New Mozilla Ceo A "hateful" Anti-Gay?

[rockpond]

http://www.thewire.com/technology/2014/04/mozillas-ceo-resigns-following-criticism-of-his-anti-gay-marriage-donation/360132/

 

Well, now he has resigned. BTW, it turns out he is Catholic, so I was wrong about this being about Mormons. But the main point still stands. If you dare oppose the left, especially on matters of "gay rights", you will be labeled, demonized, and hounded from any position of any importance. I predict more incidents of this type over the coming months and years. Blood in the water, as they say. 

 

We can't escape the consequences of our actions, that's part of the Plan, right?  If you are going to help fund a campaign to deny privileges to citizens you can expect there to be some backlash.

 

p.s.  Gay rights are increasingly becoming important to people on the "right".  So, it is no longer about opposing the "left" -- it appears that more and more people are seeing the gay rights issue to be simply about equality.

[Buzzard]

We can't escape the consequences of our actions, that's part of the Plan, right?  If you are going to help fund a campaign to deny privileges to citizens you can expect there to be some backlash.

 

p.s.  Gay rights are increasingly becoming important to people on the "right".  So, it is no longer about opposing the "left" -- it appears that more and more people are seeing the gay rights issue to be simply about equality.

I know you and I-and others-have gone round about this, but equating political contributions with the consequences of sin is disturbing. But thanks for making my point that no dissent will be tolerated by those who insist that we tolerate them. 

[Daniel2]

Dup

[rockpond]

I know you and I-and others-have gone round about this, but equating political contributions with the consequences of sin is disturbing. But thanks for making my point that no dissent will be tolerated by those who insist that we tolerate them. 

 

I'm not equating a political contributions with the consequences of sin.  All of our actions have consequences and we can't escape those.

 

In this case, the CEO contributed financially to a certain cause.  It's quite fair for others to say that they aren't willing to work for his company or purchase the product his company products (i.e. financially contribute to him).  Why is it okay for you to demonize their choice?

 

I don't understand your definition of "tolerate".  Nobody is preventing him from politically contributing to causes of his choice.  Nobody has voted to make his chosen form of marriage illegal.  Nobody even fired him.  I'm confused at how you feel that his dissent is not being tolerated.  It seems, instead, you feel he should be favored in being able to act without any consequences.

[Daniel2]

This just in:

Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich Steps Down

In a statement published this afternoon to her corporate blog, Mozilla chairwoman Mitchell Baker announced that CEO Brendan Eichhas stepped down. Baker's statement opens:

Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn’t live up to it. We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: it’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves. We didn’t act like you’d expect Mozilla to act. We didn’t move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We’re sorry. We must do better. Brendan Eich has chosen to step down from his role as CEO. He’s made this decision for Mozilla and our community. Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.

Baker concludes:

What’s next for Mozilla’s leadership is still being discussed. We want to be open about where we are in deciding the future of the organization and will have more information next week. However, our mission will always be to make the Web more open so that humanity is stronger, more inclusive and more just: that’s what it means to protect the open Web. We will emerge from this with a renewed understanding and humility — our large, global, and diverse community is what makes Mozilla special, and what will help us fulfill our mission. We are stronger with you involved. Thank you for sticking with us.

Today's move comes ten days after Eich was named Mozilla's CEO. LGBT groups, gay Mozilla staffers, and gay developers immediately called for a boycott of Mozilla over Eich's apparently unrepentant donation to the Proposition 8 campaign in 2008. But when Eich issued a statement expressing solidarity for the LGBT community (albeit without publicly reversing on marriage equality or apologizing for the donation), calls for his resignation and boycotts of Mozilla spread into the anti-gay, Christian, and Tea Party worlds, creating a bizarre and unprecedented situation in which groups that are regularly tearing into each others' throats were suddenly and unwillingly thrust onto the same side. Almost everybody (noted exception: Brian Brown) wanted Eich gone - but for very different reasons.

Today's move will surely satisfy many LGBT activists. But don't think for a minute that this story is over, because the screams of "homofascism" that we regularly hear are now going to grow much louder and the Eich saga will surely echo into future battles. Some of us may even come to view today as having been a Pyrrhic victory as Eich will doubtlessly be canonized by our enemies and his name will become a rallying cry.

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/?m=1

Emphasis added--count me in this group. I am sorrowful over how this whole situation continues to play out, and am not sure there's anyone winning in this case.

[mormonnewb]

I know you and I-and others-have gone round about this, but equating political contributions with the consequences of sin is disturbing. But thanks for making my point that no dissent will be tolerated by those who insist that we tolerate them.

I don't get why you and the other "righteous" ones don't simply turn the table and use your economic clout. Why not threaten to boycott companies with leaders that support gay marriage? Why not boycott companies that advertise their products during television shows starring pro-SSM actors?

For my part, I gladly gave up Chic-Filet (sp?) about two years ago. I refused to indirectly fund causes working against marriage-equality. I can't really say that I miss it much. Perhaps, your side of the aisle should think about giving up, say, technology, media, arts, literature, and pretty much everything else that makes life worthwhile in the 21st century. Sure, you might have to organize your efforts using CB radios, but hey, someone has to take a stand against "tyranny."

[rpn]

Or maybe those who believe in political and religious tolerance should quit using firefox because it is not open and inclusive after all?   But no, the man chose to resign, he wasn't fired.  So he cannot hold the organization or the naysayers responsible (not that he would have been able to do that if he'd waited until he was fired  either probably.)

[jwhitlock]

This situation is instructive. Eich has been punished by SSM supporters by their loud and public demonization of him. It also appears from the public statement of Mozilla (if you read between the lines) that pressure was exerted upon him from within to resign.  Eich's major sin, in my mind, was to not show more backbone in standing up to his detractors. It is clear that attempts to try to reconcile with SSM supporters only make them howl louder for your blood.

 

This will simply embolden SSM supporters to go after larger targets and to expand the types of pressure they exert into the legal arena. The Church is going to be one of those larger targets, if the comments on the HuffPost article are any indication.  SSM supporters can be very vindictive with rather long term memories; when they get the upper hand (read: SSM becomes the law of the land) then we're going to see attacks on the church that make the Eich situation seem like a pleasant tea party.

[rockpond]

This situation is instructive. Eich has been punished by SSM supporters by their loud and public demonization of him. It also appears from the public statement of Mozilla (if you read between the lines) that pressure was exerted upon him from within to resign. Eich's major sin, in my mind, was to not show more backbone in standing up to his detractors. It is clear that attempts to try to reconcile with SSM supporters only make them howl louder for your blood.

This will simply embolden SSM supporters to go after larger targets and to expand the types of pressure they exert into the legal arena. The Church is going to be one of those larger targets, if the comments on the HuffPost article are any indication. SSM supporters can be very vindictive with rather long term memories; when they get the upper hand (read: SSM becomes the law of the land) then we're going to see attacks on the church that make the Eich situation seem like a pleasant tea party.

The Prop 8 campaign was instructive. Gays, lesbians, and their allies were punished by Mormons/Catholics by their loud and public demonization of them. Now that public opinion has shifted and that the constitution has been properly invoked, those who oppose marriage equality are upset to be on the receiving end.

Please note that it is STILL legal in many states and jurisdictions to be fire someone simply for being gay! Let's try to keep the real victims in mind.

[rockpond]

This situation is instructive. Eich has been punished by SSM supporters by their loud and public demonization of him. It also appears from the public statement of Mozilla (if you read between the lines) that pressure was exerted upon him from within to resign. Eich's major sin, in my mind, was to not show more backbone in standing up to his detractors. It is clear that attempts to try to reconcile with SSM supporters only make them howl louder for your blood.

This will simply embolden SSM supporters to go after larger targets and to expand the types of pressure they exert into the legal arena. The Church is going to be one of those larger targets, if the comments on the HuffPost article are any indication. SSM supporters can be very vindictive with rather long term memories; when they get the upper hand (read: SSM becomes the law of the land) then we're going to see attacks on the church that make the Eich situation seem like a pleasant tea party.

The Prop 8 campaign was instructive. Gays, lesbians, and their allies were punished by Mormons/Catholics by their loud and public demonization of them. Now that public opinion has shifted and that the constitution has been properly invoked, those who oppose marriage equality are upset to be on the receiving end.

Please note that it is STILL legal in many states and jurisdictions to be fire someone simply for being gay! Let's try to keep the real victims in mind.

[bluebell]

I don't get why you and the other "righteous" ones don't simply turn the table and use your economic clout. Why not threaten to boycott companies with leaders that support gay marriage? Why not boycott companies that advertise their products during television shows starring pro-SSM actors?

For my part, I gladly gave up Chic-Filet (sp?) about two years ago. I refused to indirectly fund causes working against marriage-equality. I can't really say that I miss it much. Perhaps, your side of the aisle should think about giving up, say, technology, media, arts, literature, and pretty much everything else that makes life worthwhile in the 21st century. Sure, you might have to organize your efforts using CB radios, but hey, someone has to take a stand against "tyranny."

I can't speak for anyone else but for me I just don't feel comfortable essentially telling a company-

"Either agree with my beliefs or I'll take away your ability to support your family."

It just feels like blackmail to me.

I understand why others disagree, but that's why I don't use my economic clout to force companies to believe what I want them too.

[Mystery Meat]

I can't speak for anyone else but for me I just don't feel comfortable essentially telling a company-

"Either agree with my beliefs or I'll take away your ability to support your family."

It just feels like blackmail to me.

I understand why others disagree, but that's why I don't use my economic clout to force companies to believe what I want them too.

 

Couldn't agree more.

 

I am torn on this sort of action. When I was more conservative, I never understood why some of my fellow conservatives felt the need to boycott movies with liberal actors. The mere sight of them on scree was like a disease. I thought they were missing out on some good entertainment. Now I don't understand the social/political pressure applied to anyone with a different view (both sides do it). 

 

I have often said that private action is not a first amendment issue, and that remains true. For example, someone's post here may be removed from the board without any infringement of that person's freedom of speech under the Constitution. But, I am starting to believe that the very protection offered by the first amendment will be entirely meaningless if society continues to bully people and scare people into agreeing with them or else. Might as well get rid of the first amendment if it continues.

 

People should eat at Chic-Fil-A if they think its tasty, or convenient, or provides nutrients (this is why I don't). People should use Mozilla if they think it is the best browser (also why I don't). People should watch a movie because of its message, entertainment value, or quality (I like most Matt Damon movies for this reason even though he is bat nuts).

 

Have we really gotten to the point where we can't tolerate people who have different opinions then us from being successful? Sad really. It's one of the many reasons I believe America's best years are WELL behind her. 

[rockpond]

Have we really gotten to the point where we can't tolerate people who have different opinions then us from being successful? Sad really. It's one of the many reasons I believe America's best years are WELL behind her.

I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that America's best years are behind her. It seems to me that these boycotts and such are mostly just a vocal minority. Everyone I know has more of your attitude, myself included. For example, I'm a passionate support of marriage equality and yet I had zero interest in boycotting Ender's game nor would I have stopped using Firefox (had all this happened before I made the jump to Chrome).

[Mystery Meat]

I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that America's best years are behind her. It seems to me that these boycotts and such are mostly just a vocal minority. Everyone I know has more of your attitude, myself included. For example, I'm a passionate support of marriage equality and yet I had zero interest in boycotting Ender's game nor would I have stopped using Firefox (had all this happened before I made the jump to Chrome).

 

Even if you are right (and I don't think you are because that vocal minority wields A LOT of power as we saw with this CEO) I still think there are a lot of reasons that suggest America's best days are behind her.

[rockpond]

Even if you are right (and I don't think you are because that vocal minority wields A LOT of power as we saw with this CEO) I still think there are a lot of reasons that suggest America's best days are behind her.

 

I tend to think that the CEO was pressured to resign due to internal reasons.  Once the news of his contribution to Prop 8 was made known, it would become extremely difficult for him to lead a foundation like Mozilla.  Those who work for you need to look up to you as a leader -- he lost that ability in a place where inclusion in extremely important.

 

But you and I likely think differently, because I see America becoming a better place in part because of the success of the gay rights efforts.

[Mystery Meat]

I tend to think that the CEO was pressured to resign due to internal reasons.  Once the news of his contribution to Prop 8 was made known, it would become extremely difficult for him to lead a foundation like Mozilla.  Those who work for you need to look up to you as a leader -- he lost that ability in a place where inclusion in extremely important.

 

But you and I likely think differently, because I see America becoming a better place in part because of the success of the gay rights efforts.

 

We think differently, but my being down on America has nothing to do with gay rights. 

 

And the CEO was pressured to resign because of his stance on gay marriage. He actually had done a lot to promote inclusion and diversity at Mozilla. He's proven he can lead.

[ERayR]

This story just came out about the new CEO of Mozilla who donated $1,000 dollars to Prop 8. Now LGBT activists are labeling him as hateful and boycotting Mozilla.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/27/mozilla-ceo-prop-8-_n_5042660.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

I'm not sure I read his motives as hateful, but it begs the question. Will being LDS (I don't know if he is LDS, but there is the Prop 8-LDS association) bar people from achieving professional success in the future? Thoughts?

 

So much for freedom.  It's alright to believe and support what you believe as long as don't disagree.  Ya gotta love it.

[rockpond]

We think differently, but my being down on America has nothing to do with gay rights. 

 

And the CEO was pressured to resign because of his stance on gay marriage. He actually had done a lot to promote inclusion and diversity at Mozilla. He's proven he can lead.

 

I don't deny that he was pressured to resign because of his stance on gay marriage.  His motivations to promote inclusion and diversity were likely called into question because of his activities against inclusion and diversity (contributing to the Prop 8 campaign and being against gay marriage).

 

If he is a great CEO than it will be Mozilla's loss.  But you can't go out and help pick on a minority that has historically been discriminated against and expect to not see some consequences.  There were those of us who said that this Prop 8 campaign and the church's involvement was a terrible idea.  We were told that we needed to "follow the prophet".  Well guess what, it's turned around and had some bad results just as many of us knew would happen.  Time to "man up" and deal with the consequences of your actions.

[rockpond]

So much for freedom.  It's alright to believe and support what you believe as long as don't disagree.  Ya gotta love it.

 

It's also alright to disagree.  But don't expect those that you fought against to turn around and give you their professional loyalty and consumer dollars.  Freedom is solidly intact.

[california boy]

So much for freedom.  It's alright to believe and support what you believe as long as don't disagree.  Ya gotta love it.

 

I have mixed feelings about a CEO leaving the company under pressure because of his political views.  But I find this statement the pinnacle of HYPOCRISY.  You belong to a church that actively fought to take away the FREEDOM of gay couples to legally marry who they love.  What business was it of you to deny someone that freedom that is so basic to human relationships.  Court after court after court after court has ruled that gay marriage is a constitutional RIGHT under the 14th amendment, yet you  now think that freedom has been taken away?  That CEO has every right to his religious beliefs as do you, but he should be ashamed of himself for trying  to take that freedom to marry away from another.  THAT is what this is about not his religious belief.  No one is asking him to change his religious beliefs, they are calling him out for taking away other American's freedom.  People are rightly outraged at those who would deny others the freedom to marry.  How can a person lead a company that values diversity when that person leading the company has no problem supporting a law that limits another person's freedom just because they do not share the same religious beliefs.  

 

After Prop 8 passed, this CEO could still be married to who he loved.  He could still attend his church and retain his religious beliefs about gays.  But thousands of gay people could no longer marry.  Their freedom to marry had been restricted because this man and others like him thought it was ok to deny a person the right to marry.  Sorry, but the banner of freedom is not on the side of those that supported Prop 8.

[california boy]

This situation is instructive. Eich has been punished by SSM supporters by their loud and public demonization of him. 

 

What demonization are we talking about.  The only thing I have read is that this CEO actively supported a law that took away the right to marry from gay citizens of California.  Is that not true?  If you have heard demonization other than that, please point us to what has been said.  

[BlueDreams]

I don't deny that he was pressured to resign because of his stance on gay marriage.  His motivations to promote inclusion and diversity were likely called into question because of his activities against inclusion and diversity (contributing to the Prop 8 campaign and being against gay marriage).

 

If he is a great CEO than it will be Mozilla's loss.  But you can't go out and help pick on a minority that has historically been discriminated against and expect to not see some consequences.  There were those of us who said that this Prop 8 campaign and the church's involvement was a terrible idea.  We were told that we needed to "follow the prophet".  Well guess what, it's turned around and had some bad results just as many of us knew would happen.  Time to "man up" and deal with the consequences of your actions.

 

There's something that really disturbs me about this idea and I can't figure out what it is exactly. Probably somewhat close to what BB mentioned. His job has has almost nothing to do with Prop 8, gay rights, etc. It's not the same note as boycotts back in the 60's where the companies would actively discriminate against black customers or the same payments were given for lesser services/care. That makes perfect sense....there's a direct correlation between one's capacities/quality of life and the actions of said business. Here there is no such direct link. At best there is some possible indirect links that appear pretty flimsy. It appears more vindictive and petty than moving and progressive. Here the consequences really do not fit the actions at all. It feels less as an appeal to see and respect another's view in dialogue and more of a way to force one's view as the only right way to believe. 

 

And I think it's that force that just really does not set well in me at all. In the long run I don't think it really helps LGBT community receive real and meaningful acceptance. It only furthers/continues the divide.

 

With luv,

BD

[thesometimesaint]

So much for freedom.  It's alright to believe and support what you believe as long as don't disagree.  Ya gotta love it.

 

I don't like subcompact cars. I don't fit in most of them(I'm too tall). So I don't buy them. How is that a determent to my freedom of speech?

[Storm Rider]

I get a kick out of the hypocrisy of several posters on here.

What? Man up. There are consequences to your actions and choices. Gosh, it is just freedom.  

 

Yeah, right. I support tolerance for everyone except if you disagree with me. If you disagree with me, even privately, then I have the right to make you pay.  Yeah, that is the freedom that so many of our good Muslim zealots believe in.  You can do whatever you want, BUT if you don't believe exactly like I do I am justified in killing you.  After all, man the heck up!  If you believe in gay marriage, stand up and shout it out and let that bullet take you to the next world with an open heart full of love for that twisted sense of justice.  

 

You see, everything changes when the shoe is on the other foot. How anyone can have the hypocrisy to criticize any group for demanding that everyone toe the line in order to maintain "purity" of thought and belief.  Yup, you guys make me proud for your deep logic and belief in tolerance.

 

People, citizens, societies learn lessons.  Our culture teaches everyone every day what they can do and what they cannot do.  When you reap the rewards of this type of tolerance, let's talk again.   

[jwhitlock]

As expected, the intentional disconnect from reality perpetuated by SSM supporters continues.

 

If you oppose SSM, you are automatically considered a hateful bigot, continuing to persecute gays who are the only "real victims" here. And we all know that bigots need to be shut down by any means possible, don't we.

 

There's absolutely no acknowledgment that a person can have a principled opposition to SSM and not be anti-gay. It's non-negotiable. SSM supporters are going to control the definitions and as demonstrated with Eich, total demonization of SSM opponents is fair game without regard to what their real interactions with gays are.

 

And in consistent SSM supporter fashion, after the punishment has been meted out, they loudly proclaim that nobody demonized him or attacked  him. Ignore those comments on HuffPost and ARS Techinca attacking Eich. It's laughable to think that anyone being called a hateful bigot is being attacked.

 

I'm interested in seeing what the next target for SSM supporters is going to be. If their rationalizations about Hobby Lobby being a hate organization are any indication, we're going to see the Church accused of being a hate organization, and members who oppose SSM being bigots who need to be disenfranchised.

 

It's the 19th century all over again.