
The Excuses for Purging Brendan Eich Are the Old Excuses for Firing Gays - DaveMebs
http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/04/07/brendan_eich_homophobia_and_corporate_values_the_left_is_the_new_moral_majority.html
======
stcredzero
People have forgotten the magnanimous spirit championed by Martin Luther King.

He did not advocate that one day, the oppressed would be on top and the "bad
guys" would get theirs. That sort of attitude would be inimical to what he,
Gandhi, and Nelson Mandela would have advocated. Getting Brendan Eich fired
makes nobody more free or less oppressed. Instead, it moves society towards a
state where no one feels free to say what they really think, unless it hews to
the majority opinion, and where might makes right and principles of tolerance
and decency are only applied to the "correct" people. In days past, the
"correct" people would have excluded non-whites and homosexuals.

An English vicar once said that to judge someone's character, observe not how
they treat the people they need, but how they treat the people they don't
need.

~~~
devindotcom
You seem to know these men well!

Would they have said we should not have spoken out when a company we know and
would like to trust advances a man demonstrably and unrepentantly against
equal rights for gay people to its highest post? Or would nonviolent activism
and speech asking that such a person not be allowed to represent that company,
and that someone with such views should not be honored but repudiated, be
"inimical" to their philosophies?

I don't presume to know what King or Gandhi would have done. But I don't think
speaking out against a public figure who stands against equal rights is wrong.

~~~
stcredzero
_I don 't presume to know what King or Gandhi would have done. But I don't
think speaking out against a public figure who stands against equal rights is
wrong._

Sure, but going after someone for a political donation from 6 years ago after
the issue has already been won seems vindictive and socially
counterproductive. Can you point me to something that MLK, Mandela, or Gandhi
did or said that would indicate they'd do something like that? I can point to
many examples of words and actions of theirs that would suggest they'd
advocate for a more magnanimous path.

~~~
nate_meurer
Neither the timeline of Eich's donation nor the outcome of the prop 8 fight is
relevant. Eich has given no indication that he feels differently now than he
did then. In other words, he has done nothing to assuage the suspicion that
his personal convictions are in radical opposition to some of the most
important cultural aims of the Mozilla organization.

I'm sad for Mozilla because Eich is a great and rare talent.

~~~
stcredzero
_Neither the timeline of Eich 's donation nor the outcome of the prop 8 fight
is relevant._

Such an absolute position would be reasonable if the action in question had
some sort of permanent or destructive effect. It's entirely unreasonable to
treat a political donation or a privately held political belief as if it were
a crime with a permanent or perniciously destructive effect.

 _In other words, he has done nothing to assuage the suspicion that his
personal convictions are in radical opposition to some of the most important
cultural aims of the Mozilla organization._

I can understand this position as well. However, it seems dangerous for us to
have a society where we have to be constantly be "saying the right things" or
punitive actions are to be taken against us. This does not sound like a free
society. Granted, as CEO of Mozilla, he is not in the same position as a
typical private citizen, but the principles should still apply. "In radical
opposition to some of the most important cultural aims" could just as well be
rewritten as "Having political views we don't like."

~~~
devindotcom
_Such an absolute position would be reasonable if the action in question had
some sort of permanent or destructive effect. It 's entirely unreasonable to
treat a political donation or a privately held political belief as if it were
a crime with a permanent of perniciously destructive effect._

Prop 8 was a _constitutional amendment_ that _removed civil rights_ from a
historically oppressed group. That it has been since overturned is largely to
the credit of the activists who opposed it before, during, and after it
_passed_.

 _I can understand this position as well. However, it seems dangerous for us
to have a society where we have to be constantly be "saying the right things"
or punitive actions are to be taken against us. This does not sound like a
free society. Granted, as CEO of Mozilla, he is not in the same position as a
typical private citizen, but the principles should still apply. "In radical
opposition to some of the most important cultural aims" could just as well be
rewritten as "Having political views we don't like."_

There is pressure to not have beliefs and practice that are harmful to others.
You are free to believe and say whatever you like, but if what you believe and
say is "black and white people should not intermarry" or "muslims should be
rounded up into internment camps" you are going to face heavy consequences. If
you feel you must walk on eggshells because of your views on gay marriage, you
may be out of sync with social norms, just as segregationists were in the 60s
and proponents of criminalization of homosexuality are today.

"Political views we don't like" \- political "views" in the form of many
dollars that were intended to and successfully deprived a group of a civil
right, and "we" in the form of a vocal, nonviolent nonmajority speaking out
online. If you think that doesn't sound like a free society, I think you may
not very familiar with what actual non-free societies look like.

~~~
stcredzero
_a vocal, nonviolent nonmajority speaking out online. If you think that doesn
't sound like a free society, I think you may not very familiar with what
actual non-free societies look like._

Everything is contextual, and you are right, that in a broader context, all of
the people discussed, Brendan Eich included, have it pretty good in the global
scheme of things.

However, non-free societies look like this:

You are expected to hew to certain viewpoints. It is not enough for you to
just be quiet, you have to actively and enthusiastically say and write words
supporting the "right" opinion. If you have ever expressed the "wrong" opinion
in the past, then this is enough to bring punitive action against you,
regardless of the current circumstances, though you might win redemption if
you make a loud and public declaration of contrition. Only the expression of a
"wrong" opinion is enough for punishment -- no concrete act is required, only
the apparent possibility of it. The historical fact of your actual behavior is
irrelevant to the above.

As an exercise, the reader can come up with their own examples for groups and
governments that enacted behaviors and policies like the above. By doing so,
even in a smaller context, one actively promotes social dynamics that inhibit
open and free dissent and exchange of ideas. (Also note, that the previous
paragraph applies just as well to how men were expected to express their
status as heterosexual.)

Political power is always contextual, as is the human social behavior on which
it is based. If you are in a context where you have power, and someone is
telling you something you don't like to hear, well guess what: Someone is
speaking truth to power, and it isn't you. (At least, in their own POV. It's
this whole problem of POV and the unreasonable position of adjudicator of
correct speech that underlies the notion of free speech.)

~~~
dllthomas
If that's what "non-free societies look like", then what we're dealing with is
not a "non-free society" (at least, in this dimension):

 _' You are expected to hew to certain viewpoints. It is not enough for you to
just be quiet, you have to actively and enthusiastically say and write words
supporting the "right" opinion.'_

Show me an example of someone being ousted for remaining quiet.

 _' Only the expression of a "wrong" opinion is enough for punishment -- no
concrete act is required, only the apparent possibility of it.'_

A group of people prevented couples that wanted to be married from being
married. That is clearly an act. Donation of $1000 toward those ends is not
simply holding an opinion.

 _" The historical fact of your actual behavior is irrelevant to the above."_

Again, there was "actual behavior", as a matter of "historical fact".

On the following point the world _does_ look _something_ like you describe
(probably too much so):

 _' If you have ever expressed the "wrong" opinion in the past, then this is
enough to bring punitive action against you, regardless of the current
circumstances.'_

But similarity on one point out of 4 is hardly a strong case.

~~~
stcredzero
_Show me an example of someone being ousted for remaining quiet._

In this situation, Brendan Eich would probably have been better served by
saying less, though that would probably not have changed the outcome. Is your
position that weak that you are really reduced to this degree of nitpicking?

 _A group of people prevented couples that wanted to be married from being
married. That is clearly an act._

In the same manner that speaking is an 'act.' Imagine a world where the worst
villains would donate $1000 to a PAC supporting their view, then quietly
accept the outcome and get on with their work. That world would be a utopia
compared to this one.

 _Again, there was "actual behavior", as a matter of "historical fact"._

This entire line of argument only makes sense if you believe that there is a
clear "right" and "wrong" and that you are in a perfect position to judge
which is which. In a free society, there is no one in such a position, and
those who value a free society would be unwise to advocate the punishment of
such expression, even if it's technically legal and resembles "civil actions"
of the past.

Seriously, watch some documentaries about repressive regimes. Talk to people
who understand these principles and have lived in such places. There is a
compelling reason why free societies should tolerate unpopular opinions, and
why such tolerance should go above the minimum required by the law.

 _But similarity on one point out of 4 is hardly a strong case._

I think your nitpicking speaks for itself for those who are mindful of
principles and will appear as some kind of stirring justification to those who
are of the mind "but we're right and they're wrong."

~~~
dllthomas
_" [Preventing people from being married is an act i]n the same manner that
speaking is an 'act.'"_

I'm done here. You clearly have no connection to reality, and this is
distracting from more important matters.

~~~
stcredzero
_I 'm done here. You clearly have no connection to reality, and this is
distracting from more important matters._

If you are so assured of the rightness of your position and the wrongness of
the other's position, that you are entitled to take actions of any degree of
severity, then you have lost connection to reality, as have so many others in
history. You would be well advised to _never_ be that self righteous.

I have been racially harassed, subject to hate speech, in a situation where
the police got involved. There's simply no equating Brendan Eich and his
political donation with a situation and actions like that. If you can't deal
with others thinking the actions taken against him are out of proportion and
have the feeling of a witch-hunt because your position is _so evidently right_
and his is _so evidently wrong_ then you are again the one who has lost
connection to reality, as well as having lost track of the meaning of a
pluralistic society. A just, pluralistic society will treat even its
dissenting members with justice and tolerance.

If past political donations are an acceptable justification for "open season"
on others, six years after the fact, we have no hope as an open democratic
society.

~~~
dllthomas
The sum total of anyone's action here is 1) speech, and 2) deciding not to do
business with someone. I'm not saying it's necessarily the correct decision,
but painting it as an assumption that we are "entitled to take actions of any
degree of severity" just reinforces my point. Anyway, I'm literally not going
to respond to a thing below this comment, however crazy or sensible it gets.

~~~
stcredzero
Legality and the _extreme wrongness_ of someone's position entitles you to do
_anything,_ up to and including persecution of someone for a political
donation from 6 years ago. Because that donation was _so wrong_. Thanks for
the clarification. Doesn't sound needlessly vindictive at all.

A pluralistic, tolerant society tolerates the holding of private beliefs of
all kinds and forgives being on the wrong side of history. A society that
doesn't do this simply isn't one that respects the right of free speech. The
actions concerning Mozilla do nothing to further civil rights and moves our
society towards norms of intolerance of dissent.

EDIT: I think I learned something here today. There are those who think that
there is no social justice for sexual orientation until the same degree of
vilification is applied to their former political opponents as that which
happened to the political opponents of racial civil rights. I'm sorry, but
this is illogical, shortsighted, and vindictive. It doesn't matter how wrong
people were and how much those who held wrong positions suffer, and any energy
which is brought to bear in that sort of direction is not helping the cause of
justice. This is merely misplaced vengeance. It is indeed not what MLK,
Mandela, or Gandhi would have wanted. Just because this is how it happened in
the past doesn't make it wise or right. I happen to believe that an
enlightened society can exist without "sufficient punishment of wrong
thinking."

~~~
tiquorsj
This whole thing and the justifications sound like reprisals during regime
change to me. It is really creepy.

------
koenigdavidmj
The lesson Mozilla learned here is that the angry Internet mob can get
whatever it wants. It doesn't really matter which side of history the mob is
on. The lesson that other boards learned with this is not 'hire socially-
conscious people', but 'keep your head down and maintain the status quo'.

Fifty years ago a similar uproar would have developed if a company hired a
black CEO. The press release announcing his removal a week later would have
been the same, some fluff words about being unable to effectively lead when
he's spending all his time dealing with this.

~~~
devindotcom
I don't understand why the "angry internet mob" is any different from
thousands of people boycotting a company for unfair labor practices, or doing
a sit-in somewhere, or picketing? How is the internet mob different from these
other forms of nonviolent political activism?

~~~
noddingham
Based upon the thoughtless drivel that I see spewed across Twitter, I don't
see how it could be considered political activism of any sort. It takes no
effort and no risk to shout something on Twitter.

~~~
devindotcom
It takes little effort or risk to walk down the street and shout, either. What
matters is that the people in both situations are expressing their support for
one side of an issue. That it doesn't meet your standards for intelligibility
isn't really material. A vote is not eloquent, but it is a powerful statement
when millions do it at once and with one object. It is the same for public
demonstration.

~~~
stcredzero
_A vote is not eloquent, but it is a powerful statement when millions do it at
once and with one object. It is the same for public demonstration._

Just because something is a vote or a demonstration doesn't make it good or
just. Just because millions say or do something doesn't make it good or just
either. It's justice when what the millions say or do is just because they are
applying first principles of justice. If you look at history, when millions
have enacted injustice, every single time they also had flowery-sounding
justifications for it. Also, if you dig deep enough, along with any injustice,
you will find some kind of double standard accompanied by a notion that
amounts to "but we're right and they're wrong."

------
doe88
From the start I was unconfortable with the idea of firing or demoting someone
who had worked 15+ years in an organization without any related issues raised
before.

And now I'm appalled by all these justifications while nobody seems to really
discuss the huge technical loss. Maybe it's my engineering side speaking but
I'm outraged to see such a great engineer forced to leave by people who in the
end for the most part don't really care about Mozilla and will soon go to the
_next cause to defend_. Meanwhile Mozilla has lost a bit of its soul and a
part of its mind. The outcome is just sad.

~~~
stcredzero
_will soon go to the next cause to defend_

Just who is being "defended" here? No free society should take offense to a
nonviolent political stand, even unpopular ones. Going after someone like this
is not defense. It's attack.

~~~
devindotcom
Wait, why is it defense for him to speak in favor, and attack for others to
speak against? Don't mass speech and boycotts constitute a "nonviolent
political stand"?

~~~
mkr-hn
I think a lot of people got their first taste of politics through cable news
and never learned the older, more useful vocabulary with words like "disagree"
and "challenge."

------
rjknight
I think we should be very wary of mainstream media coverage (and yes, _Slate_
is mainstream media here) of this issue, because writers like William Saletan
know relatively little about the specifics of Mozilla, technology or the
personalities involved. This article ignores the specifics of the case and
places it entirely within existing "culture war" political narratives. It's
designed to present the story to people without having to actually tell them
anything they don't already know.

A much better attempt at the same basic argument (that it's a shame Eich was
forced out) can be found here:
[https://medium.com/p/7645a4bf8a2](https://medium.com/p/7645a4bf8a2)

Given the tools at our disposal and the massive number of people from the tech
community who blog, there's really no need to rely on _Slate_ to tell us what
to think here.

~~~
jessaustin
Thanks I had missed that. The crux of the issue, for me:

 _Most (or perhaps all) of the Mozillians who tweeted this were employed by
the Mozilla Foundation, not the Mozilla Corporation which means that they
report to the executive director of the foundation and not to the CEO. As
foundation employees, they did not share the same org chart as Brendan._

I didn't realize the foundation had so many employees.

~~~
001sky
So, Mozilla is a three headed monster:

> Executive Chairwoman, Mozilla Foundation (Mitchell Baker)

> Executive Director, Mozilla Foundation (Mark Surman)

> CEO Mozilla Corporation (New position, 2008)

Mark Surman's employees using @mozilla handles were calling for the
resignation of a competing CEO?

Am i reading this right? In other words this was under political air-cover.

 _The Mozilla Foundation now focuses solely on governance and policy
issues..._

The corporate governance here actually seems like a problem.

The new CEO and the New COO of @mozilla are going to look at this with ???

~~~
dragonwriter
The Mozilla Foundation _owns_ Mozilla Corporation, and each organization has
its own Board of Directors.

~~~
001sky
Yes, the Foundation CEO basically signed off on a PR stunt very damaging to
Mozilla:

 _Mozilla Foundation Executive Director Mark Surman issued a statement to Ars
in response to employees speaking out against Eich 's hiring. "Our culture of
openness extends to letting our staff and community be candid about their
views on Mozilla’s direction," Surman wrote. "We're proud of that
inclusiveness and how it distinguishes Mozilla from most organizations."_

So, the split boards governance is a problem. Baker is the Chair and head of
the project. She created the Corp CEO job and led the hiring process. She's
the Chair of both Boards.

Its slightly awkward for a company to use its political activsm against itself
in this way. It's even more awkward to manipulate the media to do it in
public. Its even triply awkward that it was aknowleged publicly (usually
indicates legal signed off on it).

------
mullingitover
> It used to be social conservatives who stood for the idea that companies
> could and should fire employees based on the “values” and “community
> standards” of their “employees, business partners and customers.” Now it’s
> liberals.

Uh, pretty sure social conservatives far and wide are _still_ wholly in favor
of discriminating against homosexuals. We're decades early on this being a
case of the persecuted becoming the persecutors.

~~~
danmaz74
The problem is that, now, it becomes more difficult to argue that people
shouldn't be fired because of their opinions about sexual preferences.

~~~
pessimizer
Were people ever arguing that, or were they arguing that people shouldn't be
fired _because_ of their sexual preferences? Are racial minorities being fired
because of their opinions about race?

~~~
danmaz74
Racial minorities being fired because of their opinion about race - ie, their
opinion that they should have the same treatments are whites - was very common
as far as I know. To make a different example, the new laws in Russia aren't
against "being gay", they are against those who argue for the rights of gays.

------
lexcorvus
I'm sure many supporters of Brendan Eich's ouster are completely sincere, but
it's difficult to explain the _intensity_ of their feelings on this issue. It
can't be as simple as "civil rights" and "marriage equality"; for example,
(first) cousin marriage is important to many groups—indeed, in Islam cousin
marriage is not only allowed, it's often preferred [1]—but it is illegal in
most states [2]. And yet, I rarely see advocates of "marriage equality" get
all lathered up over this issue. Are advocates of "marriage equality" in favor
of legalizing cousin marriage? If not, why not? If so, why have they not
worked harder to achieve it?

I see no way to resolve this paradox from within the context of progressive
ideology, but it's trivial to explain once you view it from the outside. As
the example of cousin marriage shows, the behavior of Eich's purgers _is not_
consistent with mere "civil rights" and "marriage equality", but it _is_
consistent with signaling tribal membership, seizing political power, and
smashing their enemies.

As it happens, right now gay marriage is an effective club with which
progressives can beat conservatives. At some point, this may also be the case
for cousin marriage—I can easily imagine opponents of cousin marriage someday
being branded "Islamophobes", just as today opponents of gay marriage are
branded "homophobes". But I predict that this will happen if, _and only if_ ,
it serves progressive political ends.

[1]:
[http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Cousin_Marriage_in_Islam](http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Cousin_Marriage_in_Islam)

[2]:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage_law_in_the_Unit...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage_law_in_the_United_States_by_state)

~~~
dragonwriter
> I'm sure many supporters of Brendan Eich's ouster are completely sincere

What "ouster"?

> It can't be as simple as "civil rights" and "marriage equality"

Even ignoring the questionable use of "ouster", yes, it can.

> for example, (first) cousin marriage is important to many groups [...]. And
> yet, I rarely see advocates of "marriage equality" get all lathered up over
> this issue.

So, what? Opponents of interracial marriage bans in the 1950s-1960s didn't get
"lathered up" over cousin marriage bans, or same sex marriage bans, either.
That doesn't mean that opposition to interracial marriage bans wasn't all
about civil rights and equality.

> Are advocates of "marriage equality" in favor of legalizing cousin marriage?

Some probably are, some probably are not. As with most political issues,
position on this issue doesn't absolutely determine position on any other
issue.

> If not, why not?

Conceptually, regulating new legal family relationships on the basis of
existing family relationships is different than doing so based on some other
non-family status, so there is no real reason why positions on these should be
expected to correlate.

> If so, why have they not worked harder to achieve it?

This is the "why aren't advocates of 'X' spending equal effort on every other
analogous issue" argument, which ignores that actually effecting change often
requires serial focus, rather than parallel effort.

> I see no way to resolve this paradox from within the context of progressive
> ideology

And yet, as noted above, I see several that fit quite well in that framework.
Maybe what you fail to see says more about what you want to see than about
what actually is there?

~~~
lexcorvus
_Conceptually, regulating new legal family relationships on the basis of
existing family relationships is different than doing so based on some other
non-family status, so there is no real reason why positions on these should be
expected to correlate._

This rationalization of anti–cousin marriage bigotry makes you sound like an
Islamophobe who cares little about violating Muslims' religious liberties by
denying them their basic civil rights. Be careful not to get purged.

------
johngalt
It's ok though, because this time the mob is _right_. All those other times
the mob was _wrong_. So long as you can predict exactly which way subjective
collective reasoning will go for years into the future you'll be fine.

~~~
devindotcom
Ah, so you would have maintained a healthy distance during the civil rights
movement in the 50s and 60s as well?

~~~
johngalt
Would I distance myself from MLK? no. From the black panthers? yes. There is a
vast difference between believing something to be true, and wishing harm upon
those who refuse to acknowledge that truth.

Are there any injustices you see in the world that aren't also the popular
opinion in your peer group?

~~~
devindotcom
Boy, what a loaded question! Tell me, do you still beat your your wife? But
seriously, do you think there are any injustices in the world at all? It
sounds like they don't count if they come from, or ar at all influenced by,
one's peer group. How do you propose to find justice and injustice if not by
agreement by the people that make up society?

Second, by your definition of harm, if a restaurant refuses to serve black
customers, and people boycott it so the owner must close down, they have
wished him harm and are on the "black panther" side of your equation, yes?
Even if he must only change his policy, his "right to think" has been impinged
upon, so I suppose that is also harm, right?

------
neilk
Whether or not these points have merit, this media pundit is only replying to
other media pundits. Some important nuances are being lost. If there is a way
to make this sad story even sadder, it's turning it into a political football.

Is there anything Mozilla or Eich can do to clarify things? But I don't know
if that matters any more, now that American political commentators have tasted
blood.

------
danmaz74
I think that this case is doing a lot of bad to the cause of gay rights,
because it feeds intolerance and radicalization.

~~~
aneisf
Intolerance of an intolerance is not equatable with the original intolerance.

~~~
stcredzero
Isn't that, "Two wrongs make a right?" In any case, it is still an
intolerance.

It's very dangerous ground to label political donation as "intolerance." It's
inimical to civic and democratic political processes in a free society. In
fact, I would label it as intolerant.

If a person is taking actions that are nonviolent and legal, and they do not
advocate the active destruction of our system of self governance, they should
be allowed to coexist. This is what _tolerance_ means. We need to let people
oppose us and take positions we don't like. That is what it means to live in a
free and democratic society. So long as those people don't act like sore
losers, they get to take part.

While it was done legally, the actions that got Brendan Eich fired for a
donation he made six years ago strike me as the actions of "sore winners."
Brendan Eich's behavior, while a PR disaster at the end, consisted of running
a company with policies friendly to homosexual relationships.

Mr. Eich was the one behaving magnanimously in this situation.

~~~
eropple
This "coexistence" mischaracterization is silly. His right to coexist is not
in question. But we are under _no_ obligation to patronize an organization
that puts people whose worldviews are at odds with ours in ways that damage
people we care about. I feel no ethical compulsion to associate with or enrich
(because his salary's paid for by my eyeballs if I use Firefox) people who
want to hurt people I love. He's welcome to sell his services to people who
don't care about that, but I won't buy.

~~~
chc
> _This "coexistence" mischaracterization is silly. His right to coexist is
> not in question._

When we say "coexist," we do not merely mean "physically exist on the same
planet." We mean "exist and be civil with one another." People used to refuse
to patronize restaurants that permitted negroes. We do not describe those
people as being in favor of peaceful coexistence; we say that they were
intolerant and opposed to coexistence.

> _But we are under no obligation to patronize an organization that puts
> people whose worldviews are at odds with ours in ways that damage people we
> care about. I feel no ethical compulsion to associate with or enrich
> (because his salary 's paid for by my eyeballs if I use Firefox) people who
> want to hurt people I love. He's welcome to sell his services to people who
> don't care about that, but I won't buy._

As the OP suggests, this sounds suspiciously like the viewpoint used to
justify driving gays, blacks, etc. out of society. "Oh, I'm just exercising my
freedom of association." It didn't justify those people — why are you so sure
it justifies you?

Using your freedom of association as a weapon against people you disagree with
has generally not been viewed kindly by history. I think you're on the right
side of the gay marriage debate, but you're on the wrong side of the "How do
we coexist with people who disagree with us?" debate.

As was said earlier, if Eich were actually out to get gays, I would understand
this reaction. But he isn't out to get gays, and hasn't done anything against
them in six years. He was being perfectly tolerant of gays when people decided
to come after him. You're punishing him for his viewpoint, not stopping him
from "hurting people you love," which he _wasn 't doing_.

~~~
eropple
_> When we say "coexist," we do not merely mean "physically exist on the same
planet." We mean "exist and be civil with one another."_

Your definition of "civil" and mine are not the same. I find it intensely
uncivil to try to strip marriage rights from multiple friends of mine. I do
not find it uncivil to say "this dude's a jerk and I won't give him
money"\--as I said in a cousin post, I don't go to my corner store because the
owner's a jerk, this is not materially different to me.

 _> As the OP suggests, this sounds suspiciously like the viewpoint used to
justify driving gays, blacks, etc. out of society. "Oh, I'm just exercising my
freedom of association." It didn't justify those people — why are you so sure
it justifies you?_

You can't choose to be Not Black. You can't choose to be Not Gender Dysphoric.
You can choose to be Not Bigot. The line of demarcation is super, super
obvious from where I stand.

 _> You're punishing him for his viewpoint, not stopping him from "hurting
people you love," which he wasn't doing._

Have you looked at his donation records? He has a pattern of backing
politicians who are notable in their "culture war" self-presentation, who make
a point of speaking about how terrible homosexuals are. Pat Buchanan. Thomas
McClintock. Linda Smith. Proposition 8. (He didn't even live in Smith's
_state_ , let alone her district, when he chose to give her money. That speaks
loudly to me.)

Donating money to anti-gay causes and anti-gay politicians is very much, by my
lights, an action. Many of them. And don't mistake me: they're actions he is
_completely within his rights_ to take! But the same thing that gives him the
right to do that frees me from the obligation to enrich him by using the
product of the organization he leads. And I do not choose to undertake that
obligation for him.

~~~
chc
> _Your definition of "civil" and mine are not the same. I find it intensely
> uncivil to try to strip marriage rights from multiple friends of mine._

I would agree if Eich were still doing this, but that was a long time ago.
Like I said, I feel like people were punishing him for past wrongs that
indicate a "wrong opinion" rather than trying to right current wrongs.

> _You can 't choose to be Not Black. You can't choose to be Not Gender
> Dysphoric. You can choose to be Not Bigot._

Can you? I didn't choose to think homosexuality is OK. It's just the way I
feel. I don't think I could possibly choose to believe homosexuality is wrong
— that's just not compatible with my morality. Are you really capable of
arbitrarily choosing to believe things?

Unless you're talking about actions. In which case it seems to me that Eich
has chosen to be Not Bigot for over half a decade.

> _Have you looked at his donation records? He has a pattern of backing
> politicians who are notable in their "culture war" self-presentation, who
> make a point of speaking about how terrible homosexuals are. Pat Buchanan.
> Thomas McClintock. Linda Smith. Proposition 8._

Most of those were so long ago that I wasn't even old enough to vote.
McClintock is the only one he's backed in the past decade AFAIK, and to the
best of my recollection McClintock tends to focus on financial issues.
(McClintock is against gay marriage, but I don't remember it ever being a
focus for him. All of the McClintock supporters I know like him for his fiscal
policy.)

------
pessimizer
Or at least the PR reasons ("do what the customers want") and the libertarian
reasons ("private companies can make any decision that they want for any
reason") for not wanting Eich for CEO are the old PR and libertarian reasons
for firing gays.

What if your reason is that he supports the elimination of benefits for a
commonly discriminated against minority class, and he's being put into a
position to at least indirectly make decisions about those benefits at a
company that has historically supported them?

Any way to figure out an analogy to that in discrimination against gays?

edit: That's a serious question, and if you have a serious opinion, I'd think
you'd reply after downvoting.

~~~
stcredzero
_What if your reason is that he supports the elimination of benefits for a
commonly discriminated against minority class, and he 's being put into a
position to at least indirectly make decisions about those benefits at a
company that has historically supported them?_

What the record actually shows is that the policies of Mozilla, in the time he
was CEO, treated well those who had cause to oppose him in his private
political life.

~~~
pessimizer
>in the time he was CEO

You mean during that week that everybody hammered him about his anti-gay
donations and then he quit? I have doubts about his ability to push
substantial policy during that period, to say the least.

~~~
stcredzero
So, basically people were just against what he _might_ do. (Which also has
clear parallels with past justifications for firing a gay CEO.)

------
mkr-hn
I really wish anyone at all would acknowledge that not everyone who had a
problem with his donation wanted him out of a job. People are too eager to
combine everyone into two faceless mobs when the arguments were far more
nuanced than two mindless binaries.

The general wave of anti-gay equality campaigns didn't start or stop with prop
8. It began as a reaction to some of the early victories of the pro-equality
movement. My own state tried to make it legal for businesses to deny service
to me just a few weeks ago. His donation exists in a context where people are
still suffering from the constant assault on their status as equal citizens.

------
MetaCosm
> Losing your job for being gay is different from losing your job for opposing
> gay marriage. Unlike homosexuality, opposition to same-sex marriage is a
> choice, and it directly limits the rights of other people.

He wrote an entire article equivocating them, then he quickly writes a couple
sentences pointing out he full well knows it is absolute nonsense. Well played
by him, I read the article.

------
dclowd9901
He's right. And so the fuck what?

It's not the reasoning I care about. It's never been about the reasoning. No
one ever bought any bullshit about "community standards" even when it was
being used to oust gays. It was about the act of marginalizing individuals
over something that literally affects nobody else.

If a gay person works at my company, his being gay will have no affect on my
livelihood. People with an anti-gay agenda have made a choice to stand in the
way of progress. That means their actions negatively affect the people around
them, malevolent. They're entitled to no consideration, because it's their
choice to ostracize themselves for their ignorance. It should be seen the same
as firing someone who habitually shits on the bathroom floor.

~~~
news_to_me
"If an anti-gay person works at my company, his being anti-gay will have no
affect on my livelihood. People with a gay agenda have made a choice to stand
in the way of progress. That means their actions negatively affect the people
around them, malevolent. They're entitled to no consideration, because it's
their choice to ostracize themselves for their ignorance. It should be seen
the same as firing someone who habitually shits on the bathroom floor."

See how this goes both ways?

~~~
differentView
Do you believe gay people being allowed to marry negatively affect you? If so,
how?

~~~
news_to_me
No, but neither can I see how Eich, in this particular context, was negatively
affecting anyone at Mozilla. Folks were uncomfortable with a private choice he
made, just like some people are uncomfortable that some gay people choose to
get married.

~~~
differentView
Eich is one of those people. So much so that he put money into supporting a
law that actively banned same-sex marriage. Mozilla is a company that is
friendly to same-sex marriage, if people don't want that changed, they
shouldn't support a CEO that could change that.

