back to article Boycott Firefox, gay devs urge as Mozilla appoints JavaScript daddy as CEO

A pair of gay developers have launched a boycott of Firefox in protest against the Mozilla Foundation's decision to appoint a CEO who appears to be an opponent of same sex marriage. Mozilla co-founder and Javascript creator Brendan Eich was awarded the top job yesterday. Hampton Catlin, creator of Wikipedia Mobile and CSS …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Shakes Head

    The whole point in living in an open and fair society is that you can live in peace with others who don't share your point of view. This works BOTH ways; and this sort of stuff does not help.

    1. Paw Bokenfohr

      Re: Shakes Head

      No, that's not how it works.

      People aren't allowed to be prejudiced against one group of people but then expect to be able to claim prejudice when that group takes action against them.

      Besides which, Eich did not confine himself to a point of view - he actively donated money to a cause, and an amount which he knew would make it public record, so he's totally fair game to have that called out for what it is.

      Personally, I don't think this will help, but what these guys are doing is bringing this in to view. Hopefully, Eich will say his views have "evolved" and put a swift end to it.

      Your comment would carry more weight if you weren't an anonymous coward.

      1. Connor

        Re: Shakes Head

        "People aren't allowed to be prejudiced against one group of people but then expect to be able to claim prejudice when that group takes action against them."

        But that is precisely what this gay couple is doing, you can be just as prejudiced against someone who has a different opinion to you as you can to those who lead a different life to you. As an impartial observer I see no difference. If it is not acceptable one way around, how can it be the other way around? I recently also read about a call to make it illegal to donate to any causes that support climate change denial, it seems that these days you either agree with what you are told to agree with or face strict censure, loss of livelihood or liberty.

        1. NomNomNom

          Re: Shakes Head

          "you can be just as prejudiced against someone who has a different opinion to you"

          sure we should never speak out against racists because then we'd be just just as prejudiced as them

          give me a break/

          1. Goat Jam

            Re: Shakes Head

            "sure we should never speak out against racists because then we'd be just just as prejudiced as them"

            How is believing that marriage is a contract between a man and a woman the equivalent of being racist?

            Oh, that's right, you leftists are wont to accuse everybody who disagrees with your viewpoint of being a "racist" or "sexist" or "denier" or "gaia hater" or whatever your cause celebre for today is. My bad, carry on.

      2. Eric S

        Re: Shakes Head

        I think he should too. From what I've seen, the culture at Mozilla is very supportive of gay rights. The nations views have changed a lot in respect to marriage vs civil unions in the last year. It is now pretty much the consensus that allowing gay marriage is a requirement for both equal rights and freedom of religion. Not all religions (not even all Christian denominations) are against gay marriage. I hope he comes out that his perspective has evolved since then.

        1. ZankerH

          Re: Shakes Head

          Devil's advocate: What's the point of freedom of religion, if you don't have the freedom to obey the dictates of your religion?

          1. Jordan 1

            Re: Shakes Head

            There's a religion that requires gays to get married? I've never heard of that.

            1. warhart

              Re: Shakes Head

              Yeah, I just made one up along with a God that can kick any other God's butt if they don't support same sex marriages and every person who donated to prop 8 or any other anti-gay rights action is going to have to live with Pat Roberts for eternity.

      3. pacman7de

        People are allowed to be prejudiced!

        Paw Bokenfohr: "People aren't allowed to be prejudiced against one group of people but then expect to be able to claim prejudice when that group takes action against them."

        I've found IT people to be one of the least prejudiced groups of people to work with, as compared to some other sectors. In a free society, people are precisely allowed to be prejudiced against one-another. Nowhere in the linked to Eich blog entry does he claim special exemption from prejudice for himself. What he does say is he would prefer to keep such discussions away from Mozilla else anyone can have a one-on-one discussion with him on the matter. Personally I have no opinion one way or another. It's got nothing to do with writing code and no one else's business except Brendan Eich.

      4. big_D Silver badge

        Re: Shakes Head

        What do his personal views have to do with Mozilla?

        Is he a Republican? I hope all Democrats stop using Mozilla immediately! (or vice versa, I have no idea what his political beliefs are).

      5. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Shakes Head

        I support firefox even more now. They obviously beleive in freedom of speech

      6. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        FAIL

        Re: Paw Re: Shakes Head

        "....People aren't allowed to be prejudiced against one group of people but then expect to be able to claim prejudice when that group takes action against them....." You are insisting that Eich must be homophobic simply because he disagrees with same-sex marriage? You do realise there are GAY people that do not agree with same-sex marriage too? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22758434

        Don't tell me, next you'll be claiming that dissenting gays are 'not gay enough' if they don't fall in line with your POV?

        1. Zane

          Re: Paw Shakes Head

          Have you read the article?

          It's about people against using religious traditions of heterosexual marriage at a gay marriage:

          "I'm not going to walk down the aisle to Mendelssohn wearing white in a church and throw a bouquet and do the first dance,"

          I don't think they are gainst your right to get a Green Card for your partner in case you are a citizen yourself.

          /Zane

      7. grammaphobe

        Re: Shakes Head

        Thats predujudice according to you which many disagree with. Day cannot be renamed night just as marriage no matter what the state says cannot be between a man and man.

        1. Fibbles

          Re: Shakes Head

          "Day cannot be renamed night just as marriage no matter what the state says cannot be between a man and man."

          Somebody better tell Emperor Nero...

        2. Kiwi Silver badge

          Re: Shakes Head (@grammaphobe)

          "Day cannot be renamed night just as marriage no matter what the state says cannot be between a man and man."

          Between one man and one woman, right?

          But what about the Biblical definition of marriage, ie between one man and many (sometimes VERY many) women, at the same time. Sometimes even between brother and sister..

          Just because people of certain beliefs define marriage in one way, it does not mean that should or has to apply to others.

      8. BillG Silver badge
        Megaphone

        Re: Shakes Head

        People aren't allowed to be prejudiced against one group of people but then expect to be able to claim prejudice when that group takes action against them.

        No, you are wrong.

        As the wise Dr. Martin Luthor King once said, "The means by which we strive must be consistent with the ends we seek".

        This means that you can't preach tolerance, while practicing intolerance against those that oppose you.

      9. aelfheld

        Re: Shakes Head

        So it's tolerant to be intolerant of Eich's views, but it's intolerant to be tolerant of Eich's views.

        Hopefully Eich will tell the thought police to piss up a rope.

    2. bolccg

      Re: Shakes Head

      Dude, what the hell are you talking about? Presumably you don't agree with the boycotts during the civil rights era either?

      This bigot is working to deny them their basic civil right to marry another consenting adult simply because he doesn't like their choice. They aren't fire-bombing him - they are simply expressing their disgust that Mozilla would promote a guy with these views. This is **exactly** how it's supposed to work!

      1. Eric S

        Re: Shakes Head

        I agree in theory, but I think his stance may have actually been for civil unions and against marriage. Many gay supporters held that view in the past. Obviously almost everyone has now moved beyond that view and believe gay marriage is a basic civil right. I hope Brandon has as well. I think this is a clear enough violation of civil rights that he should make a statement. Other tech companies such as Apple and Microsoft have already come out in support of gay marriage. Based on what I know of Mozilla culture, they believe strongly in equal rights.

      2. Fluffy Bunny
        Mushroom

        Re: Shakes Head

        "They aren't fire-bombing him - they are simply expressing their disgust that Mozilla would promote a guy with these views"

        Actually, they are firebombing him. They are clearly trying to force Mozilla to fire him. This shows that they are not just bigots, they are hypocritical bigots.

        1. Robert Grant

          Re: Shakes Head

          This isn't a surprise. These people aren't liberals in their thinking; it's just that what they want happens to line up with traditionally liberal values. Now those values are becoming more and more the political centre, you can see they're pretty much hardline conservatives, just with a different set of values. No different to that British lady who tried to get Harry Potter banned.

          Calling it first: they'll add "Firefox-using" to the usual string of "gay bashing, Bible thumping" epithets to describe anyone who disagrees with them on anything.

      3. This post has been deleted by a moderator

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Shakes Head

        > This bigot is working to deny them their basic civil right to marry another consenting adult simply because he doesn't like their choice.

        Hmm... I agree that the result of this man's actions (the Mozilla guy) are as you describe, and in my view they are totally wrong and misguided.

        However, that in itself does not make him a bigot.

        Nobody has presented any evidence, or for that matter, nobody who knows him has actually accused him, of being a bigot--as he would be if he hated gays, particularly if he hated gays just because they're gays. That would be a different matter.

        People do take all sorts of stupid stances and embrace all sorts of wacky social and political beliefs. It's fucking annoying yes, but insults and abuse rarely help in getting them to reconsider their position, or at least getting them to accept and respect yours.

        So, "dude", cool down a bit, eh bro? :)

      5. Abacus

        Re: Shakes Head

        @bolccg

        Since when did the wish of two blokes to "marry" (cough, cough) become a basic civil right?

    3. This post has been deleted by its author

      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        FAIL

        Re: Lars Re: Shakes Head

        "So there is a guy who thinks money will prevent homosexuality....." Lars, you are jumping to the conclusion you want, i.e. that because Eich was against gay marriage he must be a complete homophobe. That does not follow as there are gay people that object to the idea of gay marriage. Go read his blog.

    4. DaveFace

      Re: Shakes Head

      Nope, it doesn't work like that, and most people here seem to be missing the point. Eich supported a bill that prevents gay people from having a different point of view. He attempted to force his views onto others, which makes him fair game.

      If Eich doesn't want gay marriage, he's free to not get one, or to personally disagree with someone getting one. You may have a point if these developers were quitting for that alone. But as soon as you try and stop other people marrying because of your personal opinion, you're no longer just expressing a different point of view - you're trying to make others live by it.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Aw, poor luvvies

    So they want everyone to accept them while reserving the right to not accept others. Nose, face, spite and all that comes to mind. I doubt the world of Firefox will notice their protest.

    1. Hollerith 1

      Re: Aw, poor luvvies

      I hate to have to invoke other -isms, but if it was discovered that a Firefox exec was funding the KKK or had supported some law that supported the denial of rights to, say, Latinos or Jews or whoever, and if two African-Americans or Latinos or Jews said publicly that they were boycotting Firefox and urging everyone else to do so because of this, would you be saying 'aw, poor luvvies'? Or perhaps the word 'luvvies' suggests your mentality.

    2. James Howat

      Re: Aw, poor luvvies

      No-one is trying to create or enforce a law curtailing the rights of those who are Brendan Eich. If you think there's a comparison, you're being absurd.

    3. aBloke FromEarth

      Re: Aw, poor luvvies

      A luvvie is an actor, darling. If you're going to patronising, at least be accurate.

      1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
        Facepalm

        Oh, a new outrage of the week. Finally, I was getting worried.

        "a Firefox exec was funding the KKK"

        Because: Not supporting a peculiar contractual arrangement among consenting adults that is mainly relevant because of taxation == lynching blacks in hoodies with a background of burning crosses and everything

        "or had supported some law that supported the denial of rights to, say, Latinos or Jews"

        Because: Not supporting a peculiar contractual arrangement among consenting adults that is mainly relevant because of taxation == denying unspecified (positive or negative) rights to Latinos (a persecuted minority) or (the horror) Jews

        These comparisons effortlessly reach Amurrican Liburl levels of retardation.

        Soon:

        USING FIREFOX IS AKIN TO APPEASING HITLER. IN MUNICH!

        You heard it here first.

        1. littleBobbytables

          Re: Oh, a new outrage of the week. Finally, I was getting worried.

          That was quick. You've invoked Godwin's law.

        2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Go

          Re: Oh, a new outrage of the week. Finally, I was getting worried.

          DAM is spot on. It's getting quite tiring when every rights group stridently insists their particular social issue somehow equates to the life-and-death struggle against racial segregation in the South, or implies that their group are suffering under such an injustice that they are under threat of being herded into gas chambers. The 'injustice' in having to accept between a civil union or a marriage or being unable to marry is not of Holocaust dimensions.

          1. dogged

            Re: Oh, a new outrage of the week. Finally, I was getting worried.

            It's pretty rare for me agree with Matt Bryant but yeah.

            Perhaps this couple should read some Voltaire.

            "Man holds opinion - 'burn him' squeal people who dislike that opinion". Godwin's Law has already been invoked so I'll avoid it but obviously, no future CEO can ever hold any public political opinion, meaning nobody who ever wants to get anywhere can ever hold any opinion because they'll get you historically as well and then you're just as bad as Stalin.

          2. MellowTigger

            Re: Oh, a new outrage of the week. Finally, I was getting worried.

            How many times have friends associated with your "social issue" invited you to attend a memorial for someone you know who was beaten to death by people opposed to your "social issue"? I'm guessing your count is zero, but correct me if I'm wrong. My count is greater than zero, so I support every attempt to oppose bigots whose trail of "social issue" opinionating eventually leads to a body count. Yes, this guy was murdered in the South (Houston, Texas). Yes, this "social issue" is literally a life-and-death struggle.

            People can opinionate all they want, but if they need my support (time, money, +1, download) for their own efforts then they better prove themselves something other than active contributors to the real problems in my life.

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              Stop

              Re: MellowTiger Re: Oh, a new outrage of the week. Finally, I was getting worried.

              ".....guessing your count is zero, but correct me if I'm wrong....." You're wrong. And whilst I would support the majority of your probable viewpoint, and wade in to defend one of your 'social group' in the hope of preventing them being beaten to death by the bigoted, your 'social issue' does not make your cause more important or just than anyone else's, nor does it allow you to discredit those that fail to agree with the more extreme parts of your 'social issue' agenda. The issue of gay marriage does not equate to the issue of homosexuality full stop, as shown by the gay people that have said they do not agree with gay marriage, and trying to infer that gay people are dying because they can't get married is a farcical stretching of the realities.

            2. Kiwi Silver badge
              Linux

              Re: Oh, a new outrage of the week. Finally, I was getting worried.

              I very nearly became a statistic on more than one occaision because I am gay.

              I still believe that if people are opposed to my being gay then that is their problem and their right. If they want to fund organisations to "cure" gays or whatever, because they believe that they are doing the right thing (or they're total [insert your choice of term] and doing it to be nasty) then that is also their right, priviledge, and problem.

              I have been beaten many times because of being gay, and came close to suicide more than once because of the abuse. It's only be the grace of God that I am not one of that "body count". But I still stand up for peoples right to speak their beliefs, even if that upsets others (what, you think your beliefs don't upset others?). Maybe not speaking with fists or property damage, but speak them you may.

          3. grammaphobe

            Re: Oh, a new outrage of the week. Finally, I was getting worried.

            This guy Brendan is a hero for standing up for decency and what he believes in - it should be a positive that we can do this in a democratic society without quality people having their livelihood threatened by sexual minorities who are looking to dig dirt on people - how nasty.

          4. Paw Bokenfohr

            Re: Oh, a new outrage of the week. Finally, I was getting worried.

            It's easy to think people are being "over the top" when it's not you or your group / family / community that is affected by whatever is in question.

            I'm sure that Jim Crow law supporters thought that black people were being "strident" or "drama queens" or "uppity" when they asked to be able to drink from the same water fountains, or, horror of horrors, asked for the right to get married to whoever they wanted, no matter whether they were white or black or whatever.

            I think that the comparisons are apt; many of the same rights that were denied to black people are now denied to gay people, and not just marriage - your very life is at stake in many countries just for being gay, let alone your liberty. It's an ongoing process which will (if history has taught us anything) end with everyone having access to all the same rights, with no bad effects in the long run.

            Invoking the holocaust was super classy of you of course, especially considering how many homosexuals were "herded in to gas chambers" along with Jews. Take a trip to Belsen or Auschwitz-Birkenau some time.

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              FAIL

              Re: Paw Bokenfohr Re: Oh, a new outrage of the week. Finally, I was getting worried.

              ".....I'm sure that Jim Crow law supporters thought that black people were being "strident" or "drama queens" or "uppity" when they asked to be able to drink from the same water fountains, or, horror of horrors, asked for the right to get married to whoever they wanted, no matter whether they were white or black or whatever....." Yeah, you're still desperately trying to equate gay marriage with the struggle to end racial segregation. Still not going to be taken seriously. Gays today in the West can work in any profession (or sue the employer for discrimination), can live anywhere they like (or ditto), can vote, drink from any water fountain (seriously, when could they not?), sit where they like on the bus, etc., etc. It in no way whatsoever compares to the conditions blacks suffered under in the Southern States. Saying gays are somehow treated as badly as plantation slaves were just because you want a marriage instead of a civil service is not just silly, it's downright insulting to the real suffering of the slaves.

              ".....your very life is at stake in many countries just for being gay....." Not in California. Desperately trying to compare the dire situation of gays in Iran or Saudi Arabia with those in California to try and make out Prop 8 was "horrific" is simply too stupid for words.

              ".....Take a trip to Belsen or Auschwitz-Birkenau some time." Already have, thanks. I've also met concentration camp survivors in Israel, one who was gay, Jewish, German Communist who survived Dachau. The guy had a great sense of humour, he used to joke with his guards that he should have a pink triangle, a yellow Star of David AND a red star on his prison uniform. He attributed his survival to card tricks he'd learnt as a kid which kept his guards entertained and meant he was picked to work in the canteen. Daily he watched his fellow prisoners beaten, tortured, worked to death or hung. Now, stop and think what horrors that man saw, lived through, and probably did not think he would survive, then try and tell me that having to put down your latte and settle for a civil ceremony instead of a marriage is the same thing.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Oh, a new outrage of the week. Finally, I was getting worried.

              This:

              > It's easy to think people are being "over the top" when it's not you or your group / family / community that is affected by whatever is in question.

              I entirely agree with.

              People are too quick to judge on the basis of their own experience and not the experience of others.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Aw, poor luvvies

        >A luvvie is an actor, darling.

        That all depends on where you come from. However, it is still fitting as these two are a couple of over acting drama queens.

    4. td97402

      Re: Aw, poor luvvies

      It is ludicrous in the extreme to say that once I have been wronged that I am just as bad as my assailant to point out that I have been wronged or to suggest that I am somehow the bad guy to refuse to interact with that assailant again in the future.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Aw, poor luvvies

        >I am just as bad as my assailant

        What assailant, did I miss something in the article. We are talking about points of view, and in this case a six year old point of view. Did they make any attempt to find out if he still holds the same stance? The correct way to resolve points of view is communication, imagine if you never talked to or refused to do business with anyone who at one time had a different opinion to you. Before going to the supermarket do these two dig into a database to see if all the shareholders never made an anti-gay comment. They need to get a grip on reality and stop being to sensitive.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Aw, poor luvvies

      "I doubt the world of Firefox will notice their protest."

      Especially since they haven't actually released any code yet. Planned to

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    wonder if they boycott everyone they disagree with? or are they just drumming up business for their new venture by any chance

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      >wonder if they boycott everyone they disagree with?

      Surely they must - someone as principled as they are.

      But since they haven't called for a boycott of Intel chips made in Israel - we know that they support Israali oppression of Palestinians. They haven't demanded a removal of code submitted by Russian programmers - so they obviously support Russia's little adventure in the crimea. They haven't said anything about the snowden leaks so they are obviously puppets of the NSA

      ... etc ..etc free range eggs.. save the whales ... save whales ... band seal clubbing... ban Seal in clubs etc etc

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019