Mozilla CEO resigns over anti-gay marriage controversy

[totjup5]

wow, what a queer thing to do.

[mr moose]

This is really stupid ruining someones career simply because he donated some money to an anti-gay organisation over a 3 years ago is really not fair. The guy didn't even do anything wrong. If he put in place some anti-gay legislation in the company then yea he should resign but he didn't do anything wrong. This is discrimination.

 

It's not that simple,

 

He didn't just donate to an anti gay lobby, he donated to a campaign to make same sex marriage illegal, that is not just an opinion that is a fact and it was both unconstitutional and discriminatory.  And from that people boycotted his companies products, that is fair enough if the CEO is actively discriminating you have that option, the result was he had to step down.  So effectively he ruined his own career. 

[kuddlesworth9419]

It's not that simple,

 

He didn't just donate to an anti gay lobby, he donated to a campaign to make same sex marriage illegal, that is not just an opinion that is a fact and it was both unconstitutional and discriminatory.  And from that people boycotted his companies products, that is fair enough if the CEO is actively discriminating you have that option, the result was he had to step down.  So effectively he ruined his own career. 

I still fail to see where this guy has done something wrong. People can donate money to whatever legal organisation they choose. He did not break the law in any way. So why is he being forced to step down. I don't agree with his opinion but everyone is entitled to their own opinion. And getting rid of someone because they believe ins something you don't isn't right. Besides this opinion doesn't even effect the company on any form. If he was a priest or someone who married people then I could see it being a problem but his opinion really is not a problem with the job.

[LAwLz]

You can't choose what your sexuality is. Honestly you can not. I tried, didn't happen and I ended up hating myself for it. 

But human sexuality isn't easily summed up. There are entire fields of study dedicated to sexual attraction, gender identity and sexual orientation.

Sexuality is a mix of gender identity, orientation and attraction. It is defined by the ability to have erotic experiences and feelings.

It is EXTREMELY COMPLICATED. 

Where you put your penis is certainly your choice, but who you are attracted to is not up to you to decide.

Hopefully this won't get me banned or make the thread an even bigger train wreck than it already is...

 

Do you think the same of pedophiles? Just let me explain, I am not trying to attack you or set you up as a hypocrite or anything like that, just genuinely interested in your opinion. I am not talking about child molesters either.

I'll admit that I am a bit of a lolicon (which is a fairly gray zone in some countries like where I live, legal in some, and illegal in some) so I totally understand what you mean when you say you can't choose your sexuality/sexual preferences. It is not that simple.

[mr moose]

I still fail to see where this guy has done something wrong. People can donate money to whatever legal organisation they choose. He did not break the law in any way. So why is he being forced to step down. I don't agree with his opinion but everyone is entitled to their own opinion. And getting rid of someone because they believe ins something you don't isn't right. Besides this opinion doesn't even effect the company on any form. If he was a priest or someone who married people then I could see it being a problem but his opinion really is not a problem with the job.

So you don't think it's wrong to actively discriminate against homosexuals?

[Victorious Secret]

So you don't think it's wrong to actively discriminate against homosexuals?

He LEGALLY made a DONATION to a PUBLIC vote.

Because yay democracy. More people disagreed than they agreed with that view.

You may not agree with what he thought, but are you seriously suggesting that his right to believe in what he believes be taken away?

What if you lost your job over something you did 6 years ago that has no real bearing on you today? Are you some saint who never did anything wrong?

Everyone is entitled to act on their own beliefs. That is a CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT.

You have a problem with that? Change the laws and hinder free speech. That's your only recourse.

Do I agree with his position? Hell no. Do I think he is wrong? Hell yes. That doesn't mean he can't say wha he thinks. He has that right. However wrong, he has that right.

And I don't know about you all, but I'd rather not live in a world where we police opinions and perform character assassinations on people just because they have a different view on things. That is their birthright to have those views. We can judge all we want, but we have no justification to take that away from them.

[SJBijzitter]

Am I the only one who thinks the CEO of a company should stand for the company's ideals? Surely this fine sir is entitled to believe what he wants to believe, or say what he wants to say... but as a CEO I don't think you should be contradicting what the company stands for.

[kuddlesworth9419]

So you don't think it's wrong to actively discriminate against homosexuals?

He did not actively discriminate against gay people. "The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex." He did not discriminate in any way to any gay or non-gay person ever. He simply gave private money to promote a piece of legislation that never got anywhere to begin with. If he discriminated against a person he would have had to have miss-treated gay people, which he never did under my understanding.  

 

And yes I do think to discriminate against any race, sex or any sub-section of society is wrong, that includes people who hold a different belief in homosexuality. I think he is wrong but he thinks he is right, it depends on who your perspective is from. That is why free speech matters.

[Whiskers]

He LEGALLY made a DONATION to a PUBLIC vote.

Because yay democracy. More people disagreed than they agreed with that view.

You may not agree with what he thought, but are you seriously suggesting that his right to believe in what he believes be taken away?

What if you lost your job over something you did 6 years ago that has no real bearing on you today? Are you some saint who never did anything wrong?

Everyone is entitled to act on their own beliefs. That is a CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT.

You have a problem with that? Change the laws and hinder free speech. That's your only recourse.

Do I agree with his position? Hell no. Do I think he is wrong? Hell yes. That doesn't mean he can't say wha he thinks. He has that right. However wrong, he has that right.

And I don't know about you all, but I'd rather not live in a world where we police opinions and perform character assassinations on people just because they have a different view on things. That is their birthright to have those views. We can judge all we want, but we have no justification to take that away from them.

No one is trying to take that right away from him. He was allowed to donate that money and is allowed to continue believing what he does - however, he also has to live with the consequences of those actions. By supporting an unconstitutional policy and actively working toward the discrimination of the LGBT community he has tarnished his reputation.

It's ludicrous anyone is calling this discrimination. There are many other times when someone has found themselves on the wrong side of public opinion and as a result been forced to resign over significantly less serious issues yet noone cried 'discrimination' then.

[Puppet]

I think everyone in here is concentrating too much on the legalities, he was a CEO (break down the acronym) once you are unable to control your company you are effectively useless.

 

A lot of the employees were probably about to leave if they had no other choice but to work under him (its not as if they would have been stuck for a job), so the board got together and said look we think you should resign or we will be forced to vote you out as staying will seriously damage the company.

 

He could have done any number of things that are legally okay, but annoyed the employees so much that they would consider leaving and it would have ended in the same result.

 

The role of a CEO is kind of to be the fall guy, he is far less valuable than the employees that he upset (staying could have possibly hindered the chance of rehiring too), this is not as big of a deal as everyone is making out, it literally happens all the time. Just because its about gay rights, its turned into a discussion about gay rights and very little to do with the process of CEOs stepping down.

[mr moose]

He LEGALLY made a DONATION to a PUBLIC vote.

Because yay democracy. More people disagreed than they agreed with that view.

You may not agree with what he thought, but are you seriously suggesting that his right to believe in what he believes be taken away? No, I have never said his right to believe what he wants should be taken away. Please read my posts.

What if you lost your job over something you did 6 years ago that has no real bearing on you today? Are you some saint who never did anything wrong?

Everyone is entitled to act on their own beliefs. That is a CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT. yes, noone is saying they don't, but that doesn't mean he isn't imune from the consequences. again please read my posts.

You have a problem with that? Change the laws and hinder free speech. That's your only recourse. Again, I have never said he doesn't have the right to free speech and I support that, but free speech doesn't imunise stupid people from the consequences of that.

Do I agree with his position? Hell no. Do I think he is wrong? Hell yes. That doesn't mean he can't say wha he thinks. He has that right. However wrong, he has that right.

And I don't know about you all, but I'd rather not live in a world where we police opinions and perform character assassinations on people just because they have a different view on things. That is their birthright to have those views. We can judge all we want, but we have no justification to take that away from them.

 

Your not reading my posts are you.  I am getting tired of saying the same thing over and over. I have never once said that what he did was illegal or have I said that he should not have the right to say it, what I have always maintained is that what he did was bigotry and the public outcry and boycotts IMO were fair.

 

 

He did not actively discriminate against gay people. "The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex." He did not discriminate in any way to any gay or non-gay person ever. He simply gave private money to promote a piece of legislation that never got anywhere to begin with. If he discriminated against a person he would have had to have miss-treated gay people, which he never did under my understanding.  

 

And yes I do think to discriminate against any race, sex or any sub-section of society is wrong, that includes people who hold a different belief in homosexuality. I think he is wrong but he thinks he is right, it depends on who your perspective is from. That is why free speech matters.

 

He did, when he funded a campaign to make same sex marriage illegal he actively became involved in discrimination. 

 

EDIT: and the legislation did get somewhere, it became law by a slim margin, however it was overturned by the courts because it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 

[Misanthrope]

Hopefully this won't get me banned or make the thread an even bigger train wreck than it already is...

 

Do you think the same of pedophiles? Just let me explain, I am not trying to attack you or set you up as a hypocrite or anything like that, just genuinely interested in your opinion. I am not talking about child molesters either.

I'll admit that I am a bit of a lolicon (which is a fairly gray zone in some countries like where I live, legal in some, and illegal in some) so I totally understand what you mean when you say you can't choose your sexuality. It is not that simple.

 

Touchy subject indeed but actually, yes I don't think pedophiles can help themselves. I'd think of them as antisocial criminals (better known as sociopaths). The fact that rehabilitation is largely unsuccessful points to this which means sadly, that until we made some sort of psiquiatric advance confinement or other severe means like depo-provera are the only solutions.

[beebskadoo]

Hopefully this won't get me banned or make the thread an even bigger train wreck than it already is...

 

Do you think the same of pedophiles? Just let me explain, I am not trying to attack you or set you up as a hypocrite or anything like that, just genuinely interested in your opinion. I am not talking about child molesters either.

I'll admit that I am a bit of a lolicon (which is a fairly gray zone in some countries like where I live, legal in some, and illegal in some) so I totally understand what you mean when you say you can't choose your sexuality. It is not that simple.

Bad comparison, but I'll explain.

Pedophelia is a paraphelia, (much like Beastiality, Coprophelia, Necrophelia) NOT AN ORIENTATION!

 

Pedophelia is something that needs to be treated with counseling starting at a young age.

 

Touchy subject indeed but actually, yes I don't think pedophiles can help themselves. I'd think of them as antisocial criminals (better known as sociopaths). The fact that rehabilitation is largely unsuccessful points to this which means sadly, that until we made some sort of psiquiatric advance confinement or other severe means like depo-provera are the only solutions.

The fact that rehab is largely unsuccessful is for 2 reasons. 

1 The systems in place in this country are absolutely garbage for rehabilitating any criminal, it promotes a vicious cycle for relapse and has needed reformed for years.

2 in many states rehab isn't the first choice. it's more like lock em uup and keep em in the vicious cycle. that's how private prisons make their money. i.e another system that needs reformed.

[kuddlesworth9419]

Your not reading my posts are you.  I am getting tired of saying the same thing over and over. I have never once said that what he did was illegal or have I said that he should not have the right to say it, what I have always maintained is that what he did was bigotry and the public outcry and boycotts IMO were fair.

 

 

 

He did, when he funded a campaign to make same sex marriage illegal he actively became involved in discrimination. 

 

EDIT: and the legislation did get somewhere, it became law by a slim margin, however it was overturned by the courts because it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 

I wouldn't call that discrimination. Unless he actively took part in harming or abusing a person then he did not discriminate. Remember that discrimination against people is illegal. If that where true then he and any other person who agreed with this law would have been imprisoned or fined. It is not illegal to fund a law. Besides it was his own money and he can do whatever he likes with his money as long as it's not illegal. It doesn't matter if he is a CEO or anyone with power in a company, a persons private life is private and should remain that way. You also need to remember that the guy lost his job over something that wasn't illegal and wasn't wrong. It would be like me loosing my job over pirating a film over 4 years ago. Actually that is not even as worse because pirating a film is illegal.

[beebskadoo]

 

 

Ah, then I will do my best to keep these short. I understand somewhat. I've worn glasses for 19 of my 20 years of life. But remember that doing so means less clarification on why I am as I am and do as I do.

That's because I judge scientific evidence based on it's relevance and logical basis. If it asks me to make an assumption I don't believe initially or simply right, then it's irrelevant to me.

I'll be honest, to say what I'm being presented is biased feels the need to be noted. I mean the website is "borngay.procon.com". As I'm reading the short overviews of these peer-reviewed studies, I'm seeing little causation between biological aspects of a creature and them actually being homosexual. Note that I am ignoring their labels as I find it a bias to consider them.

So far I'm on number 4 and two of them feel the need to mention they used a very small or small sample in their study while also giving advice not to read too much into it (words from the researchers specifically) and the other two say little more than (paraphrased) "This is what we think might cause it and we are still working on it." I'll read the other 15 and mention you here to read that when I do. A bit busy suddenly.

Edit:

Well... @beebskadoo, from your link to the LGBT Sexual Orientation explanation:

 

So yeah. I took a break from the peer-reviewed research (on #5 and it's not very different from the prior 4 though it has more merit than they do imo). That seems pretty straight forward to me. Then there's this question that's raised: Is It Possible To Change One’s Sexual Orientation (“Reparative Therapy”)? Which the answer to leaves a big ? on it. 

So, effectively, I believe one thing, you believe the other, and science has nothing concrete on who is right. Which is why I take issue with the LGBT rhetoric (from what I've experienced, which is kind of a lot of it) that it's simply an immutable fact that it's not a choice. And I think now you should be able to see why that irks me. 

You also have to understand that not many strides have been taken to understanding why.

up until recently it was unfortunately considered a disease, another reason that research wasn't poured into it.

another reason is that it's been demonized and criminalized so research efforts were frowned upon.

 

http://www.livescience.com/25082-gay-conversion-therapy-facts.html

here is another article I found.

 

Conversion therapy is harmful, take it from me.

I was made to see a church counselor as a child and had a fairly mild version of conversion therapy over the course of a year, I still have deeply seeded issues directly related to that 'treatment'.  

[mr moose]

I wouldn't call that discrimination. Unless he actively took part in harming or abusing a person then he did not discriminate. Remember that discrimination against people is illegal. If that where true then he and any other person who agreed with this law would have been imprisoned or fined. It is not illegal to fund a law. Besides it was his own money and he can do whatever he likes with his money as long as it's not illegal. It doesn't matter if he is a CEO or anyone with power in a company, a persons private life is private and should remain that way. You also need to remember that the guy lost his job over something that wasn't illegal and wasn't wrong. It would be like me loosing my job over pirating a film over 4 years ago. Actually that is not even as worse because pirating a film is illegal.

 

Discrimination does not have to be illegal to be discrimination.  And I would argue that funding a campaign to prevent same sex marriage is actively harming a person and as such is discrimination. Plus the law he funded the campaign for was deemed to be unconstitutional (illegal).

 

EDIT: the point about his personal life and work life being separate has been done to death.  Yes idealistically it should be separate, But in reality it isn't, people judge a company by the CEO's public image. that is why most ceo's don't engage in controversial debates and refrain from letting their contributions to political parties from becoming public. He's didn't because He isn't a very good with public relations.

[Puppet]

Bad comparison, but I'll explain.

Pedophelia is a paraphelia, (much like Beastiality, Coprophelia, Necrophelia) NOT AN ORIENTATION!

 

Pedophelia is something that needs to be treated with counseling starting at a young age.

 

The fact that rehab is largely unsuccessful is for 2 reasons. 

1 The systems in place in this country are absolutely garbage for rehabilitating any criminal, it promotes a vicious cycle for relapse and has needed reformed for years.

2 in many states rehab isn't the first choice. it's more like lock em uup and keep em in the vicious cycle. that's how private prisons make their money. i.e another system that needs reformed.

 

:lol: Why is there always comparisons to pedophiles and gay people in these threads.

 

Pedophilia is always non consensual, the people involved are always under the age of consent and often forcefully raped.

 

Gay people are consenting adults that are causing no harm to anyone.

 

This type of discussion shouldn't even be going on in this thread. In fact there should be very little discussion about gay rights at all (not that they are not important), but this all boils down to the simple fact that he upset employees, CEOs have to tread very softly they do not have the same rights as the other employees, they can be voted out of the company in a heartbeat if their decisions damage the company, legal or not. 

[LAwLz]

-snip-

I really don't really see it as much different than homosexuality to be honest. Both are out of the persons control, both are thought crimes (in the countries where homosexuality is illegal) and homosexuality was once classified as a paraphilia as well (so the definition of what is a paraphilia or not can change, since it is partially subjective).

 

 

:lol: Why is there always comparisons to pedophiles and gay people in these threads.

 

Pedophilia is always non consensual, the people involved are always under the age of consent and often forcefully raped.

 

Gay people are consenting adults that are causing no harm to anyone.

You are getting pedophilia and child molestation mixed up. They are not the same thing. One is a thought crime without a victim and the other one is a real crime with a real victim.

The difference is as big as shooting someone in a game, and shooting someone in real life.

Your statement about "it's always non consensual" is not true either, since the age of consent in (I believe but don't quote me on this) most countries is lower than the age limit of starring in porn. So it is legal to have sex with someone, but it's illegal to watch a movie/picture of the same person in the act.

[beebskadoo]

:lol: Why is there always comparisons to pedophiles and gay people in these threads.

Pedophilia is always non consensual, the people involved are always under the age of consent and often forcefully raped.

Gay people are consenting adults that are causing no harm to anyone.

This type of discussion shouldn't even be going on in this thread. In fact there should be very little discussion about gay rights at all (not that they are not important), but this all boils down to the simple fact that he upset employees, CEOs have to tread very softly they do not have the same rights as the other employees, they can be voted out of the company in a heartbeat if their decisions damage the company, legal or not.

I wasn't making a comparison, I was giving the reason on why it's a silly comparison.

Why would I approve of that comparison...I'm super gay.

[Hikaru12]

He still donated money to Prop 8 which reflects badly on the company. It'd be one thing if he had his own private views but another if it starts to affect the image of the company.

[Puppet]

I wouldn't call that discrimination. Unless he actively took part in harming or abusing a person then he did not discriminate. Remember that discrimination against people is illegal. If that where true then he and any other person who agreed with this law would have been imprisoned or fined. It is not illegal to fund a law. Besides it was his own money and he can do whatever he likes with his money as long as it's not illegal. It doesn't matter if he is a CEO or anyone with power in a company, a persons private life is private and should remain that way. You also need to remember that the guy lost his job over something that wasn't illegal and wasn't wrong. It would be like me loosing my job over pirating a film over 4 years ago. Actually that is not even as worse because pirating a film is illegal.

 

If you were a CEO that could easily be the case, it is one of the most risky jobs out there, it's not like a politician were you are elected for a term. You can be voted out of the company pretty much instantaneously, there doesn't have to be any reasoning behind it.

 

 

I wasn't making a comparison, I was giving the reason on why it's a silly comparison.

Why would I approve of that comparison...I'm super gay.

 

Oh, we know

 

I was agreeing with you, it's silly that this always gets brought up in these threads, it shouldn't have to be discussed, it should be obvious.

 

Sorry had to comment, it's just one of the most ridiculous comparisons out there, pedophiles can be gay or straight or bi or whatever, still a pedophile... I don't think we have to delve into the human psyche to prove that.

[Puppet]

You are getting pedophilia and child molestation mixed up. They are not the same thing. One is a thought crime without a victim and the other one is a real crime with a real victim.

The difference is as big as shooting someone in a game, and shooting someone in real life.

Your statement about "it's always non consensual" is not true either, since the age of consent in (I believe but don't quote me on this) most countries is lower than the age limit of starring in porn. So it is legal to have sex with someone, but it's illegal to watch a movie/picture of the same person in the act.

 

Damn I am getting dragged into this now, I was referring specifically to the act, if all gay people did was think about it, there would be no need to grant any civil or human rights. The same goes for pedophilia, if all they did was think about it, it honestly wouldn't cause anybody any real harm, just be very creepy.

 

So the actual acts are all that really need to be discussed (but not in this thread). No need for an in depth psychoanalysis.

[mr moose]

Damn I am getting dragged into this now, I was referring specifically to the act, if all gay people did was think about it, there would be no need to grant any civil or human rights. The same goes for pedophilia, if all they did was think about it, it honestly wouldn't cause anybody any real harm, just be very creepy.

 

So the actual acts are all that really need to be discussed (but not in this thread). No need for an in depth psychoanalysis.

 

I'm all bang up for proper psychoanalysis however (trying not to sound insulting) it's the sort of thing that requires years of training and higher than average intelligence (in abstract reasoning) to carry out a proper discussion, so it's probably best if this forum doesn't attempt it.  

[Puppet]

I'm all bang up for proper psychoanalysis however (trying not to sound insulting) it's the sort of thing that requires years of training and higher than average intelligence (in abstract reasoning) to carry out a proper discussion, so it's probably best if this forum doesn't attempt it.  

 

No, I get you, the discussion would be fine, but it definitely doesn't belong in here. I'm not in the position to discuss the psychology of it all, that's why I was avoiding it and basing my opinions on the acts.

 

But yeah I don't think any tech forum should attempt something like this, one or two individuals might have the knowledge to discuss, but of course the majority who don't would get involved.

[LAwLz]

Damn I am getting dragged into this now, I was referring specifically to the act, if all gay people did was think about it, there would be no need to grant any civil or human rights. The same goes for pedophilia, if all they did was think about it, it honestly wouldn't cause anybody any real harm, just be very creepy.

 

So the actual acts are all that really need to be discussed (but not in this thread). No need for an in depth psychoanalysis.

That's not really true. Again, you are getting pedophilia mixed up with child molestation.

Just being gay is illegal in a lot of countries, no matter if you put it in practice or not, and the same goes for pedophiles.

It's like saying "well if shooting computer generated people was all FPS gamers did then it wouldn't be an issue, but they go out and shoot real people as well so therefore both should be illegal". Actually, it makes even less sense than that since in some situations it is legal to perform the act yourself, but illegal to have a photo of someone else doing it (even by themselves).

 

Just to clarify again, not siding with pedos here and at worst I am a lolicon (I find some young anime girls sexually attractive). I think the law is very illogical at times though, and I see a lot of parallels with how homosexuals at treated for acts, and how pedophiles are treated for acts.