Mozilla CEO resigns over anti-gay marriage controversy

[mr moose]

The Constitution is NOT the same thing as court rulings, get your facts straight. Your post, and so many other posts like it, just prove how ignorant people are about the Constitution and what it guarantees. What it does guarantee is that EVERYONE is entitled to have what ever personal beliefs they want and are allowed to express those beliefs and support the promotion of those beliefs through legal means like the passing of laws that are voted on by other citizens.

What it does not guarantee is the right for ANYONE, gay or straight, to marry anyone they want. Marriage does not exist in the Constitution. Being a republic, and not a democracy, means that the legislative and judicial branches of our government will make interpretations of the rights spelled out in the Constitution and will declare certain certain choices as being constitutionally protected, but since those decisions can always be repealed or overturned later.

For something to actually be protected by the constitution, it must actually be listed within the Constitution or be added with an amendment. To date there has never been a Constitutional amendment that guarantees the right to gay marriage. Since any and all rulings on the issue have been determined by the courts, they are open to legal challenge. States also have rights to pass and enforce their own laws and do not have to do everything the federal government tells them to do.

That has been the biggest issue with both gay marriage, voter ID laws and the Affordable Care Act. States have sovereign rights granted under the Constitution and those rights say that the federal government does not get to dictate laws passed by the state that only apply within the state. The federal government only gets to take control when it's a law that involves anything that extends outside the state, such as interstate commerce. 

Under the rules of the interstate commerce laws, the ACA was denied, but the SCOTUS chose to legislate from the bench and declared the ACA a tax, even though Obama specifically said it was not a tax. The SCOTUS said the federal government had no right to make individuals purchase health insurance, and that they could not force any state to operate an insurance exchange, but by declaring it a tax, it allows the federal government to tax individuals and businesses that do not comply with the law.

This is starting to go off topic, but it is all related. Everyone person in this country has a constitutional right to support or NOT support whatever they want. State and Federal legislators may pass laws that people have to follow, and courts may make rulings that either enforce or shut down a law, but in all of those cases people can challenge those laws and rulings because the Constitution says so.

THAT is the point I am making. That NO ONE gets to tell someone they are not allowed to have a belief or that they are not allowed to support a belief. ANYONE who says otherwise is the actual bigot. So for everyone who wants to quote me and spout nonsense, go learn the law and learn the constitution. I do not have to agree with his belief, but I will absolutely stand up for his right to have that belief. After all, that's what our soldiers die for on a daily basis, to give everyone those rights that are actually protected under the constitution. But until a constitutional amendment is passed, gay marriage is not protected any law or court ruling concerning gay marriage is subject to legal challenges.

 

You don't have to like it, but those are the facts.

 

So you don't interpret the 14th amendment that states "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

 

To read that by denying homosexuals the right to marriage they are in fact ,under the law they have written, abridging the privileges afforded to married heterosexuals? 

 

And on top of that if you deny a homosexuals the right to marriage, then you are also denying them the right to The marital confidences privilege. which is a law that protects a person from testifying against their spouse, it does not survive the marriage and thus does not apply to any union not current under the marriage act.  which means that by denying gay marriage you are in fact breaking the 14th amendment because the state is not allowed to deny any person the equal protection of the laws.

[DaRk0]

I'm sorry but that is just wrong, Ten European countries legally recognize same-sex marriage and a further 22 legally recognise some form of same sex union. So while your country is prohibiting gay marriage it is actively participating in oppression.  You can hardly be angry at people for wanting what everyone else has.  Your country is as bigoted as the US Australia and any other country that refuses to accept gay marriage.

 

 

I haven't hated on you. And being gay IS a human right in the european union and all discrimination against gay people is illegal under EU laws and charters.

 

While being gay is human right and some countries are recognizing same-sex marriage, you're not violating any human right if you're not accepting gay marriage according to European Court of Human rights.

 

@mr moose

 

There's no clause in our local law saying gay marriage is prohibited, however our constitution recognizes marriage as a unity of man and woman.

 

And no, I'm not angry at them. Don't know why did you think that.

[LAwLz]

Is there some missing information on Prop8 that can be supplied to me here? I'm reading that it only recognized marriage between a man and woman, but civil unions and domestic partnerships would still maintain all the legal privileges granted to heterosexual couples through marriage. This sounds like a fight over semantics rather than privileges, and it was ultimately found unconstitutional. So if given that legal privileges are shared, and we do not have an explicit right to marriage yet, what's the fuss?

 

If this is the case, the accusations of bigotry and discrimination are unwarranted.

I quickly looked into it and that seems to be the case. So Prop 8 was not "we hate gay people!" it was more like "gay people should have the same benefits as straight people, but don't call it marriage because that's a sacred word". That's how it looks to me at least (but I have only read some of it).

Personally I don't really think that is all that bad (note: That is not to say it is good). I still think it's stupid but then again, I think pretty much everything about religion is stupid. Sounds like a decent middle ground. Religious people don't get mad about their precious little word getting "tainted", and homosexual people get all the benefits straight people get. Of course in a perfect world we would just have 1 word for it (be it marriage or some other word), but compromises like this were nobody is put at a disadvantage are alright if you ask me.

A lot of the people supporting Prop8 are/were anti-gay in general though, not just wanting to "protect" the word marriage.

 

 

I did not compare the two, I was using Hitler as an example. My point was and remains that one cannot excuse another's actions on the basis that it was the result of their 'personal opinion' - by that logic everyone should be free to do whatever they want without restriction or judgement. I referenced Hitler and the KKK to enforce just how silly the comment I was responding to actually was.

Yes you were comparing them. You made an analogy which is in fact a comparison. I understand your point and your point is valid, but comparing genocide to donating 1000 dollars 6 years ago is ridiculous.

[mr moose]

While being gay is human right and some countries are recognizing same-sex marriage, you're not violating any human right if you're not accepting gay marriage according to European Court of Human rights.

 

@mr moose

 

There's no clause in our local law saying gay marriage is prohibited, however our constitution recognizes marriage as a unity of man and woman.

 

And no, I'm not angry at them. Don't know why did you think that.

 

Well, for someone with opinions you are being very vague, not quite saying one thing or another, but it sounds like your are saying gays should be quiet and on that there is no reason for them to say anything and that they can't get married although there is no specific law that says they cant and even though they are protected under every other law the constitution only recognizes a marriage as being between a man and a woman.

[Alfred14]

Yeah Tygron i don't see why every time something like this happens people straight up call for heads to be chopped!

 

Its not like a law was broken. I can understand why the company does it because when the general public creates a negative image of the company because of what a CEO did a few years ago but i just don't get why people make such a big deal about it i mean the guy is entitled to his own views surely? 

[Whiskers]

Yes you were comparing them. You made an analogy which is in fact a comparison. I understand your point and your point is valid, but comparing genocide to donating 1000 dollars 6 years ago is stupid.

I am not comparing the severity of the actions of both men in any way, shape or form - in that regard they aren't comparable. I made the analogy solely on the basis that the actions of both men were undertaken as a result of their personal opinions - as such my argument was that one's actions cannot be excused or forgiven on the basis that they were the result of personal opinion.

I fail to see the problem. I am not attempting to say that this man is comparably 'evil' or that his actions are in any way as serious.

[solosdk]

Why does it matter what other people who share the same faith as you believe in?

I find that interesting that open opinion is fine unless it's someone who shares the same religion as you. that's just hypocritical I suppose.

If i have a friend who comes up to me and says he's gay, then I would be against that. It's against the teachings of Islam. If he's a "proper" or "good" Muslim then he shouldn't be committing a sin. Also it does matter what other Muslims beliefs are, we are all part of one "brotherhood" and should always look out for each other. That doesn't mean, though, we don't care about non-muslims. We believe in living in peace and harmony whether they are Christian, Jew, Sikh etc etc

[cae]

I quickly looked into it and that seems to be the case. So Prop 8 was not "we hate gay people!" it was more like "gay people should have the same benefits as straight people, but don't call it marriage because that's a sacred word". That's how it looks to me at least (but I have only read some of it).

Personally I don't really think that is all that bad (note: That is not to say it is good). I still think it's stupid but then again, I think pretty much everything about religion is stupid. Sounds like a decent middle ground. Religious people don't get mad about their precious little word getting "tainted", and homosexual people get all the benefits straight people get. Of course in a perfect world we would just have 1 word for it (be it marriage or some other word), but compromises like this were nobody is put at a disadvantage are alright if you ask me.

A lot of the people supporting Prop8 are/were anti-gay in general though, not just wanting to "protect" the word marriage.

 

Thanks for looking into it. I realize it'd be a "best case scenario" in a rather bigoted environment, but it seems possible at least. What's disheartening for me is the backlash, attacking the guy personally rather than his beliefs. There doesn't seem to have been any sort of "Hey, could we get your thoughts on this controversial activity from your past and how you expect it affecting the future of Mozilla?" He could be a bigot or his beliefs could have been heavily propagandized. But no one seemed to bother asking before pulling the trigger that ultimately led to resignation.

 

Great video both sides should absorb.

 

Been at this for too long, good night.

[DaRk0]

Well, for someone with opinions you are being very vague, not quite saying one thing or another, but it sounds like your are saying gays should be quiet and on that there is no reason for them to say anything and that they can't get married although there is no specific law that says they cant and even though they are protected under every other law the constitution only recognizes a marriage as being between a man and a woman.

 

I have a feeling you're not reading my posts carefully. I'm not saying they should be quiet. I did say what is gay community asking in my country and that is being delivered and those rights are protected by law. I have zero problems with that. I said this in my posts. Read them again.

[TopWargamer]

Then whatever was wrong with Hitler? I mean, his views on Jewish and gay people were just his opinion after all. And what about the KKK? Just opinions, yeah?

Was the now former Mozilla CEO murdering and/or publicly shaming homosexuals? No? I didn't think so. He may not have liked homosexuals, but I'm sure he could tolerate them.

[Almercenary]

This is where taking things to heart gets ppl in trouble. As long as they don't do anything shady, I'm fine with him being CEO ect

[T.E.D]

Godwin's law...

Comparing donating some money 6 years ago, vs killing 6 million people is flat out idiotic. Sorry, but you're making yourself look like an idiot for even comparing them. Just felt like pointing that out.

Hitler didn't kill 6 million. That's the number of jews killed in concentration camps. 9 million total were killed in concentration camps and over 20 million Russians were killed on the battlefield, starvation etc. Not to mention hundreds of thousands of Spanish in the Spanish Civil War, those that died fighting/resisting on the Western front and in Africa.

 

Just a correction, I mean not to cause offence.

[0s4x]

Why do people care if he's anti gay marriage? I still use Firefox. So what if the CEO of something isn't into what I do, that's their own ideas and beliefs to have.

Even as a gay man I agree with this 100%. One man's views do not (usually) affect the quality of the products his company makes.

[mr moose]

I have a feeling you're not reading my posts carefully. I'm not saying they should be quiet. I did say what is gay community asking in my country and that is being delivered and those rights are protected by law. I have zero problems with that. I said this in my posts. Read them again.

 

I just had a dude telling me that baseless opinions are idiocy. Is there a standard for this that I'm not aware of?

 

I wrote that post, because I'm coming from country where most people doesn't like gay people and gay marriage because minority (gay organizations) is telling everyone they need to like them and they're demanding their rights even though they're not telling what kind of rights they are demanding. I mean, remotely, we all know they want to parade in their underwear and that kind of stuff, but that's not their right.

 

reads like you want them to be quiet to me.

[DaRk0]

reads like you want them to be quiet to me.

 

Read all posts. I explained everything. Don't attack my personality when you're out of arguments.

[Marley217]

I can almost guarantee that if he supported gay marriage, this would not have happened.

 

 

This is exactly the hypocrisy I hate.

 

What if he supported an anti jew - whatever- law? There's a difference between holding benign opinions, and having plain immoral views. 

Being anti gay marriage is simply immoral, unless you actually believe the bible is a good source to get your morals.

[Tygron]

Even as a gay man I agree with this 100%. One man's views do not (usually) affect the quality of the products his company makes.

Yep. Hell I still go to Chick-Fil-e. Good food. And besides, everyone knows that's a Christian run store or at least their beliefs (if the people running the individual stores aren't) are. People are entitled to their beliefs and opinions, what's it stopping me from doing what I do or enjoying this or that product? Not a single thing. People get butthurt over the silliest things.

[Dragonzeanse]

Mozilla's community doesn't want to work underneath someone openly opposed to their views, especially considering that much of its demograph is pro-LBGT. I think it's silly to disregard someone for their efforts and instead focus on their petty bigotry, but I can sympathize. I wouldn't want to work under someone who segregates me for being in my 20s.

[Fred Castellum]

Aaah, i see but i kinda get it. Imo he's a dick.. In this blog post from Mozilla they say that Mozilla is for equality and stuff: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/03/brendan-eich-steps-down-as-mozilla-ceo/

Quote from the blog post "Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard."

 

This particular situation ties in with freedom of speech, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. In this case he's getting flak for being anti-gay which is his "opinion" on the topic. He shouldn't have to step down from his CEO position just because he sports one unpopular opinion. However his popular opinion is effecting the company so it was reasonable and logical for him to step down. 

 

EDIT: Kinda like the saying "I don't agree with what you say, but I'll fight for your right to say it."

[ComputerNoob]

The guy resigned because it was hurting buisness. Simple as that. 

[Misanthrope]

*sigh*

 

Honestly after reading all that and still people arguing the freaking constitution for the sake of an argument they supposedly don't personally support it's disheartening to say the least. Makes me think twice about wanting to remain in such company on this forums. What's particularly alarming is just how many people state "I support gay marriage, however this guy should be free to directly work to outlaw it" which is the worst kind of hypocrisy. I really wish that this forum had a feature like Facebook to just block other users and never read from them again but alas I might end up just leaving.

[Victorious Secret]

I have the same position on gay marriage and rights as I do Hetero marriage and rights.

I don't give a fuck who you fuck. That's your business. I equally detest both sides who feel the need to go all Romeo and Juilet in public. NOBODY CARES!

What I do care about is actively discriminating against the gay community and denying them the same time of day that everyone else gets.

This thread is so sad. I feel sad for those involved. Just pathetic. Have some shame, people.

[Misanthrope]

I have the same position on gay marriage and rights as I do Hetero marriage and rights.

I don't give a fuck who you fuck. That's your business. I equally detest both sides who feel the need to go all Romeo and Juilet in public. NOBODY CARES!

 

 

Actually you'd be surprised, the amateur porn industry is booming quite a bit 

[Victorious Secret]

Actually you'd be surprised, the amateur porn industry is booming quite a bit

LOOOOOOOL!

[LAwLz]

I really wish that this forum had a feature like Facebook to just block other users and never read from them again but alas I might end up just leaving.

Yeah... Better filter out anyone who has a different opinion than you. It can be really harmful to hear opinions that do not match your own, right?

But seriously, what is the big deal here exactly? Read my post previous post and tell me how that's so horrible that simply having him as CEO is enough for people to boycott Mozilla products.

Like I said before, if you're going to boycott every company that has a CEO that has ever done anything you deem immoral then you will quickly end up living in a shed in a forest.

He didn't even get a chance to work as a CEO just because of a fairly minor thing he did 6 years ago on his spare time. I would understand the uproar if he changed Mozilla from non-profit to "all our profit will go towards anti-homosexual complains" but that didn't happen.