Mozilla CEO resigns over anti-gay marriage controversy

[mr moose]

And neither of those are marriage.

Are you serious?  marriage is a legally recognized union of two people, The basic fact that heterosexuals can get married under this law but homosexuals can't is in direct conflict with the 14th amendment guaranteeing every person within a state’s jurisdiction to “the equal protection of its laws.”  A homosexual is still a citizen and should be guaranteed equal protection from discrimination under constitutional law. that includes marriage.

 

 

No, no one will hate you.

 

I will find your beliefs insane because it is dishonest to assert as fact something which is not evidently true.

 

But I still love you <3

 

Dude, you can't call his religion dishonest or insane and ask him to drop it, that isn't fair. It'd be like me saying being gay is disgusting, now drop it I don't want to talk about it.

 

EDIT: I still love you aswell.

[beebskadoo]

Are you serious?  marriage is a legally recognized union of two people, The basic fact that heterosexuals can get married under this law but homosexuals can't is in direct conflict with the 14th amendment guaranteeing every person within a state’s jurisdiction to “the equal protection of its laws.”  A homosexual is still a citizen and should be guaranteed equal protection from discrimination under constitutional law. that includes marriage.

 

 

 

Dude, you can't call his religion dishonest or insane and ask him to drop it, that isn't fair. It'd be like me saying being gay is disgusting, now drop it I don't want to talk about it.

hahaha yeah, it was a bit harsh.

I shall edit my post

 

I love you more <3

[Murdoch]

It was a very silly move - I can only assume they were unaware of his history with equal rights or figured it wouldn't be much of an issue and no-one would catch on to it, which as we have now obviously seen was absolutely not the case.

 

They knew, half the board stepped down after he was appointed. I think Mozilla was torn because he was a co-founder of the company, and CTO for years, pretty integral to the company. Obviously some people thought that was enough to outweigh his personal views (which are obviously a negative), while others thought his views were completely at odds with the ability to act as CEO.

 

This mess could've been easily avoided.

[Camul]

HOW?

It's just seems like no two people on there can agree on anything. Plus the mods are dicks. I've not been there in like 2-3 years though, so it may be very different now.

[ajoy39]

They knew, half the board stepped down after he was appointed. I think Mozilla was torn because he was a co-founder of the company, and CTO for years, pretty integral to the company. Obviously some people thought that was enough to outweigh his personal views (which are obviously a negative), while others thought his views were completely at odds with the ability to act as CEO.

 

This mess could've been easily avoided.

the half the board stepping down thing has been debunked, two of them had announced they were stepping down before he was selected, the third left because they didn't consider anyone outside the company not because of his views. 

[beebskadoo]

It's just seems like no two people on there can agree on anything. Plus the mods are dicks. I've not been there in like 2-3 years though, so it may be very different now.

OH, I thought you were talking about the LTT forums

 

Disregard that

 

in fact, disregard anything I say.

 

 

I love you <3 except for that

[TacticlTwinkie]

As much as I disagree with his views on same sex mairage, he did have every right to do what he did, but I guess okcupid had every right to do what they did too. I feel bad for the guy. He could have been a great CEO, but alas we will never know if that would have been true or not. Like someone said before, god forbid if we judge someone by his merit, but I guess there has to be a line somewhere with personal views. This might not be enough, in my mind that is, to cross that line though. Perhaps I'm too tolerant of people like him since I have a family full of minds like his.

[Murdoch]

the half the board stepping down thing has been debunked, two of them had announced they were stepping down before he was selected, the third left because they didn't consider anyone outside the company not because of his views. 

 

I think that's called diplomacy.

[Derangel]

I find it, on a personal level, quite disheartening that so many people in this thread think his position as CEO wasn't a big deal.

 

He's shown in the past that he's entirely willing to use the money that he makes from his job to actively fight against equal rights. His position has been unequivocal in the media - he does not regret what he did and maintains that he may do it again. A man with such an outlook is not fit for the position of CEO in a company where he will no doubt have LGBT employees working under him and even less so a company which has a reputation to maintain of being extremely LGBT-inclusive. This is a large part of why so many people religiously use Firefox - brand loyalty, on account of the reputation of the company being absolutely supportive of equal rights for all. Having a CEO who actively fights against that is incredibly disruptive to their reputation and would eventually lead to fewer users.

 

I hate to say it, but I can't help feeling that if he were to have spent that money fighting against racial equality the furore would have been much larger and he would have probably been ousted immediately (and such would have been absolutely warranted). This situation just goes to show that equality still has quite a way to go for LGBT people.

 

Based on the evidence we have he only used his money to support one thing, several years ago. The man isn't Orson Scott Card, he doesn't deserve to be treated as if he is.

[Common_Courtesy]

Benefits? Like financially granted by the state? That is a privilege, like being granted a driver's license. Not everyone is granted a driver's license, because you do not have a right to drive a vehicle. Not everyone is granted the privilege of marriage, because you do not have a right to marriage. I understand the struggle this places on some people, and fully support their privilege to marry. To attempt to guide this back on track - I do not believe that a smear campaign on a CEO that did not hold the same beliefs is really doing much to help fight for that privilege.

The problem with the drivers license comparison is that one of them gives you the ability to control a potentially lethal hunk of metal whereas the other does no harm to anyone. It makes sense that the former should be regulated because some people are just not fit to be drive and allowing them to do so would potentially endanger others, But the latter (believe it or not but gays having equal rights or getting married will not cause earthquakes and storms to occur) does not.  The fact that something as harmless as marriage and again the the benefits it brings are being denied to people simply because of the "we don't like your minority so you don't get to be treated equally" mentality that has been floating around is just flat out wrong from the equality and moral perspective that the US claims to have. Gays are the same as everyone else, you don't deny blacks, jews or anyone else marriage. So what makes gays so different?  

[Camul]

OH, I thought you were talking about the LTT forums

 

Disregard that

 

in fact, disregard anything I say.

 

 

I love you <3 except for that

No, I love this community. Even thought you're all too clever and I often have no clue what you guys are talking about.

[AdamThePole]

Look mate, I don't care if you're gay. Im not to going to come to your house and tell you that you mustn't be gay. These are just my views, my religion opposes it and since your are not part of this religion I have no say in your views. It would be different if it was another person who was part of the same religion though.

 

 

Yup. And in your private life these views are 100% your business. But the problem is your views do not just concern yourself; they dictate how others should live their life and what rights they are entitled too. And this is done without any evidence apart from your Christian faith which is in no way universal. 

 

Bottom line: anyone can think or believe anything they like. But you're not allowed to dictate how others live their life or what privileges they're entitled too based upon those beliefs, no matter how sincerely they are held. 

[altereDad]

It had an affect within the company. Regardless of how he thought, this affected the company, not just the public. For that reason alone I understand the events that took place.

[solosdk]

Yup. And in your private life these views are 100% your business. But the problem is your views do not just concern yourself; they dictate how others should live their life and what rights they are entitled too. And this is done without any evidence apart from your Christian faith which is in no way universal.

Bottom line: anyone can think or believe anything they like. But you're not allowed to dictate how others live their life or what privileges they're entitled too based upon those beliefs, no matter how sincerely they are held.

I like how you think I'm Christian lol. I'm not. But yes, you are right about how it dictates others should live their lives, but if they are part of that religion . It means that if you follow and believe in a religion, and you are a true believer then you wouldn't go against the words and rules that have been placed. The rules for non-homosexuality only APPLY to me and others alike. Not to you.

[Misanthrope]

It's alarming how many people here get things backwards and claim he was discriminated against for his views. Here's a free tip: You don't get to actively discriminate others as well as claim or have others claim you're being discriminated yourself. One would think that this would be pretty easy logic to follow: How can you have the right to hate people and actively interfere in the private life of others with something like supporting a ban of gay marriage, yet claim he's the victim for not being allowed (morally anyway) to discriminate others?

 

Since when do we make a victim out of a victimizer? You can't have the cake and eat it too. 

[DaRk0]

I never said he should have resigned.

But I wonder why he held those opinions in the first place?

I think it's because we live in democracy and people have right to have opinion.

[AdamThePole]

I like how you think I'm Christian lol. But yes, you are right about how it dictates others should live their lives, but if they are part of that religion . It means that if you follow and believe in a religion, then if you are a true believer then you wouldn't go against the words and rules that have been placed. The rules for non-homosexuality only APPLY to me and others alike. Not to you.

 

Then in that case me and you don't have a problem. You could be a pastafarian for all I care, the points remain the same. As long as you do not actively seek to prevent others from living their lives a certain way then you are being perfectly reasonable. I don't want to see a world where any marriages, hetero or homosexual, are forced. As long as you allow individuals the choice to get married or to perform a marriage ceremony (whether they share your religion or not) then that's the way forward.  

[mr moose]

As much as I disagree with his views on same sex mairage, he did have every right to do what he did, but I guess okcupid had every right to do what they did too. I feel bad for the guy. He could have been a great CEO, but alas we will never know if that would have been true or not. Like someone said before, god forbid if we judge someone by his merit, but I guess there has to be a line somewhere with personal views. This might not be enough, in my mind that is, to cross that line though. Perhaps I'm too tolerant of people like him since I have a family full of minds like his.

 

your right, he did have the right to say a do what he did, however as CEO he should have known (or did know but took the risk) that any public action he takes will effect the company or will effect his ability to ceo any company in the future,  Given that he made the choice to be public with a dangerous opinion like that indicates that he may not have been a very good CEO anyway.

[Derangel]

your right, he did have the right to say a do what he did, however as CEO he should have known (or did know but took the risk) that any public action he takes will effect the company or will effect his ability to ceo any company in the future,  Given that he made the choice to be public with a dangerous opinion like that indicates that he may not have been a very good CEO anyway.

 

Except Prop 8 happened in 2008, before he was CEO. I'm also not sure he was public about it so much as people found out about it and make it public.

[Misanthrope]

your right, he did have the right to say a do what he did, however as CEO he should have known (or did know but took the risk) that any public action he takes will effect the company or will effect his ability to ceo any company in the future,  Given that he made the choice to be public with a dangerous opinion like that indicates that he may not have been a very good CEO anyway.

 

Not for a tech company which naturally attracts a liberal community. I'm sure he'd be a fine CEO for a Christian think tank or a gun manufacturer company or something.

[Guest]

Homosexuals are gay.

[solosdk]

Then in that case me and you don't have a problem. You could be a pastafarian for all I care, the points remain the same. As long as you do not actively seek to prevent others from living their lives a certain way then you are being perfectly reasonable. I don't want to see a world where any marriages, hetero or homosexual, are forced. As long as you allow individuals the choice to get married or to perform a marriage ceremony (whether they share your religion or not) then that's the way forward.

Yes as long as you're not a Muslim, then do whatever you want.

[Misanthrope]

Except Prop 8 happened in 2008, before he was CEO. I'm also not sure he was public about it so much as people found out about it and make it public.

 

Well you can't un-ring a bell in this case, but regardless has he ever expressed any change of views on the subject? Again I'm not saying that doing a public statement like "That was then I've since changed my mind on the issue" would have been enough but I'd be a start if this was truly just a mistake of the past like you're implying.

[cae]

The problem with the drivers license comparison is that one of them gives you the ability to control a potentially lethal hunk of metal whereas the other does no harm to anyone. It makes sense that the former should be regulated because some people are just not fit to be drive and allowing them to do so would potentially endanger others, But the latter (believe it or not but gays having equal rights or getting married will not cause earthquakes and storms to occur) does not.  The fact that something as harmless as marriage and again the the benefits it brings are being denied to people simply because of the "we don't like your minority so you don't get to be treated equally" mentality that has been floating around is just flat out wrong from the equality and moral perspective that the US claims to have. Gays are the same as everyone else, you don't deny blacks, jews or anyone else marriage. So what makes gays so different?  

 

The government has issue granting those benefits to homosexuals because they're kind of subsidized by the little tax-paying offspring that heterosexual couples are likely to create. That's why the homosexuals are treated differently, and why blacks or jews don't really figure into the equation. I don't think it's cool, I wish homosexuals all the best in their efforts to marry, they certainly deserve it as much as anyone else. I also wish the state would stay out of marriage benefits entirely - heterosexual or otherwise.

[Derangel]

Well you can't un-ring a bell in this case, but regardless has he ever expressed any change of views on the subject? Again I'm not saying that doing a public statement like "That was then I've since changed my mind on the issue" would have been enough but I'd be a start if this was truly just a mistake of the past like you're implying.

 

Outside of making that single donation in support of Prop 8 I don't think he's ever expressed his views publicly. From what I'm reading right now he never brought those views to work with him and never seemed to have any problems with Mozilla's stance of equality and openness.