Jump to content

Mozilla exec out of job for gay rights intolerance. Some think that's intolerant.

Politics   (6,721 Views 143 Comments)
6 Followers; 100,635 Visitors; 16,580 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.

Mozilla co-founder Brendan Eich has stepped down, less than two weeks after he was named top executive of the company that makes the popular web browser, Firefox.

Last week, Mozilla employees took to Twitter to protest Eich's promotion, angered by donations he had made to California's 2008 campaign to ban same-sex marriage. Three Mozilla board members quit over the controversy that prompted dating Web site OKCupid to pen a political missive discouraging its members from accessing the site through Mozilla's Firefox browser.

But Eich's resignation drew just as much criticism as his stance on gay marriage, including criticism from those who disagree with his politics....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/04/04/mozilla-exec-out-of-job-for-gay-rights-intolerance-some-think-thats-intolerant/?tid=hp_mm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a freedom of speech (and apparently mo' money is mo' speech), we don't have a freedom from the consequences.

Apparently his speech really annoyed the employees and a good number of customers and they had some power.

Interesting that several of the board members who determined that he was a good choice for the position also resigned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A rediculous situation and outcome.

I think it is going to put more people "in the closet" to coin a phrase....because they will fear speaking their own feelings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We have a freedom of speech (and apparently mo' money is mo' speech), we don't have a freedom from the consequences.

Apparently his speech really annoyed the employees and a good number of customers and they had some power.

Interesting that several of the board members who determined that he was a good choice for the position also resigned.

It seems that people with certain ideologies expect everyone to have the same beliefs as them. If they don't, well, it's time to organize some kind of boycott.

This might have been the greatest CEO in the world, but gosh, he doesn't believe in gay marriage. Time for him to go. Do they really think the next person, or the person sitting next to them in the office, etc. are always going to share their ideological beliefs? How about customers? Are they going t stop selling to customers who are against gay marriage? It seems hypocritical if they don't.

I wonder what kind out outrage their would be if a CEO had been pressured to resign because he was found to be a gay marriage supporter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems that people with certain ideologies expect everyone to have the same beliefs as them. If they don't, well, it's time to organize some kind of boycott.

This might have been the greatest CEO in the world, but gosh, he doesn't believe in gay marriage. Time for him to go. Do they really think the next person, or the person sitting next to them in the office, etc. are always going to share their ideological beliefs? How about customers? Are they going t stop selling to customers who are against gay marriage? It seems hypocritical if they don't.

I wonder what kind out outrage their would be if a CEO had been pressured to resign because he was found to be a gay marriage supporter?

I imagine there would be some public discussion about that, don't you? (re: gay supporter forced to resign)

For the moment, we are allowed to speak our minds. When the majority in a company, in a community, in a region, or in a nation disagree with you there will be ramifications to your speech. He has a right to his thoughts and beliefs, when he makes them public he must deal with the public consequence of that. My mother taught me this a long long time ago before these type of questions were even on the minds of men.

At one time it would have been perfectly acceptable for a CEO to voice, finance, and live out discrimination against gays, or blacks, or women, or Asians, etc. That world has evolved. The majority no longer accept that form of bigotry. Is that a bad thing?

The people of that company do not want to be led or represented by a person who is openly discriminatory against gays. It seems to me that there are no rights being violated here, no laws broken, only a group of people letting THEIR opinions on the subject be heard which are counter to the (former) CEO's.

Boycotts and protests are the tools of the people. We don't have armies, we don't have a gazillion dollars to buy politicians or slick ad campaigns. We have our voices and our votes. Sometimes those voices can incite change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, if, and it's a big IF, he was fired because he was not supportive of Gay Marriage, is that not a form of discrimination or failure for him to have his First Amendment rights? And could he not sue as a result?

If you can sue one direction, surely you can sue the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But, if, and it's a big IF, he was fired because he was not supportive of Gay Marriage, is that not a form of discrimination or failure for him to have his First Amendment rights? And could he not sue as a result?

If you can sue one direction, surely you can sue the other.

He was pressured to resign, right? He was not fired by the Board of Directors.

How is he being discriminated against? It sounds to me like the BOD determined that the guy was NOT the best representative for the company after all and asked him to resign. Perhaps the several Board members who also resigned didn't agree with that and left their positions too. That all sounds like business as usual in the free market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not a first amendment issue:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

 

Most employees give up some freedom of speech at work. This could be a slippery slope for many workers because an employer could search our past contributions, high school or college papers or debates, FaceBook, or Twitter and be terminated for something we wrote or said years ago.

Since 2008 many people who were against gay marriage now support it or accept it as a civil right.

Just as the 1st amendment gives us the right to peaceably assemble we have the right not to associate with people we don't want to be with.

The Boy Scouts don't want gay troop leaders and Mozilla does not was him as CEO.

I don't use my name here because i do discuss politica and religion here at ALLNURSES.COM. I do not do so at work except with respect to patient advocacy.

I can understand both (or multiple) sides of this. It is not simple.

My personal opinion is that deciding what to do is difficult in many situations. Insulting and name calling are not helpful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Herring brings much wisdom. It is not an easy subject. If his views have not changed since 2008 and the employees felt strongly about this then their pressure apparently was felt. If he had changed his opinion since then, I guess he did it quietly and did not consider his history important. We all have seen that not to be true in many political races. Being CEO certainly is a political, in a different way, office.

First Amendment comes with responsibilities and consequences as well as rights. I realize that things I said many years ago could come back and bite me. Fortunately I am not that important that people would seek out my mumblings of many years gone by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I imagine there would be some public discussion about that, don't you? (re: gay supporter forced to resign)

For the moment, we are allowed to speak our minds. When the majority in a company, in a community, in a region, or in a nation disagree with you there will be ramifications to your speech. He has a right to his thoughts and beliefs, when he makes them public he must deal with the public consequence of that. My mother taught me this a long long time ago before these type of questions were even on the minds of men.

At one time it would have been perfectly acceptable for a CEO to voice, finance, and live out discrimination against gays, or blacks, or women, or Asians, etc. That world has evolved. The majority no longer accept that form of bigotry. Is that a bad thing?

The people of that company do not want to be led or represented by a person who is openly discriminatory against gays. It seems to me that there are no rights being violated here, no laws broken, only a group of people letting THEIR opinions on the subject be heard which are counter to the (former) CEO's.

Boycotts and protests are the tools of the people. We don't have armies, we don't have a gazillion dollars to buy politicians or slick ad campaigns. We have our voices and our votes. Sometimes those voices can incite change.

"Openly discriminatory against gays"? My understanding is he simply gave $1000 to a campaign, and that's it. Am I missing something? If he was out making speeches and the like, then that might change my thoughts on this to some degree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
×

This site uses cookies. By using this site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Read our Privacy, Cookies, and Terms of Service Policies to learn more.