Mozilla CEO resigns over anti-gay marriage controversy

[hawaiims]

He funded a law that would personally harm people by denying them a basic right. Sorry but you can't just pretend is not a big deal because it was a long a go or not that much money or out of his personal pocket. He's a bigot, he supports hatred that directly tells people what they should and shouldn't do. Having that opinion means that you're not really that supportive of gay marriage. It would be the equivalent of saying "I'm not a racist, however I don't think people who support apartheid should suffer any backlash or resign jobs, he just contributed a little bit of money, personal money, it didn't affect his job he's just you know...a racist who thinks black people should go back to the back of the bus and have their own toilets and such"

Stop trying to minimize and apologize and create non-existent middle grounds: Hatred is hatred, there's no excuses for discriminating others. "Just a little bit" is not an excuse, "it was a long time ago" is not an excuse, "It was a personal opinion" it's not an excuse.

How is it discriminating against others? Did he ever mention he would refuse to hire gay employees at Mozilla? Did he ever campaign for discrimination against gays? No.

 

He wanted to keep the status quo, not change the law so that gays would be discriminated against, there's a HUUUUUUUUGE difference between the two. Besides, he did not push for his anti-gay views at ANY TIME during his job. It was a personal thing, he never bragged about it, he never mentioned it at mozilla, it just came up when someone found records or something. 

 

And before somebody starts calling me a religious nutjob, I'll let you know that I'm an agnostic who supports gay marriage haha

[hawaiims]

if i were President i would make Gay divorce illegal

divorce? 

 

What.... haha?

[Misanthrope]

How is it discriminating against others? Did he ever mention he would refuse to hire gay employees at Mozilla? Did he ever campaign for discrimination against gays? No.

 

He wanted to keep the status quo, not change the law so that gays would be discriminated against, there's a HUUUUUUUUGE difference between the two. Besides, he did not push for his anti-gay views at ANY TIME during his job. It was a personal thing, he never bragged about it, he never mentioned it at mozilla, it just came up when someone found records or something. 

 

And before somebody starts calling me a religious nutjob, I'll let you know that I'm an agnostic who supports gay marriage haha

 

I'll go over it again but I have a feeling I'll regret it.

 

1) Saying certain people shouldn't have certain rights is discrimination, There is no if, then or buts there. If you cannot see that then you need to go no further since you don't really believe in equality. 

 

2) Keeping the status quo is the excuse a lot of people adhered to when it comes to not let women vote, to not let black people use the same toilets, or be outright property. There's a lot of slippery slope that goes on in the name of the "status quo" and it makes people accomplices in hate crimes: They're usually just as hateful and racist and homophobic but they happen to also be cowards who hide behind the slippery slope and just let discrimination go on.

 

3) We already mentioned that we do not exist in a vacuum. You cannot separate your personal life from your professional one, simply because some of your customers won't. The minute even 1 client decided to take a step away from Mozilla because of his personally held opinions, he became a business liability. Being a CEO is a bit more involved than an entry level job, in case you haven't noticed you're the face of the company, severe personal scrutiny is part of the job. It's why virtually all large corporations voluntarily submit to strict standards that ensures they will have a good public image. Because all people have rights just as he does, and one of those is to say "I refuse to continue to do business with you"

4) Like I told others, you really can't claim to support gay marriage while at the same time defend a guy who actively tries to make it illegal. You're just kidding yourself, the same slippery slope I talked about in 2)

[mr moose]

How is it discriminating against others? Did he ever mention he would refuse to hire gay employees at Mozilla? Did he ever campaign for discrimination against gays? No.

 

He wanted to keep the status quo, not change the law so that gays would be discriminated against, there's a HUUUUUUUUGE difference between the two. Besides, he did not push for his anti-gay views at ANY TIME during his job. It was a personal thing, he never bragged about it, he never mentioned it at mozilla, it just came up when someone found records or something. 

 

And before somebody starts calling me a religious nutjob, I'll let you know that I'm an agnostic who supports gay marriage haha

 

He actively supported (with donations) the lobby to vote against same sex marriage, that is discrimination. He was funding to have discriminatory laws upheld/passed that discriminate against a person based on their sexual orientation.  

 

Again, and I am starting to get tired that people don't understand this bit because it ain't really that complex,  Any CEO that causes damage to their organization will be forced out.  Regardless of what they do to cause that damage, damaging a brand name or damage revenue or damaging sales is cause for dismissal.  It was fair, just and reasonable for him to either leave or be pushed out because his actions (which he neither hid nor apologized for) caused damage.

[zip2k4]

You cannot have a debate without an argument.

 

You cannot have the right to marriage without the option to. 

 

What are you trying to say?

 

I believe you cannot debate without a stance

you can argue without a stance.

 

see what I mean?

 

marrying a person you want is your right, the action of marrying a person is an option.

 

but, any further talk about this is pointless if my point isn't outright stated I suppose, so the point is simple:

(and I don't bother to quote here, just look from post before #139 as that'll be where all my stances come from)

 

1. as cae said earlier "I believe everyone should have the privilege of marriage" we were arguing as if marriage right is marriage obligation

obligation is something that must be done, whereas option is something you may choose.

 

2. having the rights to choose who you want to be is the one that gets everyone talking. having the rights to choose who you want to marry to

and having the option to marry is completely different subject and I think it needs to be clarified as the previous debate has turned into an argument.

 

hope that helps clarify what I've said earlier

[mr moose]

I believe you cannot debate without a stance

you can argue without a stance.

 

see what I mean?

 

marrying a person you want is your right, the action of marrying a person is an option.

 

but, any further talk about this is pointless if my point isn't outright stated I suppose, so the point is simple:

(and I don't bother to quote here, just look from post before #139 as that'll be where all my stances come from)

 

1. as cae said earlier "I believe everyone should have the privilege of marriage" we were arguing as if marriage right is marriage obligation

obligation is something that must be done, whereas option is something you may choose.

 

2. having the rights to choose who you want to be is the one that gets everyone talking. having the rights to choose who you want to marry to

and having the option to marry is completely different subject and I think it needs to be clarified as the previous debate has turned into an argument.

 

hope that helps clarify what I've said earlier

 

 

 

You can have a stance on anything, the argument is the reasoning one uses to articulate that stance and a debate is what ensues when another persons stance or argument is conflicting with yours, ergo there is no way to debate without and argument and you have to have a stance to form an argument.  So a debate cannot be had without the other two.

 

I believe I understand what you are saying about rights, however this is a trick of interpretation E.G  "my right to dark chocolate has be removed"  in this case we are not talking about intrinsic rights (because my right to chocolate cannot be removed) but denied rights, Which is often referred to as not having the rights because an over ruling law has implied I do not have the right. 

[T.E.D]

This whole thing was the dumbest thing I have seen this year.

Who gives a shit what the guy thinks? What does it have to do with Mozilla does? Oh you're not allowing Firefox to access your website because of the CEO's opinion, well that's weird, but I'm sure you also blocked JavaScript right?

God forbid a guy be judged for his work and effort.

I say sir are you suggesting that Bigotry is perfectly fine?

[JLCitadel]

No one actually quit because of him being appointed as CEO. There were simply four people who left the company around the time of his appointment which had nothing to do with the new CEO or his personal views. The controversy was actually heightened by people who did not know who he was or what he had done for the company. The man co-founded Firefox and created javascript and he's "Unfit" to be CEO and people don't think it will be a good direction for the company because a personal view he held which he may no longer even have. This is over-hyped ignorance at its finest, i feel bad for this man. All this time of hard work and dedication he's had with the company and finally to be CEO then have the public and the vast majority of people don't know what he's done for Firefox hop on the protest band wagon because he may not be pro-gay marriage. That's insane how stupid our society is.

[JHzz]

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?

 

Just for your information, in the debate about gay marriages "It's 2014..." is the most unfounded argument that you can throw in, because 'present time' has nothing to do with the matter of moral questions that doesn't, or at least shouldn't change over time.

In case someone thinks those moral visions should change every time people change their minds, it becomes relevant. And if it's relevant, everyone has their own sense of moral, leading to a situation where everybody does whatever they like, resulting there is no true right and wrong anymore. That said, time is irrelevant to the case. Example: I wonder if majority of people think that mating with goats is ok, propably not... Well, years go on until it's 2245. Is goat-banging ok then? Have people become so numb over time that they don't care if others start banging goats? Does the 231-year-period make the deed morally acceptable? Would people be saying "It's 2245... why do people still hold these views?" I certainly hope not.

Short version: Your line of writing is full of shit and your argument is (lawyered) and invalid.

[cae]

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.

[Jeroen1322]

I've just read that the CEO stepped down, i've missed something.

[JLCitadel]

I've just read that the CEO stepped down, i've missed something.

 

The former CEO stepped down, another one got appointed, he donated 10,000$ to an anti-gay marriage group in cali a few years back (not sure about how long ago), a bunch of people got angry about it for no reason, others hopped on the band wagon, blew it out of proportion, he stepped down because of it.

[Jeroen1322]

The former CEO stepped down, another one got appointed, he donated 10,000$ to an anti-gay marriage group in cali a few years back (not sure about how long ago), a bunch of people got angry about it for no reason, others hopped on the band wagon, blew it out of proportion, he stepped down because of it.

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/

[thirdworldking]

i like firefox

[MbV93]

Yeah I feel bad for the guy too but I read on The Verge I think... that he didn't even want the position so I guess it's not that bad?

[StingBull]

He could have said he was sorry, he didn't think that was a right decision, he didn't support such views anymore. He did nothing of the sort and just threw a tantrum at his career instead confirming he's still is a bigot.

Call me crazy but if all you had to do to keep a multi-million dollar job as a freaking CEO is say "I'm sorry" would you really stick to your ground and resign? That's true conviction, he's the real deal, pure hatred, pure spite. It only confirms what everybody was saying about him.

Please stop demonizing people.

[GamerPatriot]

God forbid a Gay in get offended. 

[beebskadoo]

Just for your information, in the debate about gay marriages "It's 2014..." is the most unfounded argument that you can throw in, because 'present time' has nothing to do with the matter of moral questions that doesn't, or at least shouldn't change over time.

In case someone thinks those moral visions should change every time people change their minds, it becomes relevant. And if it's relevant, everyone has their own sense of moral, leading to a situation where everybody does whatever they like, resulting there is no true right and wrong anymore. That said, time is irrelevant to the case. Example: I wonder if majority of people think that mating with goats is ok, propably not... Well, years go on until it's 2245. Is goat-banging ok then? Have people become so numb over time that they don't care if others start banging goats? Does the 231-year-period make the deed morally acceptable? Would people be saying "It's 2245... why do people still hold these views?" I certainly hope not.

Short version: Your line of writing is full of shit and your argument is (lawyered) and invalid.

there is a difference between what 2 consensual adults do and what a man and an animal of a different species does.

The fact of the matter is that for a very long time LGBT individuals have been discriminated against, and we have made great progress forward in equality that we shouldn't be looking backwards.

And me stating that it's 2014 is not my argument, go back and read my fucking posts before telling me that I'm full of shit and my argument is invalid even though you failed to read our understands what it is.

Subjective morality is far superior than a set morality. We are recovering from a time when we got our morales solely from a single book. The advantages are infinitely greater!

The same logic you use can be applied in reverse.

"Are you trying to tell me that in 200 years, black people will be free to do what they want? Does 200 years make their freedom morally acceptable?"

This logic has been refuted time and time again and I'm actually offended that you would put goat fuckers on the same level as consensual adults.

Fucking unbelievable.

[beebskadoo]

God forbid a Gay in get offended.

what?

[EthanLovesPi]

 

Religious freedom is guaranteed by the Constitution, who you CHOOSE to get to married to is not. Also, the CEO did not "promote" anything. He made a 100% private donation to a political organization. Get your facts straight, you are making the same fake and BS claims that people tried to use against the Chick Fil A CEO. In neither case was a single LGBT employee or customer discriminated against. But in both cases the LGBT community and their supporters called for blood, boycotts and criminal charges all because of an individual's personal beliefs.

 

 

No, they don't. That makes YOU the bigot for saying he should be fired for his constitutionally protected religious beliefs. He made a private donation with his own personal money. 

 

He wasn't fired. I didn't say he was fired, or should have been fired. "Getting rid of.." is not the same as "fired". I'm saying Mozilla employees had every right to try and force him out by resigning and refusing to work with him. His only choice was to resign because Mozilla employees refused to work with him, and users boycotted Mozilla products. He has every right to his beliefs, but he also has to accept the consequences of making them public. As CEO, he is the face of the company and he can do more harm/good to Mozilla's reputation than almost anyone else.

[Gentleman_Sandwich]

GLAAD provided the following statement from President and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis on the news via email:

 

"Mozilla's strong statement in favor of equality today reflects where corporate America is: inclusive, safe, and welcoming to all."

Yeaaaah.... Corporate America is probably closer to, "Oh shit, we're having problems, better cover our asses!"

Hooray for using your surroundings to a benefit!!!

[Tygron]

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.

[jmaster299]

Yes it does...the constitution guarantees the right of interracial couples to marry as per Loving v. Virginia

 

Leading to this.

 

"In December 2013, the United States District Court for the District of Utah repeatedly cited Loving in its decision Kitchen v. Herbert, which held unconstitutional Utah's ban on same-sex marriage. In February 2014, Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen writing for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in Bostic v. Rainey, which struck down Virginia's ban, not only cited Loving, but prefaced her opinion with Mildred Loving's above-mentioned statement of 2007"

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.

[LAwLz]

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?

 

This man forfeited his right to to be 'tolerated' and 'respected' the moment he made it clear that he would actively work towards making life more difficult and painful for a massive group of people in this world - and this will remain true until such a time as he decides to elaborate on his position or apologise. Whether or not he would be capable of running Mozilla is irrelevant - the fact that he holds bigoted views throws any of his credibility to hold such a position right out of the window.

 

I'd like to just point something out. There is a world of difference between having an opinion and enforcing that opinion upon others. There is a massive difference between disliking gay people personally and contributing money to oppress them. 

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.

 

 

Religious? As in, the bible says it's wrong?

Yes, amongst the myriad of other things the bible says is wrong but is openly practioned by many a people in the modern day but completely ignored because it contradicts people's arguments.

People like to pick and choose which verses to follow. Because you know, you don't really have to follow all the rules God wrote down, right?

Having to stone someone to death if they work on sabbath? Nahh I don't want to follow that one. I don't want to follow the one that says I can't wear mixed fabric either, I would look silly.

Ohh what's this? Gays can't be married? Now that's one I like, I will follow that one!

Makes perfect sense...

 

 

And on top of that, are you suggesting people should not boycott a business who's CEO promotes discrimination?

I do not. We are talking about him donating 1000 dollars 6 years ago... Is he stupid for having those beliefs? Yes he sure is.

Do I think you should boycott a company that has done nothing wrong (talking about the company here) just because their new CEO donated some money to a stupid organization 6 years ago (did not do it while he was a CEO)? Nope.

You're gonna have to boycott hell of a lot more companies if you're going to boycott them as soon as their CEO does something you think is unethical. You'd probably end up living in a shed in the woods.

[Whiskers]

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.

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.