Mozilla CEO resigns over anti-gay marriage controversy

[Misanthrope]

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.

 

I'm not repeating myself anymore, if you want and answer go back and read my previous replies in which I said why minimizing things is not and excuse.

[LAwLz]

I'm not repeating myself anymore, if you want and answer go back and read my previous replies in which I said why minimizing things is not and excuse.

Can you at least link to the post you are referring to? I want to know why you should boycott a company because their CEO donated 1000 dollars to a group that wanted the same benefits for everything, but they didn't want it to be called "marriage" if it was between two of the same gender. Like I said before it's stupid, but it is not harmful and I don't see why you should boycott an entire organization just because you think their CEO did something you think is immoral (there is a difference between immoral and unethical) 6 years ago.

To me, that makes about as little sense as the idea of homosexuals not being allowed to be married (at is to say, next to no sense whatsoever).

I think it's sad that he got so much crap he had to resign. He might have been a really good CEO, but now we will never know because of this bigotry.

[Misanthrope]

Can you at least link to the post you are referring to? 

 

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/135246-mozilla-ceo-resigns-over-anti-gay-marriage-controversy/page-11#entry1801012

 

Post #205 if that link doesn't work.

[Mooshi]

This is quite the weighted thread, guess I'll add my own feelings on this. Before I get started, I am using Firefox and no, I'm not suddenly blacklisting Mozilla unless the browser itself bugs.

 

To me, marriage is between a man and a woman. This is how I was brought up and also it's tradition, there is something kinda special about traditions being upheld. Hetero marriage is doing no more harm to anyone as homosexual marriage is. Pay close attention to that last bit. If two men married or two women married, I honestly don't care. The thing is, that's /their/ life not /mine/. It's a shame too many people are so thick to let that sink in.

 

Even though I define marriage as one man and one woman, with divorce being so common, it really cheapens the sanctity of marriage. The same sanctity that many anti-gay people love spouting on about as if hetero marriage is flawless in every way. I mean, if your marriage fails because a same sex couple got married, your marriage was doomed to fail for having such a weak foundation. It's the honest truth, it really is.

 

Now, I'm content with marriage being defined as one man and one woman, but if a same sex couple gets married, good on them. It's not going to whip me into an immature rage wanting to hold daft signs to protest with. There are many people out there who feel that marriage is between a man and a women and that for same sex couples, they should be allowed to have the same benefits, even if it's not labeled as a marriage. Again, there is tradition in marriage defined this way and it's hard for someone to break tradition, that doesn't mean they are anti-gay. All couples should be allowed to join a union.

 

Gay Marriage is too broad of an issue, I wonder if the issue was changed to "Should we change the term "marriage" to "union" would be better received or not. That's what a marriage technically is, a civil union. People get so obsessed with labels that it creates pointless drama and confusion. Maybe the CEO felt that marriage should stay tradtion and that homosexual couples should be able to have an equivlant or maybe he was anti-gay. Either way, this does not reflect the Mozilla team as a whole. Because of the pointless labels and self-importance, speaking one's mind leads to stepping down and I don't exactly see this as a black and white issue to condemn the man. At the same time, he should have known that getting involved in something heated while being head of a company was political suicide in our overly PC world.

[LAwLz]

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/135246-mozilla-ceo-resigns-over-anti-gay-marriage-controversy/page-11#entry1801012

 

Post #205 if that link doesn't work.

How is this harmful exactly?

Oh and yes, I do not think the entire company should get hated because their CEO is an idiot on his spare time. If he did it on work hours then I could understand hating on him, but he didn't. He donated a pretty small sum to a group that wanted a fairly reasonable compromise that would (hopefully) satisfy both sides of the debate (everyone gets the same benefits, but religious people get to keep their "sacred" word) 6 years ago. That's it. I hold the same opinion for racist people by the way, I will think of them as idiots but I would not deny them the opportunity to show that they are good at something, in this case being a CEO.

You don't fight bigotry with more bigotry...

 

 

@Mooshi I don't agree with your "it's tradition" because personally I think traditions are stupid and shouldn't be a reason to keep doing something (unless you enjoy it of course), and I don't see marriage as one man and one woman, but I agree with the rest of your post.

Speak of which, the whole "ONE man and ONE woman" makes no sense to me either. If two people loved the same person, and that person loved both of them, and everyone was OK with it, why not let them get married? Why not let one person be married with 10 people if everyone is OK with it? Hell, some of those 10 people could be married to each other as well and I wouldn't care. It's their lives and they should get to decide how they want to spend them.

[Misanthrope]

 Either way, this does not reflect the Mozilla team as a whole.

 

Mozilla employees thought so, who are you to disagree with them? It's their company and their employer and their problem if they want him out. The fact that it costs them business already is a perfectly reasonable. Besides, like I said many times before

 

1) He's the CEO, everything he says and thinks and does, personally or not, reflect on the entire company. Like I said (ad nausem) before in this thread, the simple fact that many of your potential customers won't make a distinction is enough to either apologize or step down, which brings me to,

 

2) He never said he was sorry for contributing, this is something I mentioned before this would easily go away with a simple apology that would explain some of the things you mention, as ridiculous as they are people who take the bible literally are likely to be concerned with semantics that's fine. Which brings me to the next point

 

3) It's not just "semantics" there's real and tangible fiscal benefits that go with marriage not afforded to civil union, it's why straight couples marry and not just stay an unmarried couple in "civil union" because they law specifically provides certain benefits and those should be afforded to everyone.

Like I mentioned before, no matter how much you try to make it sound rational and well constructed, it's still a deeply bigoted view that makes a special classification for special citizens: second class citizens. That's discrimination and not just semantics as you claim.

[Misanthrope]

How is this harmful exactly?

Oh and yes, I do not think the entire company should get hated because their CEO is an idiot on his spare time. If he did it on work hours then I could understand hating on him, but he didn't. He donated a pretty small sum to a group that wanted a fairly reasonable compromise that would (hopefully) satisfy both sides of the debate (everyone gets the same benefits, but religious people get to keep their "sacred" word) 6 years ago. That's it. I hold the same opinion for racist people by the way, I will think of them as idiots but I would not deny them the opportunity to show that they are good at something, in this case being a CEO.

You don't fight bigotry with more bigotry...

 

I disagree: by whatever means necessary is not what's happening here: nobody tried to make it illegal for him to contribute or think whatever he wants. Civil people just choose to publicly denounce him and not to do business with him. That's their right, and unlike what he supports (I refuse to reply to whenever or not the sum was small that's been addressed) people are not trying to force him to not hold his opinions. He is actively trying to legally interfere in the lives of other people.

 

That's not bigotry vs bigotry, that's bigotry vs social backlash which I established it's nowhere near the same as legislation.

[Mooshi]

Mozilla employees thought so, who are you to disagree with them? It's their company and their employer and their problem if they want him out. The fact that it costs them business already is a perfectly reasonable. Besides, like I said many times before

 

1) He's the CEO, everything he says and thinks and does, personally or not, reflect on the entire company. Like I said (ad nausem) before in this thread, the simple fact that many of your potential customers won't make a distinction is enough to either apologize or step down, which brings me to,

 

2) He never said he was sorry for contributing, this is something I mentioned before this would easily go away with a simple apology that would explain some of the things you mention, as ridiculous as they are people who take the bible literally are likely to be concerned with semantics that's fine. Which brings me to the next point

 

3) It's not just "semantics" there's real and tangible fiscal benefits that go with marriage not afforded to civil union, it's why straight couples marry and not just stay an unmarried couple in "civil union" because they law specifically provides certain benefits and those should be afforded to everyone.

Like I mentioned before, no matter how much you try to make it sound rational and well constructed, it's still a deeply bigoted view that makes a special classification for special citizens: second class citizens. That's discrimination and not just semantics as you claim.

 

This was more for those who wanted to flat out blacklist Mozilla because of the CEO and not because of the team as a whole, that's lame. The team doesn't share the views as their former CEO, the fact they were so vocal against his viewpoint backs that up. To belittle the entire company because of 1 guy when the employees doing the actual work are against that viewpoint only shows those employees little to no respect. To boycott their hardwork when they had nothing to do with their CEO giving 1k to an anti-gay marriage rally makes no sense. Is the former CEO a bigot? Yes. Should the entire team suffer? No.

 

I'm not saying homosexual couples should be excluded from getting the same rights as a hetero couple. Far from that, I was stating my opinion on how I define marriage following that up with that I really don't care if a same sex couple got married, that's their business. Many people share that view on how they see marriage BUT aren't against gay marriage. That and boycotting a company outright is a bad way to handle things when it was one guy causing the issue. The other Mozilla employees didn't cheer for their CEO, they shown a great dis taste. If they were showing support for that contribution, then there would be a legit reason to boycott Mozilla as a whole.

[Misanthrope]

This was more for those who wanted to flat out blacklist Mozilla because of the CEO and not because of the team as a whole, that's lame.

 

Be that as it may, lame is not the same as illegal. Civilized folk are entitled to hold what you consider "lame" opinions and stances. But until someone tries to pass a law to make it illegal to download mozilla products, it's just that, "lame"

And while we're exchanging opinions, I also think it's "lame" that so many of you would intentionally turn a blind eye on other people's struggle. It's why both americans and the western world in general is perceived so poorly, it's full of people who say they love liberty, democracy and freedom but as soon as you point out at someone who's at a clear social disadvantage (made abundantly clear here in this very thread by both people outright insulting as well as people who passively contribute to the same hatred) then it's "lame" for society to hold people morally accountable in the eye of public opinion.

[LAwLz]

I disagree: by whatever means necessary is not what's happening here: nobody tried to make it illegal for him to contribute or think whatever he wants. Civil people just choose to publicly denounce him and not to do business with him. That's their right, and unlike what he supports (I refuse to reply to whenever or not the sum was small that's been addressed) people are not trying to force him to not hold his opinions. He is actively trying to legally interfere in the lives of other people.

 

That's not bigotry vs bigotry, that's bigotry vs social backlash which I established it's nowhere near the same as legislation.

He didn't try to make anything illegal either. Making something illegal, and not making something legal are two different things.

I am not saying people shouldn't have the right to denounce him if they want to.

 

Define bigotry:

Stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

 

Boycotting an entire company because one of their employees holds a certain view is by definition bigotry. You can be a bigot for good reasons, but you're still a bigot. Your posts are basically just false dilemmas. The world is not black & white. You can have a middle ground. In this case the middle ground would be treating what he did 6 years ago during his free time, and what he would have done today as a CEO for Mozilla as two different entities.

This is like saying I shouldn't get a job as a sysadmin because I like anime. What I do on my spare time is my own business. The company I work for should not get denounced just because I watch it on my spare time (unless of course my hobby starts directly affecting the company in a negative way, like me watching it during work hours).

 

 

Please stop labeling people so much by the way. Calling people who have the same opinion as you "civilized" and implying that anyone who holds a different opinion is not civilized is childish.

[Mooshi]

I think it's quite simple how to tie things together. Many people in 2014 don't care about same sex couples. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a fair amount of people out there that wished both sides would shut up already and go about their daily business vs being caught up on someone else's relationship. That's all this is, being involved in someone else's business. There is no way of getting around that, pure and simple. It's the equivlant of a gossipy teen magazine from the 90's. It really shows the immaturity of full grown adults in monkey suits.

 

What one person defines as marriage is their business, so long as it isn't enforced through force that it's perfectly acceptable to have differing opinions. Like @LAwLz mentioned, if 3 people wanted to hook up and are happy, even 10 if they roll like that, that's their choice to do so as long as it isn't hurting anyone. For myself, there is only 1 women I want to marry and that works for me. Others on LTT have differing relationships. It's not MY job or the governments to butt in and tell them it's against some man-made rules that they made up. Yes, I'd find a relationship with more than 2 people weird, BUT, that's not my life. I shrug and focus on my woman. It's literally that simple. When the rest of society can embrace this simple concept of "it's not your life, stop carring what those people are doing in bed", society would be at a better place.

[Misanthrope]

Define bigotry:

Stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

 

Boycotting an entire company because one of their employees holds a certain view is by definition bigotry. 

 

It's neither a creed, a belief nor an opinion. He took an action to make his opinions law, to force his opinion on other people's lives. Sorry but you're wrong under your own definition, it's not the same to hate someone who thinks gay shouldn't marry than to hate someone who contributes money to a cause that would make it legally so. Opinions, creeds or believes are not backed up with dangerous direct political actions, regardless of your pathetic attempts at minimizing it saying "it wasn't that much money anyway"

[LAwLz]

I like the EFF's (I am a huge fan of the EFF) post about Mozilla.

See how they just mention Brendan Eich and then focuses on talking about the good things Mozilla has done? Mozilla and Brendan Eich are not synonyms. Actually, Mozilla as a company is pro gay marriage. I think it's very insulting to the thousands of people who have worked for Mozilla to boycott their work just because one employee holds an opinion you think is immoral.

If you thought of boycotting Mozilla because their CEO donated some money to a cause you don't agree with 6 years ago, then are you also going to boycott JavaScript for the same reason? Pretty hypocritical if you don't.

[LAwLz]

It's neither a creed, a belief nor an opinion. He took an action to make his opinions law, to force his opinion on other people's lives. Sorry but you're wrong under your own definition, it's not the same to hate someone who thinks gay shouldn't marry than to hate someone who contributes money to a cause that would make it legally so. Opinions, creeds or believes are not backed up with dangerous direct political actions, regardless of your pathetic attempts at minimizing it saying "it wasn't that much money anyway"

He contributed so that there was a voting about it. This was not some kickstarted and one of the stretch goals were "ban gay marriage", this was "let's vote about if homosexuals should be allowed to get married or not (and if everyone votes no, they should still have the same benefits as married heterosexual couples, it just won't be called marriage)".

 

Let me ask you again since you didn't answer last time, how is that harmful?

[Vitalius]

Just wondering how much further the gay agenda is going to press on without realizing how sadly ironic their views on equality are.

 

This. The fun thing about slippery slope arguments is that, sometimes, they are true. Very true. So you can't just dismiss them when they come up.

Like I stated previously, people can say whatever they want but that doesn't excuse them from ridicule.

No one fired him, he resigned because he holds backwards views and supported a law that purposely hurt certain groups of people.

 

Obviously, but you don't get it. People ridiculing him for his views on gay marriage should not have anything to do with his appointment as the CEO of Mozilla. 

If you say otherwise, you are effectively saying that people who do not hold this view of yours don't deserve a job. Or at least a job leading a company. 

How does that make you different? I mean really.

I'm assuming you're not saying that since you obviously want equality.

I know I am a little bit biased on this subject but like you said earlier. It's 2014...why do people still hold these views?

I took what he said completely differently.

People see what they want to see.

[DonPOETA]

So money is speech after all... brave new world :unsure:

[klotza1]

He is no longer CEO of Mozilla because he was hurting business, big deal. This happens any time a boss makes a bonehead move. If you start to hurt my profits, i'd fire you too!

[mr moose]

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

Out of arguments?  In order to have an argument you have to disagree with the person you are talking too and seeing as I am not even sure what you are saying as your statements are vague and non definitive and seem to change between when you started till now. plus half the stuff you have said has been wrong and you won't even tell us what county your in.  What do you think I am going to do?

[mr moose]

He contributed so that there was a voting about it. This was not some kickstarted and one of the stretch goals were "ban gay marriage", this was "let's vote about if homosexuals should be allowed to get married or not (and if everyone votes no, they should still have the same benefits as married heterosexual couples, it just won't be called marriage)".

 

Let me ask you again since you didn't answer last time, how is that harmful?

 

proposition 8 was a vote to outlaw gay marriage, until then same sex marriages were legal.   So the funding he gave was to actively remove the rights of homosexuals.

 

Now, even though many people have tried to tell us that the constitution plays no role guaranteeing the right of marriage, it does guarantee the rights of the people and as I have already pointed that out here is the verdict on prop 8: prop 8 was found unconstitutional by the courts under "due process" and "equal protection clauses" of the 14th amendment. 

 

 

Therefore he was actively seeking to discriminate against same sex marriages.  It's wasn't a call to vote for or against something that was banned, it was a call to outright ban a legal practice. 

 

That is why people got shitty with him and boycotted his company, and when the ceo personal actions cause damage to the organization it is fair for them to either force him out or that he resign of his own volition.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_%282008%29

 

EDIT: And I swear I hadn't read the about the courts reason for overturning it when I made this post:

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/135246-mozilla-ceo-resigns-over-anti-gay-marriage-controversy/page-4#entry1799611

[SSL]

Like I stated previously, people can say whatever they want but that doesn't excuse them from ridicule.

No one fired him, he resigned because he holds backwards views and supported a law that purposely hurt certain groups of people.

 

Who cares if he supported harmful policies, the man has fucking merit, y'know?

[mr moose]

Who cares if he supported harmful policies, the man has fucking merit, y'know?

who cares?  all the people who's freedoms have been removed care, all the people who have no medical authority over their dying partner care, all the people who don't automatically inherit their spouses property after a death and have to fight for it through the courts even though they already own half of it care.   It is not some trivial policy support, his actions directly removed the freedoms from homosexuals that heterosexuals take for granted.

 

How good he is with programing, computers, board meetings etc is irrelevant, A good CEO will protect the company he works for, and by that I mean he will appologise for offending people, rescind stupid remarks, doing anything he can to undo the damage that falls upon the business after the fact.  He did nothing which means he is a poor ceo choice. 

[LAwLz]

-snip-

Oh I am sorry. I thought it was illegal before 2008. Yeah that does make it worse.

I still stand by my other points though. Just because he is an idiot (bigger idiot and douchebag than I thought) on his spare time does not mean you should boycott the entire company, and it does not mean he would have been a bad CEO either. What he does in his personal life should not be used as an argument to boycott the company he works for (unless his personal life starts leaking in to his work of course).

 

 

 

How good he is with programing, computers, board meetings etc is irrelevant, A good CEO will protect the company he works for, and by that I mean he will appologise for offending people, rescind stupid remarks, doing anything he can to undo the damage that falls upon the business after the fact.  He did nothing which means he is a poor ceo choice. 

I prefer someone that stands for his beliefs over someone who just says whatever will make him popular. A dishonest apology would have made it worse in my eyes since it means he was not trustworthy.

So what do you think he should have done? Give a dishonest apology? Step down as a CEO? I don't really see any good solution to it.

[mr moose]

 

 

 

I prefer someone that stands for his beliefs over someone who just says whatever will make him popular. A dishonest apology would have made it worse in my eyes since it means he was not trustworthy.

So what do you think he should have done? Give a dishonest apology? Step down as a CEO? I don't really see any good solution to it.

 

And that's fair enough, unfortunately the rest of the world doesn't feel the same, I personally try not to use products from companies that don't support my ideals (not always possible but when there is a choice I do).  In this situation enough people felt offended that their voice was loud enough to appear to damage the companies reputation, and as you know reputation is important to the bottom line.   

 

Given we don't (and never will) know whether someone is genuine or not, an apology would have been the decent thing to do,  outside of that not supporting such policy in the future would be a good way to show you care about the company and the clients. I feel that the world needs a good balance of social justice and ideals as well as competitive business, But to often the capitalist model wins out.  In this particular scenario if he had made moves to amend for the social injustice I would be happy for him to stay on and prove himself, however seeing as he didn't appear to regret even the consequences of his beliefs and will likely use his position (financial or otherwise) to effect policy in the future, then I feel he has not got what it takes to be a good CEO and should probably stick to programing were no one hears about their personal ideals.   For me it's not about his personal beliefs but how they effect his ability to do his job, and when someones beliefs cause a loss in revenue or damages the brand image then that in itself ties it to his ability to do his job.

[Imaginaerum]

I like the EFF's (I am a huge fan of the EFF) post about Mozilla.

See how they just mention Brendan Eich and then focuses on talking about the good things Mozilla has done? Mozilla and Brendan Eich are not synonyms. Actually, Mozilla as a company is pro gay marriage. I think it's very insulting to the thousands of people who have worked for Mozilla to boycott their work just because one employee holds an opinion you think is immoral.

If you thought of boycotting Mozilla because their CEO donated some money to a cause you don't agree with 6 years ago, then are you also going to boycott JavaScript for the same reason? Pretty hypocritical if you don't.

It makes me wonder if he donated that money to a pro-gay law that a bunch of Christian dating sites would have boycotted/banned Mozilla and if this would have been an outrage from anybody at all.

 

It's not like OkCupid or whoever else is important, but it seems selfish of those sites to deny their users on something that I'm sure most of the users knew nothing about. It seems to me the only people in the wrong is everyone but Mozilla.

[mr moose]

It makes me wonder if he donated that money to a pro-gay law that a bunch of Christian dating sites would have boycotted/banned Mozilla and if this would have been an outrage from anybody at all.

 

It's not like OkCupid or whoever else is important, but it seems selfish of those sites to deny their users on something that I'm sure most of the users knew nothing about. It seems to me the only people in the wrong is everyone but Mozilla.

 

I dare say they would.  They might even be very loud,  I think it would b hard to tell if they had the same impact though.  Especially given the polls on the subject are very difficult to analyze and find any consistencies.