Mozilla CEO resigns over anti-gay marriage controversy

[Ashley]

I think people are missing the implications of having this CEO in a position of power at Mozilla.

 

To me, it isn't that he has conservative beliefs on any one particular issue but more that he is in control of policy. Marriage is the mainstream queer issue right now and being against this is telling of how he would shape policy at Mozilla in such a way that it could: discriminate, disenfranchise, and harm queer workers at Mozilla or those who plan to work there through discriminatory hiring practices. He would be in control of these things as CEO.

 

So to me, I could care less what a CEO thinks of any one particular issue or another but if he is a queer-basher/homophobe/whatever you want to call those kinds of people then I don't think he should be in charge.

[mr moose]

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

I also said it would effect his abilities to CEO any company in the future,  we all have to live by the things we do.

 

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

 

Maybe, but the context is what he would be like as ceo of this company.

[Misanthrope]

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

 

That's not a very good argument (not that you're making it of course, you're only describing the government's argument) I think adopting and surrogate parenting would be sufficient enough for those "tax-paying offspring" you speak off. 

[mr moose]

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

 

I have looked into the financial burden of Gay marriage on the government, It's actually more likely to save the government money.  Because In a gay marriage one of two things will happen, either they will have no kids and thus both will work which equals significant taxes for the government and no tax breaks for kids, or they adopt children and relieve the government of subsidizing places in orphanages.  It's win win really.

 

EDIT: @Misanthrope SNAP!

[Common_Courtesy]

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

Fair enough, I just think it a bit silly really seeing as not all hetro couples will have kids and gay couples tend to adopt. 

[Misanthrope]

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

 

Again why would be the problem of stating "I no longer support such causes, it was a mistake on my part"? Remaining silent about it might be a civil way to stick to his opinion, even 6 years after the fact. Nobody is perfect and we all can support unpopular opinions out of ignorance or personal experience bias or whatever the case might be. Yet it's very simple to say "I was wrong, I shouldn't interfere or help others interfere in the private lives of people."

[Norwegiantweaker]

Im just gonna say it. Fuck everyone that doesnt want people to live their lives on their terms.

it highly doubt that we were planted on this shithole of a planet for goverment and run of the mill jesuswannabe's to run our lifes?.

[trevorsom13]

So equality for all, unless you disagree with the opinions of "the large majority of Americans?"

 

 

so basically Reddit.

[Derangel]

I also said it would effect his abilities to CEO any company in the future, we all have to live by the things we do.

Maybe, but the context is what he would be like as ceo of this company.

Maybe it would or maybe he would continue like he has since he helped found the company. Of course now we will never know because he was never given the chance. I simply don't believe we should judge him based on a belief that doesn't seem to have ever been a problem at work.

Again why would be the problem of stating "I no longer support such causes, it was a mistake on my part"? Remaining silent about it might be a civil way to stick to his opinion, even 8 years after the fact. Nobody is perfect and we all can support unpopular opinions out of ignorance or personal experience bias or whatever the case might be. Yet it's very simple to say "I was wrong, I shouldn't interfere or help others interfere in the private lives of people."

Doing a little more reading in between posts here it seems like he still hold the same beliefs however he doesn't take those with him to work.

[mr moose]

Maybe it would or maybe he would continue like he has since he helped found the company. Of course now we will never know because he was never given the chance. I simply don't believe we should judge him based on a belief that doesn't seem to have ever been a problem at work.

 

But it is a problem at work, it turns customers away from their product. 

[cae]

That's not a very good argument (not that you're making it of course, you're only describing the government's argument) I think adopting and surrogate parenting would be sufficient enough for those "tax-paying offspring" you speak off. 

 

 

I have looked into the financial burden of Gay marriage on the government, It's actually more likely to save the government money.  Because In a gay marriage one of two things will happen, either they will have no kids and thus both will work which equals significant taxes for the government and no tax breaks for kids, or they adopt children and relieve the government of subsidizing places in orphanages.  It's win win really.

 

EDIT: @Misanthrope SNAP!

 

Agreed on both, if you're gonna do something do it across the board equally, or don't do it at all.

[Norwegiantweaker]

But it is a problem at work, it turns customers away from their product. 

Wait what ?. its not like they walk around in latex and strap-ons all day ?

[Murdoch]

If everybody in America with misguided opinions were forced to resign. The country would come to a standstill.

[Derangel]

But it is a problem at work, it turns customers away from their product. 

 

I understand that and I believe he made the right call in stepping down, however I don't have to like that that is the case.

[CJPowell27]

Can't we all just be friends

[mr moose]

Wait what ?. its not like they walk around in latex and strap-ons all day ?

 

Okcupid was turning away everyone using ff,  It maybe just one website, but if enough people boycott FF because of their CEO then the CEO is responsible for lost custom and no company should be expected to maintain a CEO that damages their own product.

 

 

I understand that and I believe he made the right call in stepping down, however I don't have to like that that is the case.

 

fair enough.

[Norwegiantweaker]

Okcupid was turning away everyone using ff,  It maybe just one website, but if enough people boycott FF because of their CEO then the CEO is responsible for lost custom and no company should be expected to maintain a CEO that damages their own product.

 

 

 

fair enough.

i jumped in mid topic, but if people run away cuz the CEO is gay.. i lost all faith in everyone period

[mr moose]

If everybody in America with misguided opinions were forced to resign. The country would come to a standstill.

that's why most CEO's make anonymous donations and don't speak about their opinions unless it's to trusted confidants.

[Misanthrope]

Doing a little more reading in between posts here it seems like he still hold the same beliefs however he doesn't take those with him to work.

 

If he still holds those believes then everyone is entitled to their outrage. Even if he "doesn't bring it to work" supporting a ban on gay marriage has far wider implications and anyone is entitled to say "I don't want to do business with you" even if it's for personally held believes. He's not a grunt level employee, he's the freaking CEO and even personal, outside of work believes carry a lot of weight. Even from a practical business sense any gay Mozilla employee could cause a headache if not immediately promoted, given a race, extra vacations, etc. 

There's a reason not just anybody gets to be the face of a company and yes it goes beyond just business experience since we don't live in a vacuum and opinions, specially controversial and dangerous opinions like this, do count. 

[mr moose]

i jumped in mid topic, but if people run away cuz the CEO is gay.. i lost all faith in everyone period

fortunately that never seems to happen,  Classic examples of Gay CEO's and public figures:

 

Tim Cook - Apple

Chris Hughs - Facebook

Megan Smith - google

Alan Joyce -CEO Quantas

Antonio Simoes -CEO UK HSBC

Colin Walsh - American Express

Anthony Watson - Barclays bank

Ellain Degenres - entertainer

Mary Jo Abler - 3M president

Elton John - entertainer

Kenny everitt - entertainer

Sinead O'conner - entertainer

Paul Reed - BP

Joseph Evangelisti - JP Morgan

Robert Hanson - American eagle outfitters

 

And that's just a small fraction.

 

People are better than we sometimes give them credit for.

 

EDIT: essentially all I am saying is that people don't care if your gay, only if your anti-gay.

[Derangel]

If he still holds those believes then everyone is entitled to their outrage. Even if he "doesn't bring it to work" supporting a ban on gay marriage has far wider implications and anyone is entitled to say "I don't want to do business with you" even if it's for personally held believes. He's not a grunt level employee, he's the freaking CEO and even personal, outside of work believes carry a lot of weight. Even from a practical business sense any gay Mozilla employee could cause a headache if not immediately promoted, given a race, extra vacations, etc. 

There's a reason not just anybody gets to be the face of a company and yes it goes beyond just business experience since we don't live in a vacuum and opinions, specially controversial and dangerous opinions like this, do count. 

 

Yes, I get all of that. I still don't like that it has to be that way however. I believe in treating people fairly and letting them prove themselves one way or the other. I do not like that he believes I shouldn't have the right to marry if I wish, but I'm not about to judge his ability to run a business based on that. I believe he should have the same chance to prove himself as anyone else would.

[Misanthrope]

Yes, I get all of that. I still don't like that it has to be that way however. I believe in treating people fairly and letting them prove themselves one way or the other. I do not like that he believes I shouldn't have the right to marry if I wish, but I'm not about to judge his ability to run a business based on that. I believe he should have the same chance to prove himself as anyone else would.

 

This is hardly a "Cat person or dog person" type of debate here. We're talking discrimination. Freedom of speech doesn't means that said speech should go uncontested. And yes extreme sensitivity to certain believes can be exploited (i.e. Say anything that criticizes the state of Israel and you're immediately labeled as an anti-Semite even if your opinion is just political and has nothing to do with race) However again, we're talking about a tech company, this backlash is to be expected for the same reason a convicted pedophile would be chased out of the kids toy industry.

[mr moose]

Yes, I get all of that. I still don't like that it has to be that way however. I believe in treating people fairly and letting them prove themselves one way or the other. I do not like that he believes I shouldn't have the right to marry if I wish, but I'm not about to judge his ability to run a business based on that. I believe he should have the same chance to prove himself as anyone else would.

 

that's where it gets technical, running a business means not pissing of your clients,  He did that so any other skills he has are moot, He did something that pisses of clients and didn't do anything to remedy the situation, thus he is not good at the job.

[cae]

However again, we're talking about a tech company, this backlash is to be expected for the same reason a convicted pedophile would be chased out of the kids toy industry.

 

"Adult toys. Now for kids!" An untapped market if I ever saw one.

[Hobox]

It's truly pathetic that people cannot keep someone's personal opinions and their work seperate. It's the most hypocrital thing in politics: "I want to live my life how I want, so don't tell me who I can't and can't marry. BUT HOW DARE YOU NOT AGREE, YOU SHOULD LOSE YOUR JOB!!"

Fuck those people. And just a heads up, I'm not saying that everyone is like that. The ones that are like that are fucking pathetic.