Sign in / up

back to article I QUIT: Mozilla's anti-gay-marriage Brendan Eich leaps out of door

Brendan Eich has stepped down as CEO of Firefox-maker Mozilla Corporation – after it emerged he controversially backed a ballot measure that outlawed same-sex marriage in California. In a blog post on Thursday, Mozilla cofounder and executive chairwoman Mitchell Baker wrote that Eich's decision was voluntary and that he made …

COMMENTS

House rules Send corrections
This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Reply Icon
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Animals

            I'm accusing anyone who wants to deprive gay people of the rights that straight people enjoy simply because they are gay of being homophobic.

            Gay people DO have the same rights as straight people. What you fail to grasp is that, even for straight people, marriage is not a "right". It is a "privilege" that is subject to regulation by the state and can be denied if those regulations are not met.

            31 13
            1. John X Public
              Reply Icon

              Re: Animals

              "Gay people DO have the same rights as straight people."

              Except when they are married. The differences vary between jurisdictions but legally married couples generally enjoy rights that are not available to unmarried people. This can be as trivial as no being accorded a courtesy title to which the spouse of a peer or knight would be entitled or as significant as being unable to sponsor a partner for immigration purposes. There are also often severe inequalities around 'next-of-kin' status, which impacts 'unmarried' couples. For example my wife enjoys automatic next-of-kin status, without any addition legal steps, for purposes of inheritance, superannuation, tax, health directives, etc, etc.

              Note, the key difference is that heterosexual couples can chose to forgo the privileges of marriage, or not. Homosexual couples do not have that choice. That is unreasonable.

              "marriage is not a "right". It is a "privilege" that is subject to regulation by the state"

              Apart from age and genetic relationship, what constraints does the state impose on heterosexual marriage?

              13 6
              1. Mage Silver badge
                Reply Icon

                Maybe Marriage is the problem

                Perhaps the State should not do marriage at all. Only Civil Partnership. Then the only "Marriage" is within faiths that have such an ceremony or sacrament and according to their own rules.

                Civil Partnership can have all the state legal consequences that Civil Marriage has today. In fact the two kinds of Marriage are separate and only confusingly share the same name.

                Of course Agnostics and Atheists and others want to be more equal. To eat their cake and have it, which will destroy the Faith based Marriage concept and leave a "Marriage" that is identical to Civil Partnership.

                5 1
              2. Anonymous Coward
                Reply Icon
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Animals

                another constraint is quantity, although some people think that this should be overturned.

                two mothers in law - shudder

                0 0
            2. peterblaise
              Reply Icon
              Thumb Down

              Re: Animals

              Marriage is absolutely a right, just as is breathing.

              In the US, it's is recognized as a constitutionally protected right (embarrassingly only since 1967).

              5 16
              1. Anonymous Coward
                Reply Icon
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Animals

                Marriage is absolutely a right, just as is breathing.

                No, it's not.

                Did you fail Social Studies in high school? Go back and look up what the U.S. Constitution defines as a Legal Right and get back to us.

                2 0
            3. Stevie
              Reply Icon

              Re: marriage is not a "right".

              I think you'll find that the largest Christian denomination calls it a "duty".

              1 0
            4. CRConrad
              Reply Icon

              And what *you* fail to grasp...

              AC: "What you fail to grasp is that, even for straight people, marriage is not a 'right'. It is a 'privilege' that is subject to regulation by the state and can be denied if those regulations are not met."

              What *you* fail to grasp is apparently that the state extending this privilege to one group and not the other is denying equal rights to one group; that campaigning for the state to stop doing so and extending the privilege equally to gays and heterosexuals is fighting for equal rights and privileges for all groups; and that contributing to the campaign for something like Proposition 8 IS siding with the group that wants to extend a particular set of rights to one group but not another.

              Perhaps you also fail to grasp that extend any particular set of rights to one group but not another is pretty much the very definition of bigotry.

              Bottom line: Whether you call it a "right" or a "privilege" doesn't matter: Extending it to some but not others _will_ show you are a bigot.

              1 5
          2. Anonymous Coward
            Reply Icon
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Animals

            I'm accusing anyone who wants to deprive gay people of the rights that straight people enjoy simply because they are gay of being homophobic. Doesn't seem especially twisted?

            Strangely enough, the majority of my homosexual friends are actually against gay marriage. I suppose that makes them homophobic too?

            The guy makes a political donation to a cause which he may or may not have understood, along with 10's of thousands of other people, and in fact a significant percentage of the population of the state of California voted for it - and now everything that the guy has done in his life is thrown away?

            I suppose you are going to start a campaign to eliminate Javascript from the Mozilla browser because he is the one who wrote it? Wouldn't want to taint it now would we?

            According to you, half of the state of California should be forever banned from working for Mozilla, purely based upon the personal political ideas that you think that they have.

            There is a word for people that think like that. In help desk tickets it is often encoded 1D10T

            Personally, I could care less about gay marriage. It doesn't have any affect or me one way or the other. I think that codifying civil unions make more sense than trying to redefine marriage and forcing the state's will on religious doctrine, but to each their own.

            However, to vilify someone based solely upon a political donation or party affiliation is just pain stupid. I can see it now: Candidate A is a liberal, so he must be fiscally irresponsible. Candidate B is a conservative, so he must be a tyrant. Let's go with Candidate C who doesn't have any social inclination or morals so that we don't offend anyone - instead of hiring based upon their knowledge, experience, and ability to do a job.

            38 8
          3. Matt Bryant Silver badge
            Reply Icon
            FAIL

            Re: Bolccg Re: Animals

            ".....I'm accusing anyone who wants to deprive gay people of the rights that straight people enjoy simply because they are gay of being homophobic......" So you are saying you think the gay people opposed to the idea of gay marriage are homophobic. Oh, you didn't realise there were gay people that opposed gay marriage? Well, that just shows the narrowness of both your circle and your outlook. One amusing incident of your alleged homophobia would have to be Alan Duncan, the first Conservative MP to come out as gay, who is in a civil partnership, and is opposed to gay marriage (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2158416/I-m-gay-man-opposes-gay-marriage-Does-make-ME-bigot--Mr-Cameron.html). It also means - seeing as Prop8 got 52% of the vote - that you are accusing the State of California of being majority homophobic. Oh, and POTUS Obamabi, though he's a politician so he should be expected to change his spots to sort the electorate and photo-op of the day anyway.

            9 2
        2. ian 22
          Reply Icon

          Re: Animals

          With freedom comes responsibility, or do you disagree?

          If not, can you see how this man's bigoted beliefs, publicly expressed and acted upon negatively impact his employer!

          17 43
          1. Alan W. Rateliff, II
            Reply Icon

            Re: Animals

            "If not, can you see how this man's bigoted beliefs, publicly expressed and acted upon negatively impact his employer!"

            Your statement assumes that his opinion on gay marriage is, in fact, bigoted.

            40 14
          2. Robert Grant
            Reply Icon

            Re: Animals

            It wasn't this man's bigotry in this case. Everyone involved chose to do what they did. He didn't pull some levers that had predetermined consequences, he has certain beliefs that other people don't like, and they kicked up a massive fuss.

            Whether those beliefs are right or not is another matter, and until half the commenters here can understand that distinction, then this discussion is going nowhere.

            13 0
          3. kirovs
            Reply Icon

            Re: Animals

            Ah, you must know Lenin well to cite him so perfectly!

            0 0
        3. Anonymous Coward
          Reply Icon
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Animals

          It's possible to not be a homophobe AND be against gay marriage. Extremists just don't understand that.

          I would like to support gay marriage - BUT, as someone who worked on a crisis hotline in college and used to be a licensed therapist, I am against gay adoption purely on child psychology principles. However, since the two issues insist on being intertwined, I am against gay marriage.

          Is that O.K.? Or am I now branded as a homophobe because I refuse to think of children as property?

          I look forward to the downvotes of the angry and intolerant.

          73 12
          1. peterblaise
            Reply Icon
            Thumb Down

            Re: Animals

            I'm not intollerant, and you are a hateful bigot, stupid, too (willfully ignorant).

            1 25
          2. Naughtyhorse
            Reply Icon

            Re: Animals

            neither angry, nor intolerant.

            just better informed

            0 3
        4. peterblaise
          Reply Icon
          Thumb Down

          Re: Animals

          Why do you think homopbobes can only be silent, and that when one speaks out, they are therefore indemnified against being called out on their hateful bigotry?

          4 17
        5. streaky
          Reply Icon

          Re: Animals

          "either you agree with free speech and democracy, or you don't"

          Hold on are you seriously trying to deny this guy's right to comment here?

          Also not for nothing but only banana republics enshrine a totally unabridged right to freedom of speech without consequences - for reasons that would be blatant to most toddlers.

          4 2
        6. AbelSoul
          Reply Icon
          Facepalm

          Re: Animals

          @JDX:

          ..the kind of twisted bigotry the gay community has demonstrated...

          Irony bypass.

          4 3
        7. Franklin
          Reply Icon

          Re: Animals

          "Sorry, either you agree with free speech and democracy, or you don't. If you do, you have to accept others will hold views you don't like."

          I accept that he has views I don't like. That's a bit different from trying to have his views enshrined into law, but that's a quibble--if you don't see the distinction, it's not really worth going into.

          He has the right to have views I don't like. I have the right to choose what Web browser I use and what companies I patronize.

          It seems strange to me that folks who support his right to his views, don't seem to support my right not to patronize companies whose views I don't like. We all have the right to hold our ideas...but Mozilla doesn't have a right to expect me to use their products!

          I don't quite understand the ideal that says people who run a company have a right to whatever views they have but their customers don't have a right to take their custom elsewhere.

          11 4
          1. Robert Grant
            Reply Icon

            Re: Animals

            It's very simple. No one said they don't have the right to do something. And stirring up people against someone is not the same as quietly taking your custom elsewhere.

            0 0
        8. Caledonian
          Reply Icon

          Re: Animals

          It's free speech until it's used to persecute someone, then it becomes hate speech.

          The American understanding of what constitutes free speech is seriously flawed. Would you defend terrorists rights to preach hatred towards America as free speech? No...didn't think so.

          7 7
          1. Anonymous Coward
            Reply Icon
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Animals

            "It's free speech until it's used to persecute someone, then it becomes hate speech."

            And that works both ways. You seemingly want to have your cake and eat it too. Hate speech? No. It's an opposing view. Yes, there were some proponents of the anti-gay-wedding cause that used hate speech (I don't know of any incidents of Eich's espousing his views in a hateful manner); by the same token there is a lot of the same from Eich's detractors. Is that hate speech too, or is your cognitive dissonance too strong to see the parallels?

            6 0
          2. Dan Paul
            Reply Icon

            Re: Caledonian

            The American Idea of Free Speech INCLUDES HATE SPEECH ... Frigging IDIOT.

            This is why the Klu Klux Klan is allowed BY LAW to march and PROTEST PUBLICLY!!!!!!!!

            This is why there are RADICAL Muslim Clerics preaching their vesion of hate in many Mosques here.

            I will defend the First Amendment til death!

            EVERYONE GETS TO VOICE AN OPINION EVEN IF YOU DONT LIKE IT!!!!!!!

            THAT is free speech, not the censored version in the EU.

            4 0
        9. Stevie
          Reply Icon
          Trollface

          Re: either you agree with free speech and democracy

          Either you agree with free speech and democracy or you hate America.

          Fixed it for you.

          0 0
      2. Private Citizen.AU
        Reply Icon
        Thumb Down

        Re: Animals

        This is not a victory. As a gay guy I am in two minds.

        Personally I think it is bloody-mindedness to sack someone for political expression, many of the things I have said that could be used against me in future employment if this becomes the norm. Live by the sword you will die by the sword.

        I cant see how providing leadership on a browser project threatened my existence. If as CEO of Mozilla he continued to support campaigns against Gay marraige then I think we would have an axe to grind. As CEO he not was picketing gay weddings or soldiers funerals. I am unaware that the GLBT community contributing to Mozilla felt endangered by his appointment. I did hear of a boycott but there is a boycott for every perceived slight nowadays.

        I rally against people for expressing antigay sentiments, but I would only have an issue if his beliefs started to bleed into company policy or the company tried to affect public policy against me.

        I cant see how equality will work if neither of us can express a personal opinion. I cannot see how he will change his position on marraige now that he been boycotted, I fear it will make him a stronger opponent.

        I may not like his opinion but I will fight for his right to express it. - and I thought i was confused before. This is not a victory.

        Which browser company and entire staff supports marraige equality? is there a pink standard?

        80 2
        1. kirovs
          Reply Icon

          Re: Animals

          Dude, I started to write a blog but then I saw your post and I said to myself- this guy thinks the same way only can write better ;-)

          0 0
      3. peterblaise
        Reply Icon
        Thumb Up

        Re: Animals

        .

        Thank you -- incredibly well presented.

        I can only add:

        Gays are our children, our siblings, our parents, our neighbors and friends, our customers, our co-workers, our bosses, our fellow tax payers, our service providers, especially our governmental and military service members, putting their lives on the line for all of us, gays are ourselves.

        Shame on anyone for thinking gays or anyone should be second class citizens, denied equivalent consideration, equal protection and due process, shame on any of us for inflicting our fears and personal sins onto others.

        No more second class citizens, ever, please.

        .

        16 23
      4. big_D Silver badge
        Reply Icon

        Re: Animals

        @bolccg

        "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Voltaire

        I am no homophobe and I don't agree with Eich's opinions, but they are his opinions and as long as he leaves them by the door and they don't get in the way of him doing his job, then I don't see what business it is of Mozilla's or the community.

        32 3
      5. Fluffy Bunny
        Reply Icon
        Mushroom

        Re: Animals

        Just because we don't believe in gay "marraige" doesn't mean we are homophobes. The intollerance and outright hatred vented by the gay community over this and similar incidents would see people put in jail if they were on the other side of the fence.

        By the way, this needs comment: "deprive gay people of the rights that straight people enjoy ". Nobody is depriving homosexuals the right to fall in love with a person of the opposite sex, get married and have children. Just like normal people.

        19 7
        1. CRConrad
          Reply Icon

          Quite right, and quite wrong.

          "Just because we don't believe in gay 'marraige' doesn't mean we are homophobes."

          No, you're right, it doesn't mean you're homophobes; it just means you're stupid fuckwits who know nothing about society, history, religions, or language. (Or, come to think of it, spelling.)

          The pre-Roman Celts in Britain got married. Had nothing to do with Jesus; probably regulated by Teutates, Belenos, or Cernunnos. The Vikings got married too -- again, nothing to do with Jesus; Thor and Odin and so on. So, no one religion has a monopoly on specifying what "marriage" means.

          Marriage has always been a *social* concept, throughout human history. And society is changing. (OK, always has, but it sure feels like perhaps it's faster noadays.) One such change is that most cultures (at least Western ones) seem to have collectively decided that it's pretty darn barbaric, nowadays, to deny gays the rights or privileges we allow heteros.

          "Nobody is depriving homosexuals the right to fall in love with a person of the opposite sex, get married and have children. Just like normal people."

          Ha ha, very funny. Proposition 8 was apparently all about depriving homosexuals the right to fall in love with a person of the sex they're naturally attracted to, get married, and perhaps adopt children. Just the opposite of what the law allowed "normal people".

          1 5
      6. Supersadie
        Reply Icon

        Re: Animals

        Well said, bolccg. This isn't about a view, it's about someone actively trying to deny others equality. I have had my faith restored in Mozilla.

        5 16
      7. Spindrift
        Reply Icon

        Re: Animals

        Amen Reverend. Surprised at the "free speech" advocates here. Ask your gay friends what they think.

        0 6
      8. rh587
        Reply Icon

        Re: Animals

        "If such a person were promoted to CEO of an organisation and you were a woman/Jew/black person/non bigot would you want him as your boss? If you were a customer would you want to give "him" money? If you were a stakeholder, would you want to build add-ons or supporting tech that enhanced the prospects of his company?"

        It's funny, OKCupid were quite happy to throw popups at firefox users, but I don't see them putting their money where their mouth is and stripping out any and all JavaScript from their site and embracing alternative client-side technologies. If they're opposed to any technology Eich is associated that would be a key port of call.

        But that costs time and money, whereas an hour embedding a browser detect and pop-up telling users to change browser doesn't really.

        Okay, he made a contribution to a campaign that many people considered to be narrow minded and unjust 6 years ago. His statements since suggest a change of heart though only he knows if he's sincere or not.

        I do however find it a bit hypocritical to campaign against his appointment as a company CEO when you're quite happy to build your company on the strength of his other works.

        16 0
      9. NomNomNom
        Reply Icon

        Re: Animals

        well said bolccg

        1 4
      10. ChrisB 2
        Reply Icon

        Re: Animals

        'Further, being CEO is rather different to most jobs - he has considerable scope to make hiring and advancement decisions and he is inherently the "face" of the company.' - bolccg

        Precisely.

        0 3
        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Reply Icon
          FAIL

          Re: ChrisB 2 Re: Animals

          "Re: Animals

          'Further, being CEO is rather different to most jobs - he has considerable scope to make hiring and advancement decisions and he is inherently the "face" of the company.' - bolccg

          Precisely." So please do show an example where Eich has abused his position or persecuted gays whilst at Mozilla? Oh, you can't, you just want to 'criminalize' him because you want to call him a bigot, in essence throwing away any presumption of innocence. That's like saying that because gay paedophiles abuse little boys we should never allow gays to be doctors or teachers, because they are bound to use their position for sexual gratification - completely irrational and intolerant. I would hope a gay doctor or teacher would be judged on their abilities rather than their sexual preferences, yet it seems you and bolccg are happy to prejudge anyone that does not follow your point of view to the letter. You are more bigoted than the man you are complaining about.

          4 0
      11. Jim 59
        Reply Icon

        Re: Animals

        @bolccg your basic view is reasonable, but you promote it using the tools of extremism - labeling Eich an "overt homophobe", denouncing as "raging homophobes" anyone who might be thinking of contradicting you. And comparing Eich to an active antisemite, thus smearing him with all the horrifying historical connotations. So he is labelled, smeared, and condemned, as well as sacked. Debate is shut down because those who might have spoken out do not want similar treatment. You are immutable. You have won.

        Extremism begets extremism and fear. Say no to it, and say "yes" to open debate, reasonableness and common sense. Applies to both sides.

        3 0
      12. Septeon
        Reply Icon

        Re: Animals

        Don't worry,

        The Lord knows better.

        0 0
    2. Mage Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      Re: Animals

      It seems the LGBT community wants to be more equal than the Hetrosexuals. Disagree with their opinions and face a "witch hunt".

      12 7
  2. ragnar

    How dare he believe something that we don't agree with in his private life! Burn him!

    50 16
    1. ThomH
      Reply Icon

      I think it's more that he supported an attempt to legislate about an issue that we may or may not agree with in his private life — he felt that his opinion was so valid that it should be illegal to act contrary to it, indeed he was so sure that he put his money where his mouth was.

      For the affected group it wasn't just a matter of knowing that some people disagree with you, it was a matter of not legally being able to do what everyone else takes for granted.

      24 25
    2. Tel
      Reply Icon

      It's not his private life though, is it?

      I don't vote for politicians whose views I detest.

      I won't support a company led by someone whose views I similarly detest.

      When that company/organisation has avowed equality policies that its CEO flies in the face of, then they either admit they're hypocrites and their equality policies aren't worth the paper they're written on, or they live up to their ideals.

      Mozilla were on the cusp of being judged and found wanting. They realised this. Just in time.

      19 28
      1. codebeard
        Reply Icon

        "I don't vote for politicians whose views I detest."

        "I won't support a company led by someone whose views I similarly detest."

        I vote for politicians based on their *policies and competence*, not based on their *personal views*. There are plenty of politicians who have voted against their own personal views in order to best represent their constituents. Furthermore, how do you truly know what anyone's real view is about anything - you might be voting for someone whose views you really do detest, but not realise.

        Similarly, I support a company based on their *product and actions*, not based on the *personal views or even private actions* of any of their employees (CEO or not).

        Actions speak louder than words, and I am not the thought police.

        What matters here is not the personal views of Mozilla's employees (even the CEO), but rather Mozilla's product and corporate actions. And their corporate actions included written policies in support of gay marriage, and Eich understood this and was prepared to enforce those policies in the company even though they may have not been in line with his personal opinion. I respect any CEO who has the integrity to be honest about their views and yet still act in the best interest of the company and its stockholders even when it's not 100% in line with their personal beliefs.

        24 5
      2. squilookle
        Reply Icon

        "I won't support a company led by someone whose views I similarly detest."

        Am I to understand from this that you do background checks on the views of the leadership of any company you deal with to ensure they are compatible with yours?

        Or are you just jumping on the bandwagon while it's there?

        The only area Mozilla have been found wanting, IMHO, is in caving in and releasing that ridiculous statement rather than supporting their outgoing CEO.

        22 5
      3. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        If you work for an IT company, but you happen to prefer and use the products of a competitors' company when at home, then should you also resign?

        This guy did NOTHING as CEO to further his private cause. He didn't use the power of the company, he didn't sack gay employees, he didn't ban pink screensavers.

        If you did a great job at your workplace, and you were sacked by the lefty CEO because he heard you voted Republican/Conservative, would that be fair?

        19 4
  3. Nick Thompson

    People say he was just exercising free speach. Actually he wasn't, he donated to a cause that successfully stripped (for a time) a persecuted minority of equal rights. His actions had real negative effects on LGBT people. That is why this man, and all others that attempt to force a minority to be second class citizens, are complete and utter bastards who need accept the repercussions for their vile assault on the rights of those they seek to oppress.

    29 51
    1. Chris Miller
      Reply Icon

      So you'll generously permit others to hold views contrary to your own, but if they act on them they should be made an outcast? I don't think you've really got the hang of this free speech concept, have you? (Sadly, you're far from alone in this confusion.)

      45 13
      1. Nick Thompson
        Reply Icon

        If by acting on them they are causing genuine harm to others? Er, yes!

        Your right to free speech does not trump my right to equality. This is why we do not have true democracies, because then you have tyranny of the majority and very quickly your society will collapse as all the people you're now legally oppressing no longer feel obliged to follow any of your other laws.

        20 29

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like