
Mozilla is not Chik-Fil-A - ultimatedelman
http://www.benmoskowitz.com/?p=971
======
panarky

      ... it was hard to watch as people who should know better pulled
      out the Chick-Fil-A playbook
    

That's exactly right. By all means, protest a corporation that uses corporate
resources to fund hate. That's not what happened at Mozilla.

    
    
      I am equally disappointed in Mozillians and in demagogues who didn’t
      see the irony in hounding someone for their private opinion
      because of "intolerance."
    

Mozilla is beautiful because they've united very different people for a
common, worthy purpose. To accomplish that, they must firewall personal
opinions, politics and prejudices that are not relevant to their mission.

That firewall has now been breached. It's scary to think that an important
organization with a critical mission could be damaged by this breach.

    
    
      If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents
      with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone
      else – then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free
      speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies
      who came before us.
    

Well said and incisively reasoned, Andrew Sullivan.

~~~
nefasti
Being against gay marriage is not free speech, it's plain and simple hate,
don't try to flip the table like that.

~~~
derefr
Most of the people I know who are against gay marriage (yes, I know some such
people) aren't against gay people being considered married by the _state_.
Civil unions, and most other forms of marriage ceremony, are A-OK with them.

People against gay marriage are, as far as I'm aware, really just against gay
people being _considered married by the (Christian) church_ , because--in
their opinion--Christianity has a specific definition of "marriage", and gay
marriage doesn't qualify.

It seems to just be a bunch of people talking past one-another. Each group
sees their definition of "marriage" ("marriage" as in "legally considered
together", or "marriage" as in "accepted as a couple by your local
congregation") as the only one that actually matters, and so _obviously_
that's the one their opponents are arguing about as well.

~~~
MetaCosm
Was Prop 8 about the Christian definition of marriage? It wasn't, it was about
the LEGAL government regulated institution of marriage. Marriages by the way
pre-date Christianity.

It isn't two groups talking past each other, it is one group trying to get
their religious values instituted as government regulations.

Letting a same sex couple get marriage by a judge, in a courthouse doesn't do
anything to harm the internal religious definition of marriage... it is the
government regulated one.

I am all for banning marriage as a government institution and only having
civil unions. Hell don't even call them civil unions, call them
flipflapadingdongs if you want, but as long as they are done by government
they must be equal, playing name games is BS.

------
BruceIV
I would like to begin by stating that I, personally, support gay marriage - if
the government is willing to offer tax benefits, next-of-kin status, etc. to
married and common-law couples based on committed, long-term relationships, it
seems hypocritical, cruel, and unfair to deny those same rights to homosexual
couples with similar relationships.

That said, I think it is ridiculous that this is a scandal, and worse that it
ended with Brendan Eich being forced out of his job. He made a really quite
modest personal political donation on one side of an issue the state of
California had deemed contentious enough to hold a referendum. It seems unfair
that backing the wrong side in that referendum apparently disqualifies half of
California from being Mozilla CEO. Whether you agree with his views or not
(and I and most of the Internet seem not to), they have nothing to do with
building an accessible Internet for everyone, and as long as those views don't
affect his managerial choices, I don't see how they're relevant to his job
(Mozilla HR could answer the question about professionalism, but I don't think
the rest of us have the necessary data).

~~~
interstitial
More ironic when you consider: "Obama Says He Is Against Same-Sex Marriage"
[http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/11/obama-on-
mtv-i/](http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/11/obama-on-mtv-i/)

~~~
spikels
So was Hillary Clinton until a year ago. And they both repeatedly raised money
to candidates that were against same-sex marriage. I guess neither of them are
qualified to run Mozilla.

[http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/thecaucus/2013/03/18/hillary...](http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/thecaucus/2013/03/18/hillary-
clinton-endorses-same-sex-marriage/)

~~~
growupkids
Well they're either hypocrites, or (ahem...) they learned.

~~~
spikels
They "evolved" like pond scum!

------
baddox
> One thing’s for sure. If you eat at Chick-Fil-A, your money will support
> anti-gay causes.

Which is also technically true if you do business with any company that
employs any people who oppose gay rights. Or if you do business with any
company that itself does business with another company that employs any people
who oppose gay rights.

------
xirdstl
The fallout from this will be interesting to watch. If there are other
employees of Mozilla that supported Prop. 8 or are otherwise opposed to gay
marriage, do they now fear for their jobs?

I keep seeing the argument that it's only because he became CEO, which is
completely different than CTO. While there is some truth to that, it mostly
comes across as post witch-hunt rationalization to me.

Maybe witch-hunt is a little strong, but the level of vitriol in OKCupid's
message directed towards Eich (and effectively at anyone who shares that
opinion) felt genuinely disturbing to me.

Maybe I'm just not cut out for these Internets.

------
swang
> I am equally disappointed in Mozillians and in demagogues who didn't see the
> irony in hounding someone for their private opinion because of
> "intolerance."

His opinion is no longer private. Once you vote with your dollars you have
publicly acknowledged your opinion.

I don't know if I really support what happened to Eich, but this whole event
opens your eyes to the hypocrisy of the tech community. If some person not
well known to the loudest voices of the community says something insensitive
they will have their lives ruined. Someone like Eich does something similar
and all of a sudden it is, "whoa, now, let's not overreact."

~~~
beedogs
And the people describing his actions to help get gay marriage banned in
California as merely "an opinion" that should be respected and treated as
"free speech" are just laughably wrong.

~~~
swang
Yes let's clear this up.

1\. ~52% of Californians voted for Prop 8. True. But Prop 8 was also confusing
to votes as to what "Yes" or "No" meant. Supporters of gay marriage were
worried that people would believe Yes meant support of gay marriage and vice-
versa.

2\. The point about Prop 8 wasn't "marriage." The underlying reason gays
wanted to marry is for tax breaks and legal privileges. If you cannot be in a
"marriage" you are essentially being taxed more and afforded unequal rights to
people who can be in a marriage.

------
whyenot
Proposition 8 took away my right to marry. It's a pretty shitty thing to find
out that the majority of voters in your home state believe it's OK to treat
you as a second class citizen. When Brendan Eich sent in that check for $1,000
in support of Proposition 8, he was making the statement that I should not
continue to have the right to marry the person I love and that explicit
discrimination against gay people should be enshrined in California's
constitution. It left a lot of people very upset. I don't agree with with
lashing out at Eich, but I understand it.

------
mynameishere
_So if the long march of progress makes a fast food drive-thru a site of civic
participation, well, that’s surreal—but it’s democracy in action._

I wonder if this guy is aware that "long march" almost always refers to the
"long march through the institutions", which is essentially a Marxist plan to
subvert society. (When it's not referring to the original "long march" by
Mao's forces.) I'm guessing he is. It reminds me of the old commie-styled
Mozilla red star logo. Was that an accident? What's with these people? At any
rate, if you _ever_ want to donate to any political cause, make sure it's 100
percent anonymous. That includes supporters of gay marriage. When the worm
turns, you might get the same as you gave.

~~~
growupkids
I can get behind anonymous donations. After all, we vote anonymously,
anonymous speech is protected speech, so why shouldn't anonymous donations be
protected as well? In the marketplace of ideas, shouldn't it be the ideas that
are judged and not who said them or who paid for the ad?

~~~
xirdstl
At the level of donation in this example, that probably works. Consider though
a donation of say, $1 million. Is it important to know who donates that amount
and thus potentially exerting a great deal of influence?

Maybe the notable difference is that while votes are anonymous, every vote is
equal.

------
carsongross
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

I think that the great tech though-crime purge of 2013-? will end up having a
different outcome than intended...

------
Patrick_Devine
I'm going to take a different stand than the one a lot of people seem to keep
echoing here. I think it was the right thing for Eich to step down.

This isn't about free speech, it's about basic human rights.

Let me try to re-frame it this way; had Eich been a white supremacist and had
contributed money to the KKK, do you still think he would have been fit to
lead Mozilla? The same arguments being bandied around here apply.

Whether people want to admit it or not, this guy is (was) the public face of
the organization. Despite being an avid user of Firefox, I definitely would
hesitate to donate money with him as the CEO. And, were I an employee of
Mozilla, I'd probably consider leaving. I'm also sure that I'm not alone in
this. If Mozilla is shedding employees and losing donations as a result of him
being at the head, he clearly isn't the right person to be the leader.

As for free speech, I love the first amendment. Eich certainly has the right
to express his (completely ridiculous and hateful) opinion. Everyone else also
has the right to pressure him to not be the head of a charitable organization
which promotes tolerance.

~~~
intslack
>had Eich been a white supremacist

In this first part, you equate white supremacists with what I assume would be
"homophobic bigots," implying that there's concrete evidence of Eich being
such a "homophobic bigot." When there's not.

~~~
Patrick_Devine
... other than giving $1,000 to support Prop 8 and denying people the right to
get married.

~~~
intslack
That's not concrete evidence, sorry. Your logic is faulty:

1) You're equating his monetary support for Prop 8 as evidence of homophobic
bigotry, which by itself it is not.

It's quite obvious that Eich is deeply religious: the herd mentality in those
circles is that because same-sex couples can’t produce biological children
together, they shouldn't be recognized as marriages.

This is rational if you see the institution of marriage as a state-recognized
union between that's only between a man and a woman, which has long social and
cultural roots. The same can not be said for bans on interracial marriages
which are just backed by racism, and not objective facts.

Ultimately, assuming that these are Eich's views (which is very likely,) they
are ignorant because they focus too much on sex and too little on the idea of
commitment and love.

What they aren't: grounds for throwing around labels like "homophobic bigot,"
as there are many who empathize with those who are discriminated against,
abused, disowned, lynched and executed because of their expression of gender
identity. They see nothing wrong with homosexuals, but rather take issue with
marriage as an institution being redefined.

Haven't seen any evidence that Eich opposes civil partnerships. I want nothing
to do with marriage personally and would much rather a civil partnership for
my relationship, but dissolving the state-recognized institution of marriage
completely is very messy.

So redefining marriage is the best choice, lest we have separate but equal
legal frameworks: marriages for heterosexual couples and civil unions for
homosexual couples as well as heterosexual couples who want nothing to do with
marriage but want the benefits it brings.

2) You're comparing Eich to the KKK which executed thousands of people, which
is a disgusting comparison but you may just be historically ignorant.

Eich was pressured to resign just because he wouldn't parrot empty words about
how he's "evolved" on the issue in the court of public opinion, like President
Obama has.

And we're worse off for it, because he was the most qualified to lead Mozilla.

~~~
Patrick_Devine
Actually, if you read back through the comments, _you_ were the person who
used the term "homophobic bigot", and nowhere did I equate Eich to being a
white supremacist or part of the KKK. I used it as an example for how people
would react given the KKK's stance on human rights.

Our first amendment rights in this county give us the freedom of speech, but
they also give us the freedom of religion. And, by extension, the freedom
_from_ religion. Eich's personal views on gay marriage shouldn't trump the
rights of anyone else, and him donating to a cause which denies people their
rights seriously calls into question his judgement and whether he is fit to be
the leader of an organization which espouses liberal ideals.

I'll give you another analogy. If Prop 8 were to deny the rights of black
people getting married, and Eich had donated $1,000 to support it, would you
still feel the same way?

~~~
intslack
I asked you if you were equating Eich with homophobic bigots, and you
confirmed that you did.

And no, I wouldn't feel the same way. As I said in that post, there's no
biological basis or objective fact for refusing to accept interracial
marriages. They're only justified by racism. There is however, a biological
reason that Eich and others might not accept same-sex marriages.

It's a rational, yet very ignorant view. The point is that opposing same-sex
marriage is definitely not the same when you do a direct comparison to
interracial marriage bans.

Either way: the damage is done, the bridges were burned, and it's clear that
you're among those who just want to be outraged about this group of people's
ignorance instead of reaching out to them and striving for dialog, so there's
no point in having this conversation.

------
yaur
There are currently two posts on the main page about this. Do we really need a
third? Is this really the kind of place where we are going to push a story
about Postgres and the Linux kernel off the main page so that we can have
another nasty political fight? I guess I'm new here and don't know the
community that well, but that seems more than a little sad and absurd.

It is a shame though cause this is kind of a decent write-up.

~~~
tiles
I think it's fitting. The Chief Technology Officer for many years at Mozilla,
once promoted to CEO, suffers great pushback and voluntarily steps down as a
result.

For Mozilla, technology in this case was _not_ more important than community
values. Postgres and Linux have technological improvements, but I'm eager to
see the tech industry be far more self-aware in trying to progress in its
social issues, rather than just progress with features.

Plus, this was a struggle and many on these forums were affected. The
underlying causes won't go away after one day, and more worryingly, perhaps
not for years to come.

~~~
judk
Indeed, in the no-privacy Facebook era, we all look forward to fully vetting
the personal lives of our business leaders and employees.

With this inspiring precedent, we can have confidence that the next CEO of
Mozilla --and every other company, we hope-- will be well vetted to hold the
correct behaviors -- the only, obviously morally correct behaviors-- toward
the great challenges of our time: women's abortion rights (or is it fetuses'
birth rights?), animal abuse rights (factory farm supporters are unfit to
lead), gentrification (wealthy SF residents displace evicted tenants, ruining
their lives, so they are not leadership material), ...

~~~
x0x0
Certain communities are more sensitive to certain insults. SF, in particular,
is home to many gay people; many of them came to this area of the country in
particular to escape persecution. Even now coming out to your parents can be
quite hard, but you don't have to travel back more than a few years to
regularly hear stories of children summarily kicked out of the house, parents
never speaking to children again, etc. This is a community that also welcomes,
and to a certain extent prizes, nonconformists; or others that have had really
shit experiences in grade school, high school, or the cities they grew up in

All of which says that the community of which mozilla is a part is
particularly sensitive to slights against gay people. This should have been,
oh, completely unsurprising.

And the ceo is often symbolic in a way that a cto isn't.

And in particular, I wouldn't work for firefox while he was ceo. He made a
donation specifically intended to maliciously hurt my friends and neighbors. I
can't support that.

~~~
tomcorrigan
> He made a donation specifically intended to maliciously hurt my friends and
> neighbors.

Where the fuck did you get that idea? You just made that up. You don't know
his specific purpose, you may think you can infer it but you certainly don't
know it.

Furthermore, there is not a scintilla of evidence to suggest he acted out of
malice. It is far more plausible that he considered gay marriage inconsistent
with his religious beliefs and that he also felt compelled by his religion to
defend his view of what marriage should be.

~~~
x0x0
1 - by their fruits ye shall know them

2 - because i'm not deliberately obtuse or stupid

------
NextUserName
If a christian run organization fired an employee (lets not kid ourselves
here, Eich was fired) because they paid $1,000 to support gay marriage, how
dramatically would the reaction differ from this situation?

Why the huge difference? because in our culture, we are not "allowed" to voice
a different opinion than the SCOTUS. Even if the majority populous agrees with
our opinion.

I know what you are going to say... This is a civil rights issue. It is now a
homosexual's civil right to be married because the court said so.

When I hear the term civil rights, I always think of blacks and whites in
America, segregation and unequal rights because of race.

Non Caucasian people were not allowed to use the same schools, bathrooms, bus
seats, or even drinking fountains that white people used. That was wrong.
Everyone is human and should be treated with dignity.

These days we have this out of control "equality" thing that just kind of
blindly rolls over common sense.

If there is no distinction between men and women in marriage now, then what
about the rest of the gender based legal things like a law preventing a man
from going into a women's locker room at the local gym and showering with 10
year old girls that happen to be showering in there. Well gay men can shower
with boys in the locker next door, so why not? Why are there women's battery
laws? Special rape laws only for women? There are literally thousands of laws
that are preferential toward or only exist to assist women? Can't a gay man
have these same laws applied to him just like marriage? It just isn't fair if
they aren't. This breaks "Equality".

Men and women are different, that is why there are different rules for us.
Homosexuals did not fit the description of marriage because it was defined by
gender, since this fundamental attribute was thrown out, it seems only fair to
throw out any and all gender biased laws, rules, and guidelines.

If a women feels that she was violated because a man came into the women's
shower while she was shaving, how is this different than a women feeling that
her marriage was violated because it also was re-defined as being genderless.

I just don't grasp the "logic" (or lack thereof) that people today must use to
come up with such thoughts and justifications.

------
beedogs
This is not a free speech issue. I wish people would stop making that mistake.
A private company can fire anyone they want in California for whatever reason
they want.

~~~
Acropal
You're an idiot or incredibly naive if you don't think this is a free speech
issue. A guy was forced to resign because he has a different opinion than some
group of people. It's bullshit.

~~~
beedogs
Sorry, but "free speech" really only applies when the government gets involved
in regulating it. Read the Constitution sometime.

He could just as easily have been ousted from his role for wearing the wrong
color shirt to work, if enough people didn't like it.

