
Goodbye, Firefox Marketplace - isopod
http://www.teamrarebit.com/blog/2014/03/24/goodbye_firefox_marketplace/
======
ilovecomputers
"This is a strange one to me and can indeed be a sticky situation. I am NOT
judging people who use Firefox, work at Mozilla, or even support Brendan’s
right to his opinions. It’s fine that you think I shouldn’t judge his opinion.
(This is getting confusing). However, this particular subject is not one that
is negotiable to us. We are personally affected by his actions.

It’s not his belief that hurts us. It’s that he actively donated to a cause
that directly negatively affected us, personally. It’s not abstract. It’s not
a witch hunt. He’s certainly allowed to have his opinion, of course, but I’m
allowed to judge his actions of supporting the cause financially.

Actions have consequences."

There you go, sums it up right there. Some past actions are hard to overlook
when you're personally affected by it. However you view the news of Brendan
Eich's new CEO position and people's opinions of that, you can't ignore the
human element of his insignificant (financially) but significant
(philosophically) prop 8 contribution and how people take it personally.

Edit: Adding onto my thought of how I view the human element in this story: we
all try to be rational, but I bet you everyone of us throw that away for a gut
feeling we have of someone. If you don't like someone, no amount of reason
will make that go away. That feeling spreads to what they're associated with.
In retrospect, we reason our gut feeling and we either turn out right or
wrong. I understand hcatlin's decision in that sense since I have felt that
way before.

~~~
msujaws
There are people at every large software company that donated to one of the
sides of the political battle. Some of them may have received a promotion
after the fact. Does that mean that you should boycott those companies too?
(Google, Apple, etc.)

After all, after people get paid from their job, shouldn't it be their right
that they can use their money as they please?

~~~
pessimizer
>After all, after people get paid from their job, shouldn't it be their right
that they can use their money as they please?

If they spent that money attacking your family, would you be willing to do
business with them?

~~~
protomyth
I would be very surprised if in an average day you don't buy product or
services from a company that has donated or has C-level executives that have
donated to some cause that attacks you or your family. I know of at least one
company that donates to a group because of the group's work in China that is
directly attacking the families of their customers in the US.

Before this goes to my personal views: I'm not Californian so I don't vote
there and I am one of those small government folks that believe the government
should only do civil unions (no mention of marriage) as a matter of contract
law between two or more consenting adults.

~~~
true_religion
> I would be very surprised if in an average day you don't buy product or
> services from a company that has donated or has C-level executives that have
> donated to some cause that attacks you or your family.

I'd actually be surprised if this is the case. What possible causes would they
donate to that will count as an 'attack'?

~~~
protomyth
The case I site is an environmental group, but there are actually quite a few
different attacks (lawsuit based) that happen in the US.

~~~
true_religion
Is the argument then they are hurting the environment or want to ergo are
attacking your family indirectly?

~~~
protomyth
It was direct lawsuits (not me, just a company I know).

------
tehwalrus
Gay rights is not a "moral fashion" as some people are calling it.

This is a group of people who have been systematically terrorised throughout
history, and some people still want to keep that status quo that holds them
down as second class citizens, with less legal rights (like the right to
immigrate in order to live together.)

Screw that meta-ethical/normative moral relativism[1].

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism)

------
it_learnses
Good for you. I also up until now thought Mozilla was fighting for the little
guy and as a developer I've been wanting to work for them. Not anymore.
There's no way I want to work for a company whose CEO has publicly supported
voting against two people's right to be happy.

For those that say don't mix business with politics, think about what you are
saying. Politics affect our day to day lives and the way we live or die. How
can we separate politics from any other sphere of our lives?

------
solo_
I understand where the authors are coming from. They're made that Eich
supported a bill that denies their rights. However, what Eich does is his own,
personal business. The writers, at least in my mind, are mixing business with
their personal lives.

I support gay marriage, but I think that this isn't too much more than
needless outrage. When someone boycotts Google because Google supports gay
marriage, a lot of us look at them and go "Wow! What an idiot, boycotting
Google because they think that Google is immoral! They're the immoral ones!"
This is the exact same thing, it just happens that the authors' views align
with our own. I think it's ultimately just petty. I'm glad gay couples can
marry in California, where I currently live. I think it's a step in the right
direction. I just think that needless outrage like this, which only isolates
you from potential customers, gets us nowhere. We get it, you disagree with
the CEO's personal values. I understand your outrage, and that might mean
nothing to you. I just think there has to be a better way than this to
actually get your point across.

~~~
wpietri
By trying to keep these guys from getting married, Eich made it personal.

As the court decisions have shown, keeping them from getting married was an
unconstitutional imposition upon their civil rights. Whereas them deciding
whom to do business with is totally legit. Freedom of speech does not mean
freedom from consequences.

~~~
transitionality
I don't know what sort of consequences you're implying, but threatening
someone over anything they say or think is certainly illegal.

~~~
alxjrvs
I believe that "Consequences" here meant, "People finding out you are a
homophobe".

------
m0skit0
I understand your posture and I totally support gay marriage, but you're
mixing politics with work, and you're taking a personal issue to a
professional level. It's Brendan Eich that supported the prop 8, not Mozilla.
That's a very very very VERY unprofessional stance. From now on I will be very
careful in buying/getting anything from your company because of huge lack of
professionalism being shown here.

This said, I wish you the best luck in your personal life and I hope you get
that gay marriage bill ASAP! All my support from Morocco!

~~~
urbanautomaton
> That's a very very very VERY unprofessional stance.

I do not recognise this definition of professionalism, and am happy to be
called unprofessional if it is the accepted one.

Mozilla is an organisation that is dependent on community goodwill and
support, and if the person they choose as a figurehead is one who has taken
direct action to alienate a large segment of that community, then it seems to
me entirely proper for that community to react as they see fit.

~~~
DatBear
Not sure how this is a direct action taken to alienate a community. Seems like
they're alienating themselves just fine.

~~~
urbanautomaton
Well, let me help you out. Brendan Eich choosing to pay actual money (taking a
direct action) to oppose the existence of gay marriage (alienating a large
community) is what I'm referring to.

~~~
m0skit0
You said it: Brendan Eich. In his free time. As an individual person. Mozilla
has nothing to do with what this guy does in his free time (and I hope it
doesn't).

------
vsviridov
"By using Arabic numerals you are helping terrorists."

As long as Mozilla products do not feature a "Not to be used by gays" warning,
whatever Eich does in his time is irrelevant. He's free to spend his money in
any way he likes. What prevented the authors of this article to spend $1000 to
counterbalance Eich's contribution if they are so concerned?

~~~
Blahah
_> whatever Eich does in his time is irrelevant_

Of course it isn't.

If he was backdooring JS crypto libraries for the NSA, or shooting orphans, or
selling crack, that would be seriously inappropriate behaviour and he would
lose his job for it.

Many people might consider it inappropriate to be fighting against gay
marriage - it's not just a political issue, it's a moral one.

~~~
yeukhon
_Many people might consider it inappropriate to be fighting against gay
marriage - it 's not just a political issue, it's a moral one._

Yet, we are forcing everyone to take a stand on this "moral" issue.

~~~
Blahah
How is everyone being forced to take a stand? People who don't care don't have
to do anything.

~~~
yeukhon
Here is how I interpret it. If today Brendan says he will pick No Opinion to
"Should Bills of Rights be included in the Constitution of the United States",
then should he be held accountable for his decision?

He can either support Bills of Rights, against Bills of Rights, or he can do
nothing about it, in which case is pretty much in the same camp as the
opposition. The only difference is he chose to not care and yet he will
probably be judged for not helping human rights. And human rights, to many is
a worthwhile ethic cause. Not an individual morality debate; just as gay
advocates would think gay rights is a basic right of human. If Brendan chose
to say "I have no opinion" he is neither against nor supporting gay rights but
his decision will disappoint the gay advocates in which case the advocates
will not be happy with Mozilla. Therefore, everyone has to take a stand even
if it were "I don't have any opinion."

------
hrktb
I have a hard time understanding all the call for separating private and work.
The issue brought by this post is not private (in the sense that the donations
were public) and the purpose of the donation was to make a private view to
pass into law, not just express some personal opinion.

Also, the position of a CEO on social issues has non negligible impacts on the
organization. He won't block Mozilla from hiring gay people of course, but
nobody would expect him to actively push gay peoples' rights inside the
organization if these were not upheld enough. Or does Mozilla have full parity
when it comes to married gays and married hetero couples ? Will married gay
people get to work intimately with the new CEO (and not just as a token gay
people in the team)?

These are all legitimate questions. Perhaps Eich won't be worse than anyone
else on these issues, but now his public karma is negative. If from here
Mozilla appeared to be championing gay rights and parity more than ever
before, then I think team rarebit would revise their position. But until then
their reaction, while emotionally charged, seems fair enough※ and sends the
right message.

※ especially as in anyway they are bound to build for Mozilla's platform nor
use Mozilla's products.

PS: From Mozilla's donation page : " _At the heart of Mozilla is a global
community with a shared mission—to build the Internet the world needs. Support
Mozilla with a donation today—for a better web and a better world._ "

I think a lot of people really see Mozilla as organization with strong moral
stance, and actually working towards making the world better. Visceral
reactions on events like this one are the flip side of the coin.

~~~
general_failure
First para is brilliant. Thanks for writing this

------
judah
This is definitely one of those moral fashions [1] that Paul Graham wrote
about:

"What scares me is that there are moral fashions too. They're just as
arbitrary, and just as invisible to most people. But they're much more
dangerous. Fashion is mistaken for good design; moral fashion is mistaken for
good. Dressing oddly gets you laughed at. Violating moral fashions can get you
fired, ostracized, imprisoned, or even killed."

Society has shifted on this issue, such that the traditional is considered
unacceptable to hold; you're ostracized with negative labels should you hold
the unfashionable position. This is precisely what TeamRarebit is doing to
Brendan Eich: ostracizing him for his moral stance, one that has fallen out of
fashion.

[1]: [http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html)

~~~
alecdibble
"Society has shifted on this issue, such that the traditional is considered
unacceptable to hold; you're ostracized with negative labels should you hold
the unfashionable position..."

Couldn't you say the same thing about civil rights? Slavery? Colonization? At
some point these ideas were considered 'OK' by society and then at some point
they were considered 'Not OK'. Are these simply 'fashions' to you? I think
PG's article is interesting and very relevant, but taking it and naming
something a 'fashion' without studying it in the same depth as the article
isn't pushing the argument forward at all.

~~~
judah
Yes, they are fashions. Some of them may be good, some may be bad, but they
are fashions. It is conceivable that if we find a planet with alien life,
there will be calls for colonizaton, for instance. And it could be a good
thing.

Let's play an intellectual game. Is it possible to imagine a sensible reason
for Eich to hold the view he and others hold? If you are unable to imagine
such a reason, it is because you are misunderstanding that position.

The Principle of Charity [1] says you should assume your ideological
opponents' beliefs must make sense from their perspective. If you can’t even
conceive of a position you oppose being tempting to someone, you don’t
understand it and are probably missing something. You might be missing a
strong argument that the position is correct. Or you might just be missing
something totally out of left field.

I propose most people in this thread -- and indeed in the San Francisco-based
startup culture -- do not understand the position Eich holds. And it does not
hold to the Principle of Charity, choosing instead to ostracize and boycott
and demonize with ugly labels.

Perhaps a fair way to approach this debate would be, "Assuming Eich does not
hate gay people, why would he be opposed to redefining marriage?"

[1]:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity)

~~~
will_work4tears
>Let's play an intellectual game. Is it possible to imagine a sensible reason
for Eich to hold the view he and others hold? If you are unable to imagine
such a reason, it is because you are misunderstanding that position.

Why is it that we have to imagine their reasons, when they cannot bother to
imagine our reasons?

*I can actually "imagine" some of their reasons, my dad is a rabid fundamentalist and is very anti-gay, I just don't propose they are valid reasons.

~~~
judah
We must be willing to consider another's position even if we perceive their
unwillingness to consider ours. To do otherwise is a recipe for ignorance and
stalemate.

Do we really think Eich hates all gay people? Do we really think his position
is as simple as, "Well, I irrationally hate all gay people, therefore, I voted
for Prop 8"?

I propose to you that Eich holds his position for reasons that are sensible to
him, and not because he hates all gay people. If we are unable to afford him
even that charity, we may in fact be more close-minded than our opponents.

~~~
justagudboy
You do realize that you're going against what you just described as "moral
fashion". Brave or suicidal? My advice: when going against current, use a
throw away account, like me. Even when describing this, people are still
thinking you're taking a stance :) humanity at its worse. Stupidity at its
best.

~~~
judah
As Paul Graham wisely pointed out, when the Inquisition demands to know, "Are
you with us or against us?", it is safe to say, "Neither."

------
ChrisNorstrom
Would you also reject Tomas Jefferson as a founding father of America because
he owned slaves? Should Martin Luther King also be rejected as an icon of the
civil rights movement because he plagiarized material and had extramarital
affairs with women. What people do or think in their personal lives and the
value they add to a company are two different things. What about Nelson
Mandella? Bill Clinton? Or all the other men with weaknesses, sins, mistakes,
and flaws?

Sit down with me for 5 minutes and I'll find a whole bunch of personal things
about you I don't like either, but should that affect weather or not I employ
you?

~~~
orthecreedence
If Brian had funded a political campaign to deny voting rights to all people
named Chris, you may be singing a different tune.

They outlined that they were _personally affected_ by his political choices,
and therefor hurt that Mozilla would promote him. This isn't about someone's
personal flaws. It's about someone's actions affecting someone else personally
and boycotting a company for not acknowledging that.

Seems valid to me.

~~~
ChrisNorstrom
I would write an article called "20 reasons why Brian should change his stance
on Gay Marriage." and spread that all over the internet. It's not that their
boycotting stance isn't valid, it's that I think it's not the best way to go
about making the right kind of changes for the gay rights movement. You won't
achieve anything by boycotting him because there's a massive amount of people
just like him. Again, that's like saying I'm not supporting America because
Tomas Jefferson owned slaves and there's no way a flawed man who supports
slavery can create a country founded on "freedom". Despite Jefferson's flaws
he still made the USA great. Like-wise, despite Brian's anti-gay stance he can
still make Mozilla great. It's not Mozilla you should be hurting, it's Brian
that you should be reaching out to. Mozilla and it's users are innocent so
don't get them involved in all this.

------
mankyd
Relevant link to Eich's suppport of California's Prop 8:
[http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/04/business/la-fi-tn-
br...](http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/04/business/la-fi-tn-brendan-eich-
prop-8-contribution-20120404)

This is not something that I was familiar with.

~~~
sehr
An equally relevant link to Eich's response to the backlash:
[https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-
diversity/](https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/)

------
chrismonsanto
I support your decision to boycott, although I personally disagree with it.

I wish you would give Brendan the chance to repent.

First of all, and most importantly, it's unlikely they are going to shitcan
him as CEO.

Second, he has not spoken about his motivations for donating to Prop 8. If he
was doing so in pursuit of abolishing the marriage institution altogether, I
consider that very different than doing it because he only wants straight
people to marry. (Since this is a politically charged issue, I will say that
while I am personally in favor of abolishing marriage altogether, I think
actively working to deny gays the right to marry in the interim is an
exceptionally absurd idea.)

Third, his views may have changed over the years.

If he came out saying he was wrong and donated 10x the amount he donated to
Prop 8 to a LGBT charity, I would consider that a win. There are ways to make
this right without shitcanning him.

~~~
npizzolato
> If he came out saying he was wrong and donated 10x the amount he donated to
> Prop 8 to a LGBT charity, I would consider that a win. There are ways to
> make this right without shitcanning him.

The authors addressed this point. From the article:

> If, months ago, he had apologized and said that he’s changed his mind, then
> this would be water under the bridge. He has not, and said he will not, so
> it’s too late in my mind. Any public change of opinion at this time would
> only be to ensure his new powerful position at the Mozilla foundation.

That does not seem like an unreasonable position.

~~~
chrismonsanto
So we don't get two threads on the same subject, I made a reply here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7461830](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7461830)

> That does not seem like an unreasonable position.

I don't think their stance is unreasonable, I just think there is a more
constructive alternative.

------
evertonfuller
Irrelevant of any feelings towards being gay or not.

Surely this is a form of oppression in itself. Everyone is entitled to their
own beliefs, whether you approve of them or not, and so by effectively black-
mailing others to conform to your perceived social 'right'.

I see this as a sad attempt at press. Having never heard of this company or
product before.

~~~
autarch
Calling this a "form of oppression" is a bit silly. How are Brendan Eich's
rights being denied here? How is Brendan being prevented from acting on his
own beliefs?

These two people decided that they don't want to associate with an
organization where the CEO is, in their opinion, anti-gay. That's entirely
within their rights, isn't it?

As others in the thread said, action have consequences. One consequence of
being publicly perceived as anti-gay is that gay people and their supporters
may not want to associate with you.

~~~
yeukhon
If you actually read the article:

 _We will continue our boycott until Brendan Eich is completely removed from
any day to day activities at Mozilla, which we believe is extremely unlikely
after all he’s survived and the continued support he has received from
Mozilla._

A quick interpretation would be "Mozilla should never pick someone who doesn't
like gays."

That's against employment equality even though CEO is a unique position. But
still, personal belief doesn't always mean the CEO will turn out bad and
disrespect everyone else.

I have question for the founders: if you were told one of your employees
doesn't believe in gay rights will you fire him?

~~~
glesica
_That 's against employment equality..._

Is it though? Are homophobes a protected class? Would a company be forced at
the point of a lawsuit to hire a goose-stepping neo-Nazi if he or she had
impeccable credentials?

~~~
yeukhon
Is gay a protected class then? If the answer is no, then homophobes is not a
protected class. If the answer is yes, then homophobes is a protected class in
your definition.

Will I want to work with someone who is pro-Nazism? Probably not, but will I
respect his belief? Yes. But will I use that to disqualify him from being my
co-worker? No. I would be lying to say I wouldn't feel threaten to know I am
working with someone who believe in Nazism, but I don't think that's enough to
justify a demotion or firing.

~~~
npizzolato
> Will I want to work with someone who is pro-Nazism? Probably not, but will I
> respect his belief? Yes.

Why would you respect his belief? There's a difference between respecting his
right to hold whatever belief he wants and respecting the belief itself. The
former is true, and no government should punish someone for their beliefs. The
latter is not true, and I am free to judge neo-Nazis however I wish. That
judgement would include not wanting to do business with them, and I would not
feel bad about it.

~~~
yeukhon
> Why would you respect his belief?

Maybe I should be clear.

"Probably not, but will I respect his [right] being a pro-Nazism believer?
Yes."

I am not making this up. My revision is actually in the context of the
original quote. I will respect his right without endorsing his belief. I can
dislike him and may distant from him as much as possible...

Sure we all carry bias. If the whole organization is against Nazi hiring a
pro-Nazi would be stupid because that can cause internal tension. But that
being said, not aligned with gay right advocates is not in the category as
aligning oneself with someone with extreme thoughts. I bet people disagree on
abortion and religion and tons of other very controversial issues.

------
pvnick
I don't know what it is about gay marriage that draws people in to this
ridiculous witch hunt. I'm neutral on the issue because I feel it's
complicated like every other polarizing topic, but to a lot of folks it's
solid black-and-white, good-vs-evil. But the pro-gay-marriage crowd seems to
go beyond that. To them, it's so black-and-white that one's not even allowed
to _hold_ the other view. These people don't even acknowledge the legitimacy
of any other beliefs but their own and refuse to stoop to the level of
debating the other side on intellectual grounds.

> It’s not a witch hunt.

You bet your ass it is. It's another in a string of incidents, including
boycotting chick fil a for it's owner's beliefs, boycotting duck dynasty for
that one guy's beliefs, boycotting starbucks for it's owner's beliefs, the
list goes own.

Now this is not to take a particular stance on the issue. It's to say that
dismissing the legitimacy of other's beliefs besides your own shows a pretty
absurd level of intellectual hubris (not unheard of around these parts).

~~~
zorpner
Why would anyone "acknowledge the legitimacy" of beliefs that would e.g.
prevent them from visiting their spouse on their deathbed? There's no middle
ground here.

Also, it's worth trying not to use the term "witch hunt" to describe attacks
on a group which has held an oppressive majority for hundreds of years and
which is actively continuing to attempt to deny the rights of a minority. The
analogy does not hold.

~~~
samelawrence
The majority / minority argument does not hold. Oppressed minorities are not
always in the right. Arguments around gay marriage / politics / Brendan need
to step back and argue the _issues_ , not the size or relative social power of
the groups involved.

I happen to agree with your side of the issue, but let's talk about the issue,
not make it a David and Goliath straw man debate. The term "witch hunt" may or
may not apply. As an example, we might say that during the French Revolution,
the proletariat (oppressed majority, wat?) went on a witch hunt against
aristocracy (minority holding majority power) and members of the royal court,
regardless of their fault.

~~~
zorpner
We can call this a witch hunt when same-sex-marriage proponents start
guillotining the opposition in public squares, then ;)

More to the point, the David/Goliath straw man occurs at the point that
someone says "witch hunt", invoking ideas of a prosecutorial mob hunting an
innocent scapegoat down. Addressing the inappropriateness of the term directly
is not a strawman (and additionally, I specifically addressed the content of
the OP's argument in the first part of my post).

~~~
alexqgb
Unlike actual witch hunts - which were notoriously short on evidence - this
episode has an actual smoking gun. Or more precisely, a smoking checkbook.

~~~
chris_wot
Are you saying that Brendan Eich's personal views are that of Mozilla's as an
organisation?

~~~
alexqgb
No you nitwit, I was talking about the absurdity of calling the campaign
against him a with hunt.

But now that you mention it, the organization - in overlooking this particular
view - sent a clear signal that it takes the issue a good deal less seriously
that a significant number of its stakeholders. That's starting to look like a
major mistake.

~~~
chris_wot
"Nitwit". I guess Hacker News discourse devolves in a slightly more civilised
fashion. To _really_ show me I'm wrong, or have asked a particularly stupid
question, next time consider stronger language.

------
badman_ting
I was unaware of this issue until today but I think Hampton is really great.
And I think his position here is thoroughly defensible. How unfortunate this
all is.

Edit: I see he is being accused here of blackmail and oppression himself. Wow.
Fuck you guys.

------
general_failure
I am sure this was a hard decision to make but this was the right one. It is
hard to overlook one's past actions and afaik brendan has not
apologized/redacted his stance.

BTW, Apple rejected quite a few gay apps in the past. They should strongly
consider rejecting everything Apple made.

------
wudf
Gotta be extreme to get any attention. At least give Brendan a way out other
than stepping down. Maybe he will apologize and try to make amends in light of
his new responsibility.

~~~
futurist
A way out... For what? Standing up for his moral convictions?

~~~
npizzolato
People have the right to stand up for their moral conviction, including Eich.
However, other people have the right to judge others based on their actions,
including the authors.

------
JohnTHaller
Eich's response to the publicity surrounding the donation in 2012:
[https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-
diversity/](https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/)

------
Torgo
Their actions seem perfectly reasonable considering they are a gay, married
couple in California. And they are just announcing why they are breaking off
their association with Mozilla. As far as I can tell they aren't making a
"with us or against us" stand against anybody else not following suit, so I
can hardly begrudge them this.

------
tn13
This is an absolutely knee jerk reaction. Just the way I stand for a gay
couple's right to remain together I also support Eich's right to oppose a
government policy which he believes is not right. I do not think anyone should
boycott Eich or his organization because of the opinions which he holds about
an issue that has nothing to do with his organization.

Also please do not paint the Gay marriages as some kind of black & white
issue. There are plenty of subtle differences here. Traditional marriage laws
which gives so many benefits to couples were designed with an assumption that
marriages are only between man and woman. We can not mindlessly extend them to
all kind of marriages.

Just the way I support gay marriages, I also support man-woman-woman or man-
woman-man or [man|woman| _]_ relationships also. Does that mean if an American
man marries 3 Arab women all of them should get a green card ? Should a person
with two wives be given more tax benefits ? What happens to parent's property
distribution when brother marries his sister ?

The only moral position I feel worth taking is that government should protect
individual liberties which involves getting into any kind of partnership among
consenting adults. Beyond that everything has shades of grey.

------
gcb0
Good luck finding a browser where the ceo or vps behind it agree 100% with
anyone's views.

Unless you can point out that his (asshole, imho) views affected how he worked
for Mozilla, than doing what you are doing is as bad as people that fired or
did not purchased from companies supporting gay rights.

~~~
alexqgb
Easy, the dude openly and activly opposes the basic legal equality of gay
people. Given that he runs the place, that creates a hostile working for gay
people. End of story.

~~~
scott_karana
> Given that he runs the place, that creates a hostile working for gay people

That's a bit of an assumption.

------
trustfundbaby
I wouldn't necessarily do the same thing but I can understand why they did it.
It can be really really hard to stomach doing work that in anyway benefits
somebody so opposed to something that fundamentally defines you as a person.

------
chris_wot
Boycotting over this issue is reasonable. However, I hope that the author also
understands that different people can have freedom to express differing views,
in a private capacity.

In my experience, anyone expressing any viewpoints other than a pro-LGBT one
are vociferously attacked, which again would be fine if the tone was more
reasonable. People who fight for LGBT rights were once treated with extreme
disrespect and abuse. It sadly still occurs. But now the shoe is on the other
foot: I think it's odd that those who were previously mistreated start
mistreating others when they gain acceptance.

------
spindritf
ComputerIndustryBlacklist.com is availble as of writing if someone was looking
for a side project. Considering the professions involved, I'm sure we can do
better than a bunch of Hollywood execs.

~~~
sehr
Seriously? I understand this is pretty emotional topic for a lot of people
here, but this is just absolutely ridiculous.

------
adrianlmm
Let me get this, if some one donates his own money to a totally legal cause
should be fired?

This has a name, is called extortion, I would definitively boycott Firefox if
they remove this person.

------
TheAceOfHearts
I should start this off by saying I believe gay couples should be allowed to
get married. I cannot fathom what reasoning you can use to say that gay people
should not be allowed to marriage. However, the more I learn about the topic,
the more I realize it's actually very complicated.

With that being said... Marriage seems screwed up. Why do we have unions of
two people? Why don't we allow the union of three people? Or more? Where do we
draw the line? What if some guy/gal wants to marry his waifu/husbando, or
another person wants to marry their car?

People say stuff about the sanctity of marriage, but it seems like a horrible
joke. Look at divorce rates! Traditional marriage looks like a joke.

I'll admit I'm not very well educated on the topic, I'd love to hear the
reasoning for these limitations. Maybe it would make sense to just break out
the benefits [1] into more types of unions. For example, I can see how you
might not want to allow a 5 person marriage where only 1 person has
citizenship in the US; then you would have four people gaining citizenship at
the same time.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States)

------
mpyne
I find it fascinating how so many people are content to crucify Mozilla for
appointing as a CEO a man who had the sheer gall to contribute to a PAC
opposing gay marriage.

Yet every time Rand Paul gets brought up his own opposition to same-sex
marriage doesn't seem to draw 2 separate 200+ comment HN threads dedicated to
how morally bankrupt he is. Is that simply because opposing the NSA is more
morally noble than building an open browser that we feel inclined to overlook
_his_ baggage?

Better yet, what about people who support the Republican Party. As recently as
April 2013 (i.e. not even a year ago) the Republican Party re-affirmed
(unanimously) their opposition to same-sex marriage in their party platform.
If you donate to or support a GOP candidate you are opposing gay marriage just
as surely as if you'd funded Prop. 8 yourself.

It's for this reason that it's very important to separate a person's own
political preferences from professional duties to the extent possible.

And since I apparently have to be worried about pitchforks I'll pre-emptively
make clear: I'm proud to support, and have supported, equality of gay marriage
rights.

------
DatBear
I can't believe this absurdly tiny donation to a single organization, 6+ years
ago, has produced so much anger. This seems pretty ridiculous to me, no matter
what the organization.

~~~
npizzolato
Do you honestly think the amount of money donated is the issue here?

------
waterlesscloud
So this thread is a good candidate for the "pending" feature (it has rapidly
and predictably become toxic), yet it doesn't seem to be turned on here...

~~~
jasonlotito
pg disabled it site wide.

~~~
waterlesscloud
Right, with the caveat that it would be turned on per-thread, as needed.

~~~
jasonlotito
Ahh, I hadn't read that part. I thought it was just disabled for the time
being. Thanks. =)

------
ue_
I don't think that the reaction of these people is proportional to what's
happened. The CEO of an organisation supports a cause that he wants in a
private capacity, and the people at Firefox Marketplace are conflating this
guy with what Mozilla does. Mozilla isn't this CEO, and this CEO isn't
Mozilla. Would you boycott the US constitution because a couple of the authors
owned slaves?

------
agapos
There is no "except for gays" part in the TOS or anything, but they decide to
go full "except for Mozillians" over one person's acts, who acted not as a
will-be-CEO, or as a Mozilla member, but as a single civilian individual.
Technically, they _are_ doing against Mozilla what they think Mozilla _could
be_ doing against them, but it doesn't.

As Uncel Dolan once said: Okei, bai

------
huslage
It's not like he hasn't been at the company all along in a management
capacity. I don't see how this changes anything or why anyone should choose
now to retaliate as opposed to any other arbitrary time.

------
tbatterii
boycott javascript as well?

~~~
tommorris
[http://noscript.net/](http://noscript.net/)

I'm okay with that.

------
shmerl
Misdirected rant.

------
transitionality
When you're attempting blackmail, you need to ensure that your hostage has
value to your victims that is commensurate with your ransom demand.

You have a shitty puzzle game that's getting "thousands of downloads" and you
want Mozilla to fire their CEO over that.

Not going to happen. We can do without your shitty puzzle game, thanks.

~~~
it_learnses
It's not just them or their puzzle game. It's not just gay people either. It's
everybody who wants everyone to be treated equally and not be denied their
humanity. The CEO's values fly in the face of Mozilla's values. That's why he
should be shown the exit door.

~~~
transitionality
They're certainly not treating Brendan Eich equally.

Discrimination on the basis of political stance is bigotry, too.

Their position is extremely hypocritical, and by defending it, you become
complicit in their hypocrisy.

~~~
it_learnses
How are they not treating Brendan Eich equally? He's the bigot here who wants
to deny them happiness, not the other way around.

------
mantrax3
Goodbye, Firefox Marketplace?

All right, goodbye... some marginal puzzle game.

The part these folks don't get is that their tantrum is not affecting Brendan
Eich as much as it's insulting to the fans of their game (whoever they are).
They're trying to sic _their fans_ and us against Mozilla with their actions.

Prop 8 was justly overturned. It was a battle worth fighting. But we're all
equal now. So do we owe these two fools our support right now? Is this
"battle" they're starting worth fighting? What's the cause? To prove we don't
take kind to them folk like Brendan Eich round 'ere?

Hell no. Part of equality is that I, Mozilla and our society as a whole
shouldn't feel the need to care more about the games (literally and
figuratively) of these two guys than we care about anyone else out there, _now
that we 're equal_.

I don't care about "your history", I don't care about your wedding photos, I
don't care about any of that. To me, you're just two average folks with a
crappy puzzle game. Might be gay, straight, white, black, red, brown, tall,
short, I don't care. Your cheap outrage doesn't mean anything more than usual
to me _just because you 're gay_.

I'm _equally_ indifferent.

------
kawliga
Irony at its best.

~~~
crummy
Why is this ironic?

~~~
rux
Because it's like rain on your wedding day

