

Mozilla just can't catch a break - blindpixel
https://www.dropbox.com/s/b70uugc2ydycvyd/_20140405_131618.JPG

======
mehwoot
I don't know whether this is a joke or not, but what do you expect?
Proposition 8 passed. A majority of people were in favor of it. You think
those people would just rule out applying the same sort of pressure on mozilla
that worked so effectively?

This is why, despite supporting gay marriage, I think it is abhorrent that
Brendan Eich was effectively forced to resign. He donated privately to a
campaign that was supported by a majority of people, but somehow that makes it
ok to destroy his career because we don't agree with his stance. I don't
particularly want to inhabit a society where that is the norm. It makes me
very uneasy.

~~~
te_chris
I don't want to live in a society where people with bigoted and regressive
views are merely considered as a difference of opinion. Human rights are
absolute.

EDIT: So many downvotes, wow.

~~~
sliverstorm
What about the human right to hold your own beliefs? Are you saying I am no
longer allowed to believe what I want, I have to believe what you tell me is
right?

~~~
ftfish
Nobody is saying that. But if you for example believe that slavery is right
because Bible says so, well, we have a problem here, don't you think?

Actually I'm starting to wonder about the whole idea that you can't fire
someone based on their religious beliefs (at least I understand this is the
law in the US).

What if I discover one of my employees donated to a political group that is
trying to bring back slavery. I definitely wouldn't want someone like that
working for me. But I can't let them go because their religious book says
slavery is fine and their religious views are protected?

Crazy world.

------
rjknight
This was the fairly inevitable conclusion of forcing him to quit. Nobody has
come out of this looking good.

~~~
blindpixel
I agree. The whole episode has been a disaster for Mozilla's mission.

------
lawl
They're trolling, right? this is a joke, right?

Please tell me this is a joke.

Edit:

There's nothing on the page in the image:
[http://www.catholicvote.org/?s=firefox&submit=%C2%A0](http://www.catholicvote.org/?s=firefox&submit=%C2%A0)

So i assume this is indeed just a joke.

~~~
gf6554
Not a joke. See
[https://twitter.com/CatholicVote/status/452108584126410752](https://twitter.com/CatholicVote/status/452108584126410752).

They should be free to speak their mind as the opposition, correct?

~~~
sliverstorm
No no, it's already been clearly established in these threads. The pro-gay-
marriage side is the only side that gets to speak their minds, because they
are the side that is right.

That's how freedom of speech works, after all. Only the person who is right
gets it.

~~~
MetaCosm
You are free to say what you want, and free to deal with the repercussions.
Everything can be framed as having two sides, but society at a certain point
decides there isn't two sides.

The "pro-interracial-marriage" side is the only side that gets to speak its
mind these days, because they are the side that is right. Try coming out as
against interracial marriage and you will be run out of your company on a
rail, as you should be, rinse and repeat for gay marriage.

~~~
sliverstorm
They aren't really the side that is right, they are just the side that has 99%
of people. Gay marriage is contentious because it's practically an even split
right now.

~~~
MetaCosm
61% of young Republican leaning Americans (18-29) support marriage equality.
The issue is settled, the trajectory is clear, it is just a few years until it
will all be shaken out and boring and stats about people being against gay
marriage will be treated with awe and shock.

In 1986, only around 30% of Americans "approved" of interracial relationships
-- now about that number have a family member IN an interracial relationship.
Things move faster now, and in just a few years, the idea of being against
same-sex marriage will seem just as insane about being against interracial
marriage.

------
jasimq
Freedom of speech goes both ways...

~~~
smtddr
I probably shouldn't even bring this up. This whole thread will be knocked off
the front-page shortly anyway... but I just had a heated debate with a
coworker that's an Eich-supporter and found his logic disturbing and ethically
broken when it expanded to views on racism, sexism, homophobia. But for all
those people who support Eich and keep saying freedom-of-speech goes both ways
even for "unpopular opinions":

How would you define Hate Speech. Do you think it's okay? Do you think Google
is right for not allowing Hate Speech on youtube?

I'm only asking because I want to know if these Eich-supporters have a limit
somewhere; where speech becomes harmful - from just expressing yourself to
inflicting a tangible negative effect on others who do not wish it. While I'm
not accusing Eich of hate speech, I believe his donation to an effort to make
a law which forces his belief on others - something that has nothing to do
with how he lives his own life - is similar.

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

 _> >In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or
display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial
action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages
or intimidates a protected individual or group._

Am I crazy for thinking that prop8 disparages the love between two men or
women that want to get married? Isn't the core of prop8 based on people who
cannot accept the LGBT community and want to keep marriage for themselves?
Shouldn't society squash this kind of thing out of law?

~~~
waterlesscloud
You'll note in that wiki article you linked, the Supreme Court has found hate
speech restrictions to be unconstitutional.

There's also the case where the ACLU defended the right of neo-nazis to march
in a town with a heavy Jewish population.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union#...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union#The_Skokie_case)

Hate speech is often despicable, but Freedom Of Speech has traditionally been
taken very, very, VERY seriously in the US.

Personally, I feel it's a dangerous mistake to start policing hate speech, and
I don't want to see it happen. I think the freedom to express whatever
position you want on an issue, no matter how reprehensible, is crucial to the
ideals of the nation.

If that means fringe groups say awful things, so be it. For me that's
infinitely better than the alternative.

~~~
daveqr
This.

------
JohnTHaller
Thankfully, they can switch to a "straight browser". Something like Google
Chrome or Apple Safari. Oh, wait, both of them donated money to defeat Prop 8
because they both favor gay marriage. Google even has a whole page about it:
Legalise Love: LGBT Rights Are Human Rights:
[http://www.google.com/diversity/legalise-
love.html](http://www.google.com/diversity/legalise-love.html) Maybe they
could switch back to Microsoft Internet Explorer. Oh, wait, Microsoft was
lobbying for gay marriage to be legalized in Washington state back in 2012 and
has included gay marriage in their advertising.

Sorry, folks. All the major browsers are gay.

------
notaputin
That situation around B. Eich harmed LGBT group in third-world countries. For
example, in Russia people is afraid about gay rights. They think if gays will
have equial rights with straights, they starts to hunt anybody who are not
pro-gay. And that situation with B. Eich proofs that.

~~~
true_religion
Russia is a 3rd world country now? Putting away the pedantic definition of
1st-2nd-3rd world, even by the 'modern' conniption, Russia isn't a developing
economy.

