After Supporting Prop 8, New CEO Brendan Eich Comes Under Fire From Mozilla Employees

[OverVolt]

I really am against blacklisting someone because of a political issue. The man invented Javascript FFS.

I support gay marriage. But I feel that people should be able to voice their opinion without fear of losing their job That is exactly what freedom of expression is all about.

Straight out of the top comment. This is wrong. I'm straight and don't mind LGBT's you can get married if you want, I don't care, but this is wrong. LGBT's aren't helping themselves with this in any way shape or form by using pressure to get this guy fired. How does that help you? Its so spiteful and petty.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

This is shameful. Right up there with tar and feathers.

 

[Victorian Gray]

This is shameful. Right up there with tar and feathers.

Ummm, no it isn't.

Public outcry over his financial support of anti 'gay marriage' politicians and public referendums leads to not so 'liberal' rich guy resigning his job as CEO at a 'liberal' software company compared to the following:

"In a typical tar-and-feathers attack, the mob's victim was stripped to his waist. Hot tar was either poured or painted onto the person while he was immobilized. Then the victim either had feathers thrown on him or was rolled around on a pile of feathers so they stuck to the tar. Often the victim was then paraded around town on a cart or wooden rail. The aim was to inflict enough miserable pain and humiliation on a person to make him either conform his behavior to the mob's demands or be driven from town. The practice was never an official punishment in the United States, but rather a form of vigilante attack.

A more brutal derivation, called pitchcapping, was used by British forces against Irish rebels during the period of the Irish Rebellion of 1798. Sometimes, only the head was shaven, tarred and feathered; at other times, a match was held to the feathers to light them and the tar on fire to inflict pain."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarring_and_feathering#Description

 

[michal1980]

Ummm, no it isn't.

Public outcry over his financial support of anti 'gay marriage' politicians and public referendums leads to not so 'liberal' rich guy resigning his job as CEO at a 'liberal' software company compared to the following:

"In a typical tar-and-feathers attack, the mob's victim was stripped to his waist. Hot tar was either poured or painted onto the person while he was immobilized. Then the victim either had feathers thrown on him or was rolled around on a pile of feathers so they stuck to the tar. Often the victim was then paraded around town on a cart or wooden rail. The aim was to inflict enough miserable pain and humiliation on a person to make him either conform his behavior to the mob's demands or be driven from town. The practice was never an official punishment in the United States, but rather a form of vigilante attack.

A more brutal derivation, called pitchcapping, was used by British forces against Irish rebels during the period of the Irish Rebellion of 1798. Sometimes, only the head was shaven, tarred and feathered; at other times, a match was held to the feathers to light them and the tar on fire to inflict pain."




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarring_and_feathering#Description

Thanks for describing what happen to the guy.

 

[fskimospy]

Actually, I think you're fairly intelligent. What I find disturbing and quite morally disgusting and repugnant is that you'd hurt someone's business because he doesn't like gay marriage, in effect, hurting his livelihood.

It is very strange to me that you think someone's attempt to take away the civil rights of people I care about would have no effect on my desire to associate with them. If I have the choice to work with a moral person or an immoral person that choice is easy.

You're the real bigot here, and are the primary reason why conservatives pass "discrimination" bills. I actually have greater reason to fear progressives than I initially thought.

Ah yes, the old "if you don't like bigots then you are a bigot" argument. It is no more convincing now than it has ever been. Dislike of immoral people is perfectly acceptable. It is amazing that anyone would even try to say that my choice to disassociate with people that directly contributed to an attack on the civil rights of my friends and family is bigotry.

Don't run a business and have reservations as regards gay marriage. Being cut at the sack and being out of business is a real threat.

A better business tip might be "don't attack the civil rights of your customers and employees and think that nobody will care". That seems like valuable advice.

 

[nehalem256]

Ah yes, the old "if you don't like bigots then you are a bigot" argument. It is no more convincing now than it has ever been. Dislike of immoral people is perfectly acceptable. It is amazing that anyone would even try to say that my choice to disassociate with people that directly contributed to an attack on the civil rights of my friends and family is bigotry.

So to be clear you never supported or voted Barack Obama right?

Hmmm, does this mean he should step down? :hmm:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6K9dS9wl7U

Since at the time Eich made his political donation his view on SSM was identical to Obama 😉

 

[michal1980]

It is very strange to me that you think someone's attempt to take away the civil rights of people I care about would have no effect on my desire to associate with them. If I have the choice to work with a moral person or an immoral person that choice is easy.



Ah yes, the old "if you don't like bigots then you are a bigot" argument. It is no more convincing now than it has ever been. Dislike of immoral people is perfectly acceptable. It is amazing that anyone would even try to say that my choice to disassociate with people that directly contributed to an attack on the civil rights of my friends and family is bigotry.



A better business tip might be "don't attack the civil rights of your customers and employees and think that nobody will care". That seems like valuable advice.

morality is relative. Not absolute.

 

[Retro Rob]

It is very strange to me that you think someone's attempt to take away the civil rights of people I care about would have no effect on my desire to associate with them. If I have the choice to work with a moral person or an immoral person that choice is easy.



Ah yes, the old "if you don't like bigots then you are a bigot" argument. It is no more convincing now than it has ever been. Dislike of immoral people is perfectly acceptable. It is amazing that anyone would even try to say that my choice to disassociate with people that directly contributed to an attack on the civil rights of my friends and family is bigotry.



A better business tip might be "don't attack the civil rights of your customers and employees and think that nobody will care". That seems like valuable advice.

Who said that you have to do business with people who attack the civil rights of their customers?

I said its asinine to not do business with someone who holds different views than you do for that reason -- like if I prefer coffee over tea.

For example: Heck no I don't support gay marriage, yet, I never have and never will donate to, advocate for, or cast my vote for people who want to ban gay marriage. I'm not an activist, period.

I hope you understand the difference...really, I do.

 

[fskimospy]

Who said that you have to do business with people who attack the civil rights of their customers?

I said its asinine to not do business with someone who holds different views than you do for that reason -- like if I prefer coffee over tea.

For example: Heck no I don't support gay marriage, yet, I never have and never will donate to, advocate for, or cast my vote for people who want to ban gay marriage. I'm not an activist, period.

I hope you understand the difference...really, I do.

So now we are talking about something different than the situation here.

If someone didn't act on their beliefs at all that would be fine with me. I still believe that those who are against same sex marriage are immoral, but so long as you aren't hurting anyone that's your business.

 

[Retro Rob]

So now we are talking about something different than the situation here.

You and I never talked about the CEO....we were talking about your comment about not doing business with someone who merely disagreed with gay marriage. I suspect you knew that.

If someone didn't act on their beliefs at all that would be fine with me. I still believe that those who are against same sex marriage are immoral, but so long as you aren't hurting anyone that's your business.

People are welcome to act on their beliefs, but that doesn't mean they're welcome to win. Local elections are full of people passing bills to ban gay marriage in some manner.

What you really are saying is that people can't act on beliefs that contradict yours.

 

[Retro Rob]

So to be clear you never supported or voted Barack Obama right?

Good question.

 

[fskimospy]

You and I never talked about the CEO....we were talking about your comment about not doing business with someone who merely disagreed with gay marriage. I suspect you knew that.

I have no idea what you were talking about. Every comment I have ever made in this entire thread has been in relation to the situation with Mozilla's CEO.

People are welcome to act on their beliefs, but that doesn't mean they're welcome to win. Local elections are full of people passing bills to ban gay marriage in some manner.

Of course they are welcome to act on their beliefs. There have been tons of gay marriage bans that have passed in the US at one time or another. Now they are falling one after another. You know as well as I do it is only a matter of time until it is legal in the entire US.

What you really are saying is that people can't act on beliefs that contradict yours.

Why do you keep repeating this nonsense? You are free to act on any belief you have to your heart's content. That doesn't mean that others who find that action reprehensible won't act in their own way against you, however.

I feel like this is a really simple point: if you do something objectionable people might not like you and might take actions that you won't like either.

 

[nehalem256]

Good question.

Notice that he avoids the question, because it almost certainly exposes him as a hypocrite.

 

[hal2kilo]

Real freedom? Again no. We're not talking about disagreement, but harming another. Harming in a very real material way. I find the idea that I can force you and your family on the street because you don't agree with my every whim the worst possible definition imaginable. That you aren't destroyed does not mean there aren't consequences, but the consequences should not be tossing you on the street. That's an absolute abomination.

Sad to say, but, to me, the kind of freedom you are talking about only exists for street bums and the independently wealthy.

 

[fskimospy]

Good question.

How is that a good question? Like with who I engage with in business, a presidential candidate's position on gay marriage does not represent the totality of my reasons for voting/not voting for someone.

This is like the third time you or someone else has stated that if I find someone's position on gay marriage objectionable that I must oppose them completely and utterly in all things in order to be consistent. It's nonsense. I expect arguments this stupid out of nehalem as he's pretty clearly mentally ill, but please don't follow him down that hole.

Obama has or has had a number of positions I find reprehensible and immoral. He used to be (cynically) anti marriage equality. He supports wide-ranging violations of the 4th amendment. He asserts the right to execute American citizens without trial. All of those things are terrible.

We have a two party system, however (and we always will). Voting for a third party candidate is a waste of your time and so you take the guy that represents more of your ideals than the other, which Obama does. Or did you think McCain or Romney were less likely than Obama to be on the other side of any of the issues I mentioned above?

 

[Oldgamer]

He has freedom to support anti-gay measures and others have their freedom to use other products and denounce his anti-gay beliefs.

Free speech is not free from judgment of others.

This is exactly right, no one is saying he cant' contribute to his political causes, or speak on them, but people are naive to think that there won't be some type of political backlash either when they do. Especially when you are a well known public figure.

Again, no one has to buy a product from a company who they disagree with politically.

Talk about hypocrites on this board who are pushing that they should be free to not serve others based on their religious beliefs? huh?

 

[nehalem256]

How is that a good question? Like with who I engage with in business, a presidential candidate's position on gay marriage does not represent the totality of my reasons for voting/not voting for someone.

This is like the third time you or someone else has stated that if I find someone's position on gay marriage objectionable that I must oppose them completely and utterly in all things in order to be consistent. It's nonsense. I expect arguments this stupid out of nehalem as he's pretty clearly mentally ill, but please don't follow him down that hole.

Obama has or has had a number of positions I find reprehensible and immoral. He used to be (cynically) anti marriage equality. He supports wide-ranging violations of the 4th amendment. He asserts the right to execute American citizens without trial. All of those things are terrible.

We have a two party system, however (and we always will). Voting for a third party candidate is a waste of your time and so you take the guy that represents more of your ideals than the other, which Obama does. Or did you think McCain or Romney were less likely than Obama to be on the other side of any of the issues I mentioned above?

If someone's views are so objectionable that you think it is reasonable to fire them for having said views I have a hard time understanding how you can justify voting for someone holding those same views.

It is amazing that anyone would even try to say that my choice to disassociate with people that directly contributed to an attack on the civil rights of my friends and family is bigotry.

Yet you have no problem voting for people that directly contribute to an attack on the civil rights of your friends and family.

That is what makes you a hypocrite. Well that and your having an anti-Native American slur in your user name while complaining about the racist Washington Redskins team name.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

I really am against blacklisting someone because of a political issue. The man invented Javascript FFS.



Straight out of the top comment. This is wrong. I'm straight and don't mind LGBT's you can get married if you want, I don't care, but this is wrong. LGBT's aren't helping themselves with this in any way shape or form by using pressure to get this guy fired. How does that help you? Its so spiteful and petty.

I'm all for blacklisting him for inventing javascript.

 

[fleshconsumed]

We as society force or moral beliefs on other's all the time. Just look at the age of consent laws, that is a moral belief on when someone should be able to consent to Sex. Look at laws against Prostitution, that is a forcing of moral beliefs onto other people. A lot of people in 2008 didn't see Gay Marriage as a civil rights issue. I just think that overall we need to turn down the public lynching of people because they disagree with us. The guy supported Prop 8 back in 2008, get over it and move on. You already won, Prop 8 was thrown out.

It's not about winning or losing, it's about respecting others people's rights and freedoms. Yes, we have laws. We have laws that are based on sound reasoning such as age of consent and we have laws that are based on morals alone, i.e. prostitution laws. The age of consent covers more than just sex, it also includes ability to enter legal contract. The age of consent is there because young adults have not fully developed yet and they do not have enough experience yet to fully understand the consequences of their actions. They need to be protected against older adults who may take advantage of them. The prostitution laws are what you would call "morality" laws and yes, this is a perfect example of forcing morality onto others. And guess what? I do not agree with it. I dislike prostitution, but I dislike someone else telling a grown adult what he/she can or cannot do with their body even more. Same as I disagree with all the stupid gay marriage ban laws. The sole purpose of those laws is to project personal views onto others. It's a thinly veiled attempt to fuck over people that do not follow the same moral standards, that's all it is - we can't stop you from having homo sex, but we will deny you benefits that other couples get, see how you like that! It is not right, and it should not be tolerated.

For the record I am perfectly fine with people like Texashiker thinking gay marriage is wrong and perverted. That is his own personal opinion and he is entitled to hold it. However, once he and his kind cross the line from holding their views to enforcing those views onto others, that's where it has to be stopped. You just cannot and should not force your own personal version of morality onto others. Texashiker may think the sex between LGBT couple is gross and immoral and perverse and he does not want to be subjected to it in public so he lobbies against it. Well, I find obese people gross and reprehensible. I find the idea of them having sex revolting. Can you just imagine it? And I worry about potential children they might have because they are probably also going to grow obese. Potential child abuse anyone? However, you do not see me lobbying for ban of public affection display between obese people and you do not see me calling for obese people marriage ban. I may find them gross, but I recognize that me forcing my own morals on them is wrong, I recognize it's their right to be the way they want to be, I recognize their right to marry and have children, and I recognize their right to do whatever they want to do in the privacy of their own homes. When in public I just chose to look away and let them be happy.

 

[schmuckley]

Conform or be cast out, eh?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iv2lCJs4Sxg

I'm all for blacklisting him for inventing javascript.

:awe:

 

[michal1980]

It's not about winning or losing, it's about respecting others people's rights and freedoms. Yes, we have laws. We have laws that are based on sound reasoning such as age of consent and we have laws that are based on morals alone, i.e. prostitution laws. The age of consent covers more than just sex, it also includes ability to enter legal contract. The age of consent is there because young adults have not fully developed yet and they do not have enough experience yet to fully understand the consequences of their actions. They need to be protected against older adults who may take advantage of them. The prostitution laws are what you would call "morality" laws and yes, this is a perfect example of forcing morality onto others. And guess what? I do not agree with it. I dislike prostitution, but I dislike someone else telling a grown adult what he/she can or cannot do with their body even more. Same as I disagree with all the stupid gay marriage ban laws. The sole purpose of those laws is to project personal views onto others. It's a thinly veiled attempt to fuck over people that do not follow the same moral standards, that's all it is - we can't stop you from having homo sex, but we will deny you benefits that other couples get, see how you like that! It is not right, and it should not be tolerated.

For the record I am perfectly fine with people like Texashiker thinking gay marriage is wrong and perverted. That is his own personal opinion and he is entitled to hold it. However, once he and his kind cross the line from holding their views to enforcing those views onto others, that's where it has to be stopped. You just cannot and should not force your own personal version of morality onto others. Texashiker may think the sex between LGBT couple is gross and immoral and perverse and he does not want to be subjected to it in public so he lobbies against it. Well, I find obese people gross and reprehensible. I find the idea of them having sex revolting. Can you just imagine it? And I worry about potential children they might have because they are probably also going to grow obese. Potential child abuse anyone? However, you do not see me lobbying for ban of public affection display between obese people and you do not see me calling for obese people marriage ban. I may find them gross, but I recognize that me forcing my own morals on them is wrong, I recognize it's their right to be the way they want to be, I recognize their right to marry and have children, and I recognize their right to do whatever they want to do in the privacy of their own homes. When in public I just chose to look away and let them be happy.

marriage is a public not private act.

 

[nehalem256]

marriage is a public not private act.

:thumbsup: 100% this. How many weddings do you know that occurred in someone's bedroom?

 

[zinfamous]

Same-sex relationships are similar to toaster-sex relationships in that neither one matters to society.

Opposite-sex relationships are FAR more important than either of the other 2.

I would suggest a new therapist. It seems that you never progressed beyond the Concrete operational substage of Piaget's theory of cognitive development.

I'm frankly surprised that you have made this far in life.

 

[theeedude]

What really pisses Republicans off is that this CEO got fired because the employees didn't like what he did, and not the other way around. If a CEO fired an employee for supporting gay marriage, they would be here saying, well it's a private company, they can do whatever they want.

 

[michal1980]

What really pisses Republicans off is that this CEO got fired because the employees didn't like what he did, and not the other way around. If a CEO fired an employee for supporting gay marriage, they would be here saying, well it's a private company, they can do whatever they want.

And that wouldn't piss you off one bit, and you'd just accept it wouldn't you right? right?