Mozilla CEO resigns over anti-gay marriage controversy

[Victorious Secret]

Sooooo... anyone wanna talk about homosexuality in animals? Cus it's there. And, you know, we're merely extremely advanced animals...

 

Yea, but something something humans are better...erm...MANIFEST DESTINY BRO?!

 

But really, only in humans is homosexuality such a strongly contested issue because, ding ding ding, we prescribe to ancient manmade texts that give a definition of marriage and we've had entire laws crafted out of those definitions. 

 

Pretty sure the Contingent of Doge doesn't really care who is doing who and for what reasons. They simply...do? 

 

Now, please don't call me a religion basher (though its hard not to with this issue) because thats literally where we got this definition of marriage from, and why these laws even exist. Because man must marry woman, and man can't marry man. 

 

Well, man can marry man. But legally? they don't get the same legal recognition much less all the benefits of being married. Thats the problem. We are placing them on a lower tier by the very laws we use, and those laws didn't just come out of nowhere.

 

I personally couldn't care less who bangs who and why. Do what makes you happy. I just have a problem that the laws prevent the whole "do what makes you happy" part from successfully happening. 

[Blade of Grass]

Just going to throw my cents in.

 

The Mozilla CEO was not fired, he stepped down. This is perfectly acceptable (IMHO) for a business to do because he has affected their bottom line (as obvious from okcupid denying FF users access to their site), which is bad for business. The other issue with his donations, is that members of his staff in the LGBT community who have to work with him may feel uncomfortable being around him, knowing that he actively supported a cause that was working to discriminate them.

 

While people may think this is a violation of his freedom of speech (his right not to be prosecuted for his thoughts/opinions only applies as long as his speech does not interfere with the rights of others), freedom of speech does not save your from social prosecution. They're saying that they disagree with his opinions, not him as a person (in the words of CPG Grey "The trick is to keep your identity separate from your opinions. [Your opinions] are objects in a box you carry with you"), which is protected by the freedom of speech (notice the difference between attacking him, as a person, and attacking his opinions). Of course, boycotting a company isn't always the best solution, but it does work to make a point. 

 

Finally, to end off, I thought I'd link an interesting video that I remember seeing in class, it certainly flips the perspective.

 

[kuddlesworth9419]

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.

 

 

 

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.

Yes but they haven't even given the guy any chance. He has been CEO for less then a week i think. Getting rid of someone over something so frivolous is stupid.

[kuddlesworth9419]

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.

Does that mean if I don't get married that I have been harmed in some way. Getting married is a religious ceremony in the first place. If you are atheist then you probably shouldn't be having a religious ceremony to begin with. It isn't like I care if gay people get marriage anyway though as people can do what they want. But I just wanted to put it out there that getting married isn't something that people should take so seriously. It's not even a long lasting partnership anymore to be honest as you can quite easily separate from your partner. I really don't get all the palaver over a stupid religious ceremony. Maybe it has something to do with the tax breaks you get for getting married.  But I guess that is the cynical side of me there.

[mr moose]

Yes but they haven't even given the guy any chance. He has been CEO for less then a week i think. Getting rid of someone over something so frivolous is stupid.

 

we don't know all the details, plus he had the chance to make a comment or at least try to pacify the general concerns people had, but he didn't.  Regardless of what he did, that in itself shows a lack of concern for the image of the company and a lack of desire to set things right and a good reason for them wanting him to resign.

 

 

Does that mean if I don't get married that I have been harmed in some way. Getting married is a religious ceremony in the first place. If you are atheist then you probably shouldn't be having a religious ceremony to begin with. It isn't like I care if gay people get marriage anyway though as people can do what they want. But I just wanted to put it out there that getting married isn't something that people should take so seriously. It's not even a long lasting partnership anymore to be honest as you can quite easily separate from your partner. I really don't get all the palaver over a stupid religious ceremony. Maybe it has something to do with the tax breaks you get for getting married.  But I guess that is the cynical side of me there.

 

What you think about marriage is irrelevant,  It has  meaning according to LAW and homosexuals are being denied it, ergo they are being discriminated against.   Your personal opinion on marriage does not lessen the discrimination nor does it change the legal privileges afforded.   No one wants to forces religions to do or be apart of anything here, all they want is equal rights under the law. 

[kuddlesworth9419]

we don't know all the details, plus he had the chance to make a comment or at least try to pacify the general concerns people had, but he didn't.  Regardless of what he did, that in itself shows a lack of concern for the image of the company and a lack of desire to set things right and a good reason for them wanting him to resign.

 

 

 

What you think about marriage is irrelevant,  It has  meaning according to LAW and homosexuals are being denied it, ergo they are being discriminated against.   Your personal opinion on marriage does not lessen the discrimination nor does it change the legal privileges afforded.   No one wants to forces religions to do or be apart of anything here, all they want is equal rights under the law. 

If your government is denying any person to marry then that is discrimination simply because they are actively in a position of power to disallows someone to marry. However this CEO was in no position of power or didn't use that power to actively deny people to marry. If he was a priest, civil servant or MP then it would have been a problem as he could actively deny people marrying over the preference in partnership. But all he did was donate his own money into something he believed in. If I gave £5 to an organisation that protested to ban homosexuality would that meant that I am discriminating against homosexuals. If I gave money to an organisation that promoted gay marriage would that not also be doing the exact same thing from his perspective. Just because you, me and most people think that there is nothing wrong with being gay it doesn't mean that is true, it's a bit like weather or not you believe in a religion, those that do think it's right and everyone should believe what they believe but those that don't think that religion is wrong, it all depends on your perspective. But at the end of the day if you simply let people have whatever view they like and let them support whatever organisation they want it just means that you will also be allowed to support whatever organisation you want. What if a CEO was made to step down simply because he supported a pro-gay organisation and gave them £1000. I just think it;s a bit unfair that it doesn't work both ways even if his opinion is wrong doesn't mean it's OK to loose your job over it. I am trying to ignore my own opinion on this and it's quite hard to stay neutral but if you stay neutral then you are doing the right thing. My opinion though takes on the side of laissez-fair. 

[mr moose]

 If I gave £5 to an organisation that protested to ban homosexuality would that meant that I am discriminating against homosexuals.

 

Yes you would be.

 

But just so you know it wasn't merely a protest he was funding, it was an actual campaign to vote in new law.

[mr moose]

0. I just think it;s a bit unfair that it doesn't work both ways even if his opinion is wrong doesn't mean it's OK to loose your job over it. I am trying to ignore my own opinion on this and it's quite hard to stay neutral but if you stay neutral then you are doing the right thing. My opinion though takes on the side of laissez-fair. 

 

It does work both ways, It's just that public backlashh from supporting equality is not quite enough to cause his company damage and is not discrimination.  

 

There are three distinct components to this that people seem to be confusing and muddling together,

 

1, it is his right to express his opinions and support legislation he wants.  No one is saying he shouldn't.

2. If people don't like what he is doing, then they will boycott his company, that costs the company money so they have to decide if his ability to do the job is more beneficial than his public image is damaging.

3. Discrimination is discrimination regardless of whether it is legal or not. To deny someone equal right under the law is discrimination, and while he supports that law/stance, then he supports discrimination.

 

The only problem people don't seem to get is that you can't reverse the situation because it is not discrimination to want equality.  it is not discrimination to want every to have be subject to the same laws. 

[jezza39]

Well, man can marry man. But legally? they don't get the same legal recognition much less all the benefits of being married. Thats the problem. We are placing them on a lower tier by the very laws we use, and those laws didn't just come out of nowhere.

 

In Australia, the courts have allowed long term de facto (i.e. not married) couples have the same rights for asset and custody divisions. Obviously this is just a start, and legally it is impossible to marry. I think this is the way most countries will go before they just legalise gay marriage. 

 

Personally, I can't understand why people object to gay marriage. Does it affect you? No. Does it bring equality and fairness? Yes. Secondly, if marriage has so much sanctuary, why is it ok for people who do not believe in whichever religion you do to marry? Or why is divorce allowed? 

[mr moose]

In Australia, the courts have allowed long term de facto (i.e. not married) couples have the same rights for asset and custody divisions. Obviously this is just a start, and legally it is impossible to marry. I think this is the way most countries will go before they just legalise gay marriage. 

 

Personally, I can't understand why people object to gay marriage. Does it affect you? No. Does it bring equality and fairness? Yes. Secondly, if marriage has so much sanctuary, why is it ok for people who do not believe in whichever religion you do to marry? Or why is divorce allowed? 

 

Exactly, although in Australia defacto's still don't have the inheritance laws or the power of attorney laws that we hetero's enjoy.

[jezza39]

Exactly, although in Australia defacto's still don't have the inheritance laws or the power of attorney laws that we hetero's enjoy.

 

And also none of the 'family' taxation breaks. But I guess a journey of 1000 miles starts with a single step. I have no doubt however that in the next 10 years, gay marriage will be legal in Australia. 

[Puppet]

Yes but they haven't even given the guy any chance. He has been CEO for less then a week i think. Getting rid of someone over something so frivolous is stupid.

 

Yep that's how risky the job is, despite the obvious pay grade differences, he is not as valuable as the employees that they would have stood to have lost.

 

I did read somewhere that the site 'OKcupid' was advising all of it's customers to boycott Firefox (kind of silly, but that's the stance they took), and you have to remember that the majority of Firefox revenue comes from Google... A company incredibly committed to gay rights, if they had lost partnership with them they would have been dead in the water, which if this had been allowed to go any further, such as employees leaving, companies boycotting, it would have created far too much controversy and made Google seem like a very polarized company (not great for investors) then it may have very well ended up that way.

 

Being a CEO, especially in the field of internet related services where numbers are key and services can be abandoned, diversity is highly important, you want to at least seem on the face of things incredibly diverse and welcoming to all.

 

It's not a position were you can run riot and say or do anything that's on your mind, you have to at least be reserved or go with the flow of the people who support the company...

[Atomika]

Personally I think that's just rubbish.

 

People should be able to do what ever they wish to, It's no one else's business.

Eminem quote as follows: “I don't care if you're black, white, straight, bisexual, gay, lesbian, short, tall, fat, skinny, rich or poor. If you're nice to me, I'll be nice to you. Simple as that.”

 

It's just stupid as it's over someone of the same sex marrying someone else. Pathetic if you ask me.

[Jasmin]

I'm always a bit surprised when I hear something along the lines they mentioned on the WAN show. Yes, there's freedom of speech and freedom of will, religion etc. One can privately believe whatever they want and not be prosecuted for it. But I see a problem with defending what is basically 'freedom of denouncing and penalizing fellow citizens'. First of all, religion IS NOT an explanation to anyone's behavior. You can believe whatever you wish, but you should not be allowed to do other people harm based on your beliefs. Treating anybody as 2nd class human being and spreading the ideology of behaving in such a way IS doing harm. If somebody is willfully and knowingly giving money to support prosecution, mistreatment and outright lies about certain group of people should be called on that and expect to take full responsibility for it. If he gave money to KKK he could be even prosecuted for this. How is this even different to what he did? Because christians, who publicly claim homosexuals are inferior, are dominant in western countries? Even though all of those countries have put into their law that they are NEUTRAL?

 

Homosexuality is a thing. It's not a matter of discussion. You might as well claim there's no blood in your veins. Now it should not be a matter of discussion whether to allow homosexuals to be treated equally to heterosexuals. It should be given. Otherwise it should be equally ok to go around claiming that purple, green, black, brown, pink, white, any other color of skin makes people inferior and be allowed to gather money to exclude them from public space. And somehow this is not deemed 'ok'.

 

Finally, people claim that this was a thing of a past. Great. Everyone does mistakes. He could have, therefore, publicly explained that this was his mistake of the past and he no longer supports this view. He has not, however. Ergo he does find homosexuals inferior. So people should call him on that and request that he is removed from any public spot he is at.

[Misanthrope]

I'm always a bit surprised when I hear something along the lines they mentioned on the WAN show. 

 

I honestly think Linus went too far in trying to remain "neutral". He doesn't quite grasps than a neutral position would be in favor of allowing gay marriage and denouncing anyone who wants to legally oppose it. Either that or he's on the conservative side, if you take a look at this 20 pages you'll be saddened to see just how many people on the tech community are basically reactionary and passively discriminatory.