
Mozilla Supports LGBT Equality - cleverjake
https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/03/29/mozilla-supports-lgbt-equality/
======
danhak
_This post is to clarify Mozilla’s official support of equality and inclusion
for LGBT people, and to outline a series of actions we are taking to reaffirm
this position._

I read the whole post several times and did not find a single concrete action,
let alone a series. On the other hand, I am aware of one concrete action
undertaken by Brendan Eich that is directly counter to all the feel-good
rhetoric spouted off by this post.

~~~
Spittie
That's because there is no need for concrete actions. Mozilla as a
foundation/corporation never discriminated anyone, and they already have
guidelines that promote equality.

~~~
thirsteh
And then there's the part where they made someone who is absolutely,
positively against the concept of gay people having the same rights as
everybody else the figurehead of the organization.

~~~
Spittie
I'm not saying that was a right move - But this is Brendan private view on the
matter, which don't reflect the view of Mozilla, as stated by that post (and
their guidelines). And Brendan already said that his private views won't get
in the way of the views of Mozilla.

I understand that some people want Brendan to step down from his position (and
I'm going to guess he probably will soon-ish), but he was elected because he
was considered the right guy for the job, and I don't see Mozilla firing him
anytime soon, at least without giving him a chance.

~~~
thirsteh
I'm saying that, while that might fly as CTO or any other role of the
organization, CEO is a role analagous to President. The personal views of the
chief executive very much influence the entire organization, and therefore it
should not be surprising that their personal life becomes part of their
professional one.

~~~
azakai
Note the the Mozilla Corporation is controlled by the Mozilla Foundation. So
the position of CEO of Mozilla is in fact under that of the chairperson of the
foundation. If something is analogous to "president", it would be the latter
one (held by Mitchell Baker), not the CEO.

~~~
thirsteh
I would say the president of the foundation (/the board) is analogous to the
electoral college :)

~~~
bzbarsky
No, not quite.

For example, at Mozilla-wide gatherings (e.g the summit that happened last
fall) the CEO of the Mozilla Corporation is the one who typically gives some
sort of talk about general strategy, market positioning, product plans, but
Mitchell Baker is the one who gives a talk on overarching organizational
goals: things like what Mozilla stands for and which issues Mozilla should be
trying to address as an organization.

And so it is in day-to-day operation. Mitchell sets the "moral tone" much more
than the CEO does; the CEO's largely involved with executing the Corporation's
strategy.

There is no real analogy to the US or other national government I know of
here; the organizational setups are very different. I've been trying to think
of something that would be somewhat similar, and so far all I've got is Moses
and Aaron in the Book of Exodus, with Mitchell as Moses and the CEO as Aaron.
Not a perfect analogy, but way closer than anything involving a President.

------
bjackman
To be honest, I suspect Brendan Eich probably has some pretty fucking stupid
opinions about homosexuality. But what does that have to do with software? And
shouldn't he have the right to hold those opinions, offensive as they may be,
without worrying about their effect on his career?

On one hand, corporate "position statements" (which declare opinions like
cells declare osmotic pressure) like this are pretty sickening. On the other
hand, I think it's a bit silly that the tech community has required Mozilla to
make this one.

~~~
boomlinde
> And shouldn't he have the right to hold those opinions, offensive as they
> may be, without worrying about their effect on his career?

Since you are bringing this to the table, let's turn the question around:
Should he? Why? I agree that he should have the right to hold an opinion, but
what earns him the right not to have his public exhibition of it affect his
career?

~~~
intslack
You're esentially asking why he shouldn't be publically bullied out of a
position in which he's the most qualified because of his (assumed) belief that
marriage can only be between a man and a woman (a belief that the majority
Californians who voted in 2008 also held.)

I don't agree with that belief, but the comments here and around the web have
been absolutely disgusting: comparing him to the KKK and the Nazis, claiming
he hates gays, calling him a bigot, etc.

More likely, his belief stems from ignorance instead of hate or bigotry. Why
shouldn't the public exhibition of his opinion affect his career? Because
people should be taking the moral high ground and empathize in a way that Eich
obviously didn't when he made that donation.

Perhaps, instead of shitposting on HN or parading around Twitter about his
(assumed) opinions when people haven't actually met Eich, they should reach
out and offer their perspective by sending him a personal e-mail detailing how
his actions have harmed people. He might even see it your way and change his
deeply held belief.

~~~
boomlinde
> You're esentially asking why he shouldn't be publically bullied

Read again. I am asking why his public opinion shouldn't affect his career.

> Because people should be taking the moral high ground and empathize in a way
> that Eich obviously didn't when he made that donation.

As far as I'm concerned his position affords him wealth and political
influence in the organization, so his opinions, especially when they are not
in line with those of the organization he represents, reasonably _will_ affect
his career, as much as they will affect the public opinion on Mozilla.
Empathizing with him and calling for his resignation are not mutually
exclusive.

------
benjohnson
I have to admit that this whole episode had given a small doubt on if my
company can have an inclusive environment.

I have _very_ conservative religious and political views - but I recognize
that people have good and amazing attributes regardless of my opinion on their
personal lives.

I enjoy being working (and friendships) with diverse people who challenge my
beliefs, and who I can help in meaningful ways despite our differences.

My pause comes from my wondering if the company develops a significant group
of people who won't let my own personal beliefs remain separate from the work
environment.

I'll hopefully forget this sad episode in a few short weeks, so I doubt
anything will change in my heart for the worse.

~~~
chroma
From
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7201428](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7201428):

 _I 'm a trained nuclear physicist, and a biblical literalist._

You're probably a talented, hard-working, _good_ person. I wish you no ill. In
fact, all else equal, I'd prefer you to lead a happy, successful life.

But I'm as likely to hire you as I am to hire a believer in alien abductions.
Such beliefs are evidence of a person's thought patterns and general mental
stability. Even if otherwise competent, hiring would be risky. If ever "social
fit" were an excuse not to hire, this would qualify.

I'm sorry if that sounds bigoted or close-minded, but beliefs affect behavior.
This is true no matter how much one tries to keep quiet at work.

Edit: I realize this is religious discrimination, which is illegal in the US.
Obviously I would never tell the person the true reason for not hiring. To
those who think this is abhorrent: Would you hire a Scientologist? How about a
member of the Westboro Baptist Church? We all draw a line somewhere.

~~~
azakai
I'm an atheist (like I assume you are), but what you just described is
straightforward religious discrimination, which is illegal in the US and many
other places, for good reason.

~~~
chroma
I'm honestly curious: What's the good reason? We discriminate based on beliefs
all the time. Why exempt religious ones?

I'm fine with my own anti-religious views being cause for not hiring me. (In
fact, it's perfectly legal for employers to do so today.)

~~~
azakai
> We discriminate based on beliefs all the time.

We do? I certainly hope we don't. Discrimination is wrong regardless of
whether its on beliefs or attributes. Maybe you meant another word than
"discrimination" here, or I am misunderstanding you somehow?

~~~
chroma
I'll give an example of what I mean by discrimination: If someone is a 9/11
conspiracy theorist, you probably don't want to hang out with them. You might
avoid talking to them. If said conspiracy theorist ran a donut shop, maybe
you'd go so far as to walk another block to buy donuts. That's the sort of
discrimination I'm talking about: simply avoiding interaction with someone.

~~~
azakai
Ok, that's not what I think is generally meant by "discrimination".
"Discrimination" is usually taken to mean what you earlier said: that you
wouldn't hire someone to work for you if they were a biblical literalist. That
is illegal, and should be.

Employment has some amount of state regulation - you can't not hire someone
because of their religion or the color of their skin. It isn't fair for people
of a certain religion or ethnic group to not be hire-able, and beyond that it
is also just impractical in a country like the US. If no one hired anyone but
their own ethnic group and religion, the economy would be completely stagnant,
because the US is so diverse.

~~~
chroma
You make it sound like people are born with a religion, which can never be
changed. Discriminating based on immutable characteristics such as ethnicity,
sexual preference, or gender is wrong and I'm glad many such forms of
discrimination are prohibited.

But beliefs can and do change. Moreover, beliefs are the reasons why people do
what they do. Choosing to avoid interacting with people who express certain
beliefs seems totally fine.

I doubt the economy would suffer much if religious discrimination were
allowed. First, it already happens (especially against atheists). Second, most
people (including myself) are willing to overlook the vast majority of
differences in beliefs. There's only a fringe who end up with slightly lower
wages.

I knew my opinion was controversial, but I didn't expect this reaction from
people. I guess I stumbled onto something you can't say.[1]

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

~~~
azakai
I didn't say a person's religion can't change? Obviously people change
religion all the time. But that is not the reason why discriminating based on
religion is wrong.

Again, the first reason is moral. Imagine if catholic people were the majority
in some area, and on average wealthy, and wouldn't hire muslims which in that
area were a poorer minority. That's just not fair - why shouldn't all people
in that region have the same employment opportunities?

The second reason is practicality. There are so many religions and ethnic
groups in the US, everyone has to work with everyone else. Otherwise we are
losing out on a huge amount of economic potential. Let the best people work at
the best jobs, even if their religion doesn't happen to match their
employer's. It's a job, not a place of worship.

Also, I never said you can't say what you said. Only that I and the law
disagree with you, on this topic. But I wouldn't hold what you said against
you - not employment-wise (I would still potentially hire you) and not in any
other way actually (if we met in person, we'd probably get along just fine).
Disagreement doesn't need to be the end of the world.

------
Zarathust
While I do support LGBT people, I fail to see how my browser's CEO should take
a stance on this. You may call me short sighted if you want, but I fail to see
how caring about the employee's personal values have anything to do with
Mozilla's products.

There are plenty other fields where personal values can be reflected on your
work, but Mozilla? I can't even find sarcasm on how they could make a
prejudice.

I know that people called him out on twitter, but this whole story is going
nowhere.

------
A1kmm
The Mozilla Foundation (and Corporation) are in a difficult position here,
because they are being blamed for someone else doing something unethical, but
it would also be unethical for them to do (or have done) anything differently
in response to it.

Brendan Eich's behaviour in 2008 in trying to take the choice away from
couples to marry just because they happen not to be straight is a despicable
step to interfere with the rights of others. His apology this month
([https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-
mozilla/](https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/)) didn't
express regret for making the donation, only for "having caused pain"; nothing
in the apology suggests that he has actually changed his views. It fits the
classic pattern of an apology for how other people reacted to what he did,
rather than for what he did.

As abhorrent as I find his personal actions, it would not be appropriate for
Mozilla to take political activities into account when making employment
decisions, such as about promotions or dismissals. If employers could fire
people for their political views or activities outside of work, it would be a
net loss to our civil and human rights, even if in some cases such laws shield
advocates for stripping away freedom and non-discriminatory treatment under
the law.

The Mozilla Foundation has acted entirely fairly and appropriately here, and
it is not fair to blame Mozilla for the actions of Brendan Eich or for not
discriminating against him on the basis of his political beliefs.

------
evertonfuller
I am so bored of seeing this over and over again. There is absolutely no ties
between someones professional and personal life. As is, between a
foundation/corporation and the views of any of their employees - yes this
includes chairman. Give it a rest for crying out loud.

------
learc83
Until 2 years ago the president of the United State opposed gay marriage.

It was OK for him to be _President of the United states_ , while publicly
opposing gay marriage.

But it's not OK for the _CEO of a browser company_ to publicly oppose gay
marriage?

------
paul_f
Excuse me, but is this a settled issue? One opinion is OK, a different one
deserves being ostracized, losing one's job? When did this happen? I don't
think I got the memo.

------
cookiecaper
The first paragraph makes it sound like Eich's appointment as CEO stirred some
controversy around LGBT inclusion. Did I miss something? I haven't seen
anything about this yet. Barring some event like this, I think it's stupid for
Mozilla to make a politically charged statement just for the heck of it.

~~~
thirsteh
Brendan Eich donated $1,000 in support of Prop 8, which made gay marriage
illegal in California.

~~~
cookiecaper
OK, thanks for the information. If there's a link to an HN thread or two about
that discovery/controversy, I'd be happy to see it.

Not sure why I'm getting downvoted for asking for more information, but such
is HN I guess.

~~~
Spittie
You're probably getting downvoted because this has been the "hot" topic of the
week, and so your comment appear as trollish.

Those are probably the "big" two threads about it:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7459529](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7459529)
and
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7475627](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7475627)

For more, you can just search his name on hn.angoia.com and sort by date:
[https://hn.algolia.com/?q=brendan#!/story/sort_by_date/0/bre...](https://hn.algolia.com/?q=brendan#!/story/sort_by_date/0/brendan)

------
lawnchair_larry
This statement is incompatible with the actions of the CEO. If the CEO doesn't
believe in the mission, this can never be more than lip service.

~~~
azakai
While it might be incompatible with an action he once took, (1) that was many
years ago, and (2) on the other hand in this statement and on his personal
blog he voiced support for inclusiveness and fair treatment of everyone, and
to follow that up with actions.

