at it's finest. I also expect to be downvoted despite raising a good point, lol. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
- benched 13y ago
  It's been annoying for months, at least. I've noticed it more and more - at least once every couple of days, I'll experience the phenomenon which I'm sure most here are by now familiar with: I go to read the article, go back to find the discussion, and it's gone. Oh, this again. Of course with this Eich affair, it has been so much worse. I'm beyond annoyed at this point. It's hard for me to imagine how people think forcing stories off the front page left and right are really, significantly making the site better.
- nailer 13y ago
  It might also be the controversy filter - the 'Eich stepping down' article also moved quickly from the front page.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  #102 now. Do you think an HN algo is demoting it, or do you think people are using "flag" as a proxy for "disagree"?
- wglb 13y ago
Crito 13y ago
Utter bullocks. Would we entertain this idea that the tolerant must tolerate intolerance if Prop 8 was about race, rather than gender? Of course not. Nobody pretends that we must not speak ill of racists; certainly nobody pretends that speaking ill of racists makes you just as bad as racists. It is apparent to me that we as a society still have a lot of ground to cover when it comes to the appreciation of the importance of gender and sexuality equality.
- briantakita 13y ago
  That was 6 years ago. The majority of Californians supported Prop 8 at that time. Even Barack Obama opposed gay marriage back then. Why aren't we raising the pitchforks against Obama? People change. This is a witch hunt from an action that someone did a long time ago. He didn't even do anything wrong. He just supported a mainstream proposition. He is on the wrong side of history, at that time, sure. But it doesn't deserve such a reaction. This mob justice is scary. --- Edit: Censoring me with downvotes only proves how extreme things have become. My reasoning is rational.
  - parfe 13y ago
    >People change. What did Eich do which made you think he reconsidered his position that same sex marriages should be annulled and banned?
    - briantakita 13y ago
      https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ He put forth a good-faith effort to promote a position of equality within Mozilla.
      - Crito 13y ago
        That post is neither an apology nor a recant. He does not acknowledge that what he did was wrong. It is nothing more than a tone-deaf defense of himself.
mikeash 13y ago
Here's one thing I've been unable to understand throughout this whole controversy: What are we supposed to do about it? As far as I can tell, this was a completely grassroots thing with no organization, no central control, nothing. It just spontaneously happened. Now, I don't know how important this whole thing is. To me, it looks like an awful lot of fuss over a very little thing. But let's say that it is, in fact, the worst thing ever to happen in the history of the universe. Even then, what should we do? Writing long articles about how terrible it is doesn't help at all unless we have something we could actually do to change things. What actual concrete proposal is being made? Is there one? Or are people just wringing their hands?
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  The main thing that needs to be done, is the public needs to learn & adjust its behavior. This is a sociopolitical problem, and I think it needs to be fixed by those means. Either through adjusting norms of socially accepted behavior (i.e. don't crucify someone for what they did 10 years ago) or through strong leadership from political figures/groups.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    OK, and how do you do that exactly? Clearly calling people out publicly is not allowed. What's the proper approach for changing the public's behavior?
    - sliverstorm 13y ago
      I don't really know. I can speculate- well-reasoned & accessible pieces that avoid throwing around blame (public figure). Friends speaking with friends (grassroots). Political guidance/commentary from The Party (political figure). All I'm hoping for right now though, is that people will individually start to recognize the pattern & begin to lose their bloodlust.
    - slantyyz 13y ago
      >> Clearly calling people out publicly is not allowed. I have a possibly weird/complex take on this whole thing. I think it was absolutely fine for the public/customers/partners to call out Eich to resign based on his Prop 8 vote. On the other hand, I have mixed feelings about Mozilla employees calling for his resignation publicly. Where I live, I think Eich would have a case for workplace harassment against those employees. I don't know what workplace harassment laws are like in the US, but publicly shaming a coworker for something legal they did that you don't morally agree with is usually grounds for some sort of action, regardless of that person's position of power.
nailer 13y ago
"Does anyone doubt that had a business fired a CEO six years ago for making a political donation against Prop 8, liberals silent during this controversy (or supportive of the resignation) would've argued that contributions have nothing to do with a CEO's ability to do his job?" I also suspect many of the outspoken opponents against devout Christian viewpoints (or exercising those viewpoints - various people have insisted they're fine with people having such viewpoints as long as they're never exercised) would not protest against other religions which hold similar viewpoints. As a supporter of gay marriage, and somebody who believes spirituality isn't real, this still strikes me as picking on someone. And also a shitty way to advocate gay rights.
- benched 13y ago
  And I think that people who can say things like this really just don't feel gay rights are as important as other people's rights. Like they're optional. Like we did them a favor letting them get married, and now they're just being mean.
- crusso 13y ago
  As a supporter of gay marriage, and somebody who believes spirituality isn't real, this still strikes me as picking on someone Same here. To think that you can't even participate in the political process now without the thought police coming in years later to hold you accountable. And some people wonder why various forms of political groups work so hard to keep their donor lists secret? You can't have an open society when there are no reasonable limits on how people can judge and prosecute you for your privately held beliefs.
  - fiter 13y ago
    I don't think it's fair to say "privately held belief." He supported a campaign to change public laws. What society can we have when there are no reasonable limits on how people can judge and prosecute you for your attempts to change public law?
    - crusso 13y ago
tasty_freeze 13y ago
I've watched this from the sidelines, and I read the mozillazine blog site at least daily. There was plenty of support for Eich within Mozilla, and many gay employees blogged their support for him too. I read mozilla's statement of "we let you down and should have been better" as referring not to promoting Eich, but that they let the internet infection fester and didn't attempt to lance it immediately. If my read is correct, then the entire basis of Friedersdorf's article is wrong.
- gcp 13y ago
  I agree. Though you could argue that the internal support for him also wasn't strong enough that he stayed on. Silent majority?
chez17 13y ago
I wonder if he had denied the holocaust or was an active KKK member if this author would be singing the same tune.
- kyberias 13y ago
  Yeah, and why not just compare him to Hitler?
- slantyyz 13y ago
  Side note: Where I live, holocaust denial is a crime (considered to be hate speech). I was a little surprised to read that it's actually legal in the US.
  - gdwatson 13y ago
    It's constitutionally-protected in the U.S -- a ban would require a constitutional amendment, which is very, very hard. Many of us on both sides of the political spectrum consider America's robust free speech protections to be the keystone of our society and government.
  - m0llusk 13y ago
    Allowing people to express views that are stupid, irrational, malicious, or otherwise flawed is the best way of exposing what is wrong with those views.
pvnick 13y ago
One of these articles has to survive the flagging brigade (likely made up of the same McCarthyites that brought us to this position) and stick to the front page. Maybe this will be it? It's certainly fair and well-composed. Edit: Nope.
programminggeek 13y ago
Between the way our industry has handled this latest thing with Mozilla and the way that related issues like gender inequality is handled at various conferences, I am finding myself less and less wanting to be involved with the community at large. It feels more and more like if you disagree with what a very vocal minority believes, you are going to be ostracized to the point that you could lose your job. I have a family to take care of so losing my job would be a pretty big deal. I don't doubt that many of the other people that get caught up in these incidents are in a similar situation. So, every time I consider speaking my mind publicly or even being involved in a public tech conference as an attendee, I think twice and am starting to just avoid them altogether. It's sort of a shame because even local conferences are getting besieged by self-righteous people who are hell bent on righting some unintentional "mistake" by the people who work very hard to put them on in the first place. I find what our industry's community is starting to be something I don't much want to be associated with.
- briantakita 13y ago
  It's not just the tech community. It's a broader issue with Social Media. I'm not sure if this is a minority view, however. It's mob justice. I'm really bothered by this too. I feel like my freedom of expression is at risk by the internet mob.
- vajorie 13y ago
  > I have a family to take care of so losing my job would be a pretty big deal. I wonder how you'd feel if your company hired a CEO who would want to take away your spouse's benefits because [insert arbitrary reason here]. There is a reason why people are vocal: they get hurt otherwise.
  - panarky 13y ago
    You're getting downvoted for spreading disinformation. Be honest or be gone.
- wyclif 13y ago
  I share all the same concerns you just voiced. It's unfortunate, but I think one of the unintended consequences of all this is that it will drive people into enclaves—exactly what the people who trolled Eich into resignation claim they want to avoid. But maybe fairness and openness is something they feel only they deserve. Political incorrectness apparently has no rights anymore in the Valley.
moskie 13y ago
> Would American society be better off if stakeholders in various corporations began to investigate leadership's political activities on abortion and to lobby for the termination of anyone who took what they regard to be the immoral, damaging position? I don't think it's useful to try to find some blanket rule that works for this case and all other cases somewhat similar to it. There's a lot of variables in play. The likeliness of affecting change. Eich's worth as CEO. What Mozilla stands for. How his political beliefs and political actions relate to people. The list goes on. Each individual with an opinion on the matter made a call, factoring in the variables that are important to them, and acted accordingly. If you find Eich's specific beliefs regarding gay marriage to be disgusting enough to suggest he not take the specific position of CEO of Mozilla, go for it. Does that mean that you should protest against every CEO of every company you have stake in, if you disagree with them on some political level? No, of course not. You should make the call on a case by case basis.
themoonbus 13y ago
I'm still not sure where I fall on this issue, but one thing people sometimes leave out of the discussion is the fact that a CEO is the public face of the company. Part of your job is to "embody" or communicate the brand, mission, what have you, of the company you represent, and I don't think Eich had the ability to do that. His interview with the Guardian was bizarre, and not what I'd expect from a CEO dealing with controversy. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/01/mozilla-ceo-brendan-eich-refuses-to-quit http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/01/mozilla-ce...
sliverstorm 13y ago
It's sort of a dystopian fantasy that I don't really believe will actually happen, but you can easily picture the natural endgame for this sort of behavior. Much like union & non-union shops, you wind up with conservative & liberal companies. Not just companies that tend one way; companies that say "You want to work here? I'm sorry, I see you voted for Reagan, goodbye," Signs that read, "Liberals need not apply". (Again, I know this is wild & somewhat exaggerated)
owenjones 13y ago
"In other words, no one had any reason to worry that Eich, a longtime executive at the company, would do anything that would negatively affect gay Mozilla employees." You know, except for contribute to Prop-8?
lisper 13y ago
Brendan Eich was not fired because he made a political donation. He was fired because the particular political donation he made is evidence that he is a bigot, that he has a broken moral code. There is not, and never has been, any justification for denying gays the right to marry except prejudice and bigotry. Every single non-religious argument against gay marriage has been definitively debunked. Therefore, discrimination against opponents of gay marriage is morally justified, just as discrimination against other kinds of bigotry is. In fact, even if discrimination against opponents of gay marriage were not morally justified on its own merits, it would be at least as morally justified as the discrimination against gays that Brendan Eich once wanted to see enshrined into law.
- obtorto 13y ago
  It seems that for half the people on HN the conversation immediately stops with "this is about civil rights, therefore we should not tolerate Eich's intolerance". But marriage itself is not a civil right. It is a pact between two people, a type of contract that we have inherited through a long series of civilizations, to which the modern state associates a number of privileges. Right off the bat, if we consider any of these privileges a matter of equality before the law, then it is the institution of marriage itself that is discriminatory. Why should an unmarried person pay more taxes than a married person for the same income? Why cannot they name a friend instead of a spouse as a dependent for health insurance? And so on. How is it acceptable to discriminate against people who are not in a romantic relationship? Why are we tolerating this obvious injustice? The answer is that, traditionally, these have not been seen as rights, but as privileges. The state grants these privileges to married people, at a cost for the community, because these is believed to be a public interest in the promotion of marriage. If that is the case, it is entirely legitimate to debate whether this public interest exists both in the case of heterosexual and homosexual couples, and furthermore, whether it still applies to anyone at all in modern society. A lot of the traditional justifications for public support of marriage were based on strongly differentiated gender roles, and it should be clear that they are no longer applicable. As for new rationales of public interest, none have been advanced, other than "discrimination" - which, again, would be an argument for abolishing marriage, not for extending it. In any case, this is a matter on which there is ample room for debate amongst well-intentioned and rational people. It is not right to nip the discussion in the bud by framing anyone who holds a different opinion as a bigot.
pyronite 13y ago
Brendan Eich has the freedom to support what he wants to support. The public (and Mozilla employees) have the freedom to respond how they wish to respond. It is up to Mozilla to choose what to do with that public response and now they've chosen. Too often this "what about freedom of speech?" argument fails to apply the same logic to both parties. People were unhappy that someone with this controversial belief was elevated to a leadership role – why should Mozilla employees have stayed quiet?
jessaustin 13y ago
I wonder what people will use instead of javascript now?
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
academicish 13y ago
Here is a topic I am tired of hearing about. Being liberal, apparently, means tolerating bigoted and backwards-looking values - rly?
- daveqr 13y ago
  If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.
  - npsimons 13y ago
    People are more than free to express any opinion they have, including the opinion that bigoted discriminating opinions are wrong, and don't really fit the ideals of an organization such as Mozilla.

82 points by rrrazdan 13y ago

tiles 13y ago

The strangest omission from articles like these is the effect that it had on people inside Mozilla, many of whom spoke out. You can exclude every reaction given by people on Twitter, HN, and personal blogs—and Eich stepping down as CEO still seems like the likely outcome.

slantyyz 13y ago
>> many of whom spoke out Curious -- Does anyone know how many Mozilla employees spoke out? I only saw the first few articles referring to tweets by a small number of Mozilla's 600+ employees, but I haven't been following this story as closely as others.
- gcp 13y ago
  planet.mozilla.org has a blogroll.

ZanyProgrammer 13y ago

Conservatarian disagrees with progressives and concern trolls. News at 11.

sliverstorm 13y ago
He's a self-proclaimed progressive, if I read that article right.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 13y ago
  He can proclaim himself to be whatever he likes, but money speaks and a thousand bucks to prop 8 is a pretty regressive act.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    Maybe I misunderstood; I thought my parent was saying the author of this piece is conservative

crazygringo 13y ago

You know, the flagging here on HN is starting to get annoying. 30 min ago this was on the front page, now it's at position #91: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7533055 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7533055 Probably because there are 22 comments for 26 points, which is triggering something (or people are flagging it). Everyone clearly wants to talk about this -- it's getting really annoying that it has to keep jumping threads because of whatever HN's algorithms are doing. Edit: And, now THIS thread has been censored too, currently with 50 points and suddenly banished from front-page to #94. C'mon guys... the anti-Eich articles were upvoted all over the place, but now articles critical of it shouldn't be seen? I'm sorry, but that's just wrong.

briantakita 13y ago
Censorship at it's finest. I also expect to be downvoted despite raising a good point, lol. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
benched 13y ago
It's been annoying for months, at least. I've noticed it more and more - at least once every couple of days, I'll experience the phenomenon which I'm sure most here are by now familiar with: I go to read the article, go back to find the discussion, and it's gone. Oh, this again. Of course with this Eich affair, it has been so much worse. I'm beyond annoyed at this point. It's hard for me to imagine how people think forcing stories off the front page left and right are really, significantly making the site better.
nailer 13y ago
It might also be the controversy filter - the 'Eich stepping down' article also moved quickly from the front page.
sliverstorm 13y ago
#102 now. Do you think an HN algo is demoting it, or do you think people are using "flag" as a proxy for "disagree"?
wglb 13y ago

Crito 13y ago

Utter bullocks. Would we entertain this idea that the tolerant must tolerate intolerance if Prop 8 was about race, rather than gender? Of course not. Nobody pretends that we must not speak ill of racists; certainly nobody pretends that speaking ill of racists makes you just as bad as racists. It is apparent to me that we as a society still have a lot of ground to cover when it comes to the appreciation of the importance of gender and sexuality equality.

briantakita 13y ago
That was 6 years ago. The majority of Californians supported Prop 8 at that time. Even Barack Obama opposed gay marriage back then. Why aren't we raising the pitchforks against Obama? People change. This is a witch hunt from an action that someone did a long time ago. He didn't even do anything wrong. He just supported a mainstream proposition. He is on the wrong side of history, at that time, sure. But it doesn't deserve such a reaction. This mob justice is scary. --- Edit: Censoring me with downvotes only proves how extreme things have become. My reasoning is rational.
- parfe 13y ago
  >People change. What did Eich do which made you think he reconsidered his position that same sex marriages should be annulled and banned?
  - briantakita 13y ago
    https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ He put forth a good-faith effort to promote a position of equality within Mozilla.
    - Crito 13y ago
      That post is neither an apology nor a recant. He does not acknowledge that what he did was wrong. It is nothing more than a tone-deaf defense of himself.

mikeash 13y ago

Here's one thing I've been unable to understand throughout this whole controversy: What are we supposed to do about it? As far as I can tell, this was a completely grassroots thing with no organization, no central control, nothing. It just spontaneously happened. Now, I don't know how important this whole thing is. To me, it looks like an awful lot of fuss over a very little thing. But let's say that it is, in fact, the worst thing ever to happen in the history of the universe. Even then, what should we do? Writing long articles about how terrible it is doesn't help at all unless we have something we could actually do to change things. What actual concrete proposal is being made? Is there one? Or are people just wringing their hands?

sliverstorm 13y ago
The main thing that needs to be done, is the public needs to learn & adjust its behavior. This is a sociopolitical problem, and I think it needs to be fixed by those means. Either through adjusting norms of socially accepted behavior (i.e. don't crucify someone for what they did 10 years ago) or through strong leadership from political figures/groups.
- mikeash 13y ago
  OK, and how do you do that exactly? Clearly calling people out publicly is not allowed. What's the proper approach for changing the public's behavior?
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    I don't really know. I can speculate- well-reasoned & accessible pieces that avoid throwing around blame (public figure). Friends speaking with friends (grassroots). Political guidance/commentary from The Party (political figure). All I'm hoping for right now though, is that people will individually start to recognize the pattern & begin to lose their bloodlust.
  - slantyyz 13y ago
    >> Clearly calling people out publicly is not allowed. I have a possibly weird/complex take on this whole thing. I think it was absolutely fine for the public/customers/partners to call out Eich to resign based on his Prop 8 vote. On the other hand, I have mixed feelings about Mozilla employees calling for his resignation publicly. Where I live, I think Eich would have a case for workplace harassment against those employees. I don't know what workplace harassment laws are like in the US, but publicly shaming a coworker for something legal they did that you don't morally agree with is usually grounds for some sort of action, regardless of that person's position of power.

nailer 13y ago

"Does anyone doubt that had a business fired a CEO six years ago for making a political donation against Prop 8, liberals silent during this controversy (or supportive of the resignation) would've argued that contributions have nothing to do with a CEO's ability to do his job?" I also suspect many of the outspoken opponents against devout Christian viewpoints (or exercising those viewpoints - various people have insisted they're fine with people having such viewpoints as long as they're never exercised) would not protest against other religions which hold similar viewpoints. As a supporter of gay marriage, and somebody who believes spirituality isn't real, this still strikes me as picking on someone. And also a shitty way to advocate gay rights.

benched 13y ago
And I think that people who can say things like this really just don't feel gay rights are as important as other people's rights. Like they're optional. Like we did them a favor letting them get married, and now they're just being mean.
crusso 13y ago
As a supporter of gay marriage, and somebody who believes spirituality isn't real, this still strikes me as picking on someone Same here. To think that you can't even participate in the political process now without the thought police coming in years later to hold you accountable. And some people wonder why various forms of political groups work so hard to keep their donor lists secret? You can't have an open society when there are no reasonable limits on how people can judge and prosecute you for your privately held beliefs.
- fiter 13y ago
  I don't think it's fair to say "privately held belief." He supported a campaign to change public laws. What society can we have when there are no reasonable limits on how people can judge and prosecute you for your attempts to change public law?
  - crusso 13y ago

tasty_freeze 13y ago

I've watched this from the sidelines, and I read the mozillazine blog site at least daily. There was plenty of support for Eich within Mozilla, and many gay employees blogged their support for him too. I read mozilla's statement of "we let you down and should have been better" as referring not to promoting Eich, but that they let the internet infection fester and didn't attempt to lance it immediately. If my read is correct, then the entire basis of Friedersdorf's article is wrong.

gcp 13y ago
I agree. Though you could argue that the internal support for him also wasn't strong enough that he stayed on. Silent majority?

chez17 13y ago

I wonder if he had denied the holocaust or was an active KKK member if this author would be singing the same tune.

kyberias 13y ago
Yeah, and why not just compare him to Hitler?
slantyyz 13y ago
Side note: Where I live, holocaust denial is a crime (considered to be hate speech). I was a little surprised to read that it's actually legal in the US.
- gdwatson 13y ago
  It's constitutionally-protected in the U.S -- a ban would require a constitutional amendment, which is very, very hard. Many of us on both sides of the political spectrum consider America's robust free speech protections to be the keystone of our society and government.
- m0llusk 13y ago
  Allowing people to express views that are stupid, irrational, malicious, or otherwise flawed is the best way of exposing what is wrong with those views.

pvnick 13y ago

One of these articles has to survive the flagging brigade (likely made up of the same McCarthyites that brought us to this position) and stick to the front page. Maybe this will be it? It's certainly fair and well-composed. Edit: Nope.

programminggeek 13y ago

Between the way our industry has handled this latest thing with Mozilla and the way that related issues like gender inequality is handled at various conferences, I am finding myself less and less wanting to be involved with the community at large. It feels more and more like if you disagree with what a very vocal minority believes, you are going to be ostracized to the point that you could lose your job. I have a family to take care of so losing my job would be a pretty big deal. I don't doubt that many of the other people that get caught up in these incidents are in a similar situation. So, every time I consider speaking my mind publicly or even being involved in a public tech conference as an attendee, I think twice and am starting to just avoid them altogether. It's sort of a shame because even local conferences are getting besieged by self-righteous people who are hell bent on righting some unintentional "mistake" by the people who work very hard to put them on in the first place. I find what our industry's community is starting to be something I don't much want to be associated with.

briantakita 13y ago
It's not just the tech community. It's a broader issue with Social Media. I'm not sure if this is a minority view, however. It's mob justice. I'm really bothered by this too. I feel like my freedom of expression is at risk by the internet mob.
vajorie 13y ago
> I have a family to take care of so losing my job would be a pretty big deal. I wonder how you'd feel if your company hired a CEO who would want to take away your spouse's benefits because [insert arbitrary reason here]. There is a reason why people are vocal: they get hurt otherwise.
- panarky 13y ago
  You're getting downvoted for spreading disinformation. Be honest or be gone.
wyclif 13y ago
I share all the same concerns you just voiced. It's unfortunate, but I think one of the unintended consequences of all this is that it will drive people into enclaves—exactly what the people who trolled Eich into resignation claim they want to avoid. But maybe fairness and openness is something they feel only they deserve. Political incorrectness apparently has no rights anymore in the Valley.

moskie 13y ago

> Would American society be better off if stakeholders in various corporations began to investigate leadership's political activities on abortion and to lobby for the termination of anyone who took what they regard to be the immoral, damaging position? I don't think it's useful to try to find some blanket rule that works for this case and all other cases somewhat similar to it. There's a lot of variables in play. The likeliness of affecting change. Eich's worth as CEO. What Mozilla stands for. How his political beliefs and political actions relate to people. The list goes on. Each individual with an opinion on the matter made a call, factoring in the variables that are important to them, and acted accordingly. If you find Eich's specific beliefs regarding gay marriage to be disgusting enough to suggest he not take the specific position of CEO of Mozilla, go for it. Does that mean that you should protest against every CEO of every company you have stake in, if you disagree with them on some political level? No, of course not. You should make the call on a case by case basis.

themoonbus 13y ago

I'm still not sure where I fall on this issue, but one thing people sometimes leave out of the discussion is the fact that a CEO is the public face of the company. Part of your job is to "embody" or communicate the brand, mission, what have you, of the company you represent, and I don't think Eich had the ability to do that. His interview with the Guardian was bizarre, and not what I'd expect from a CEO dealing with controversy. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/01/mozilla-ceo-brendan-eich-refuses-to-quit http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/01/mozilla-ce...

sliverstorm 13y ago

It's sort of a dystopian fantasy that I don't really believe will actually happen, but you can easily picture the natural endgame for this sort of behavior. Much like union & non-union shops, you wind up with conservative & liberal companies. Not just companies that tend one way; companies that say "You want to work here? I'm sorry, I see you voted for Reagan, goodbye," Signs that read, "Liberals need not apply". (Again, I know this is wild & somewhat exaggerated)

owenjones 13y ago

"In other words, no one had any reason to worry that Eich, a longtime executive at the company, would do anything that would negatively affect gay Mozilla employees." You know, except for contribute to Prop-8?

lisper 13y ago

Brendan Eich was not fired because he made a political donation. He was fired because the particular political donation he made is evidence that he is a bigot, that he has a broken moral code. There is not, and never has been, any justification for denying gays the right to marry except prejudice and bigotry. Every single non-religious argument against gay marriage has been definitively debunked. Therefore, discrimination against opponents of gay marriage is morally justified, just as discrimination against other kinds of bigotry is. In fact, even if discrimination against opponents of gay marriage were not morally justified on its own merits, it would be at least as morally justified as the discrimination against gays that Brendan Eich once wanted to see enshrined into law.

obtorto 13y ago
It seems that for half the people on HN the conversation immediately stops with "this is about civil rights, therefore we should not tolerate Eich's intolerance". But marriage itself is not a civil right. It is a pact between two people, a type of contract that we have inherited through a long series of civilizations, to which the modern state associates a number of privileges. Right off the bat, if we consider any of these privileges a matter of equality before the law, then it is the institution of marriage itself that is discriminatory. Why should an unmarried person pay more taxes than a married person for the same income? Why cannot they name a friend instead of a spouse as a dependent for health insurance? And so on. How is it acceptable to discriminate against people who are not in a romantic relationship? Why are we tolerating this obvious injustice? The answer is that, traditionally, these have not been seen as rights, but as privileges. The state grants these privileges to married people, at a cost for the community, because these is believed to be a public interest in the promotion of marriage. If that is the case, it is entirely legitimate to debate whether this public interest exists both in the case of heterosexual and homosexual couples, and furthermore, whether it still applies to anyone at all in modern society. A lot of the traditional justifications for public support of marriage were based on strongly differentiated gender roles, and it should be clear that they are no longer applicable. As for new rationales of public interest, none have been advanced, other than "discrimination" - which, again, would be an argument for abolishing marriage, not for extending it. In any case, this is a matter on which there is ample room for debate amongst well-intentioned and rational people. It is not right to nip the discussion in the bud by framing anyone who holds a different opinion as a bigot.

pyronite 13y ago

Brendan Eich has the freedom to support what he wants to support. The public (and Mozilla employees) have the freedom to respond how they wish to respond. It is up to Mozilla to choose what to do with that public response and now they've chosen. Too often this "what about freedom of speech?" argument fails to apply the same logic to both parties. People were unhappy that someone with this controversial belief was elevated to a leadership role – why should Mozilla employees have stayed quiet?

jessaustin 13y ago

I wonder what people will use instead of javascript now?

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

academicish 13y ago

Here is a topic I am tired of hearing about. Being liberal, apparently, means tolerating bigoted and backwards-looking values - rly?

daveqr 13y ago
If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.
- npsimons 13y ago
  People are more than free to express any opinion they have, including the opinion that bigoted discriminating opinions are wrong, and don't really fit the ideals of an organization such as Mozilla.