
Mozilla CEO Eich says gay-marriage firestorm could hurt Firefox - bpierre
http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/mozilla-ceo-gay-marriage-firestorm-could-hurt-firefox-cause-q-a/
======
seth1010
I'm still not sure why he feels so strongly about being inclusive of his
employees when he felt it necessary to help fund a bill that would do the
exact opposite to millions of people in California (including his employees).

There is no grey scale here. Either you think that people (regardless of their
sexual orientation) are equal, or you don't. You don't get to pick who to
assign rights to based on if they work for your company or not.

At this point, every time I see him say "everyone at mozilla is treated
fairly" it's obvious that he just doesn't want to commit career suicide while
also remaining a bigot.

~~~
001sky
_There is no grey scale here._

Please take this garbage elsewhere.

People are not bigots because they disagree with your special interest
politics.

~~~
jawngee
Equal rights and protections for all under the law are not special interest
politics, unless you are working under the guise that homosexuality is
something someone chooses.

But, I assume, you aren't that dumb.

~~~
jrs235
Equal treatment: Everyone is allowed to marry one person of the opposite sex.

Now some disagree that it should be "of the opposite sex" and instead want it
to be: Everyone is allowed to marry one person.

Soon the next special interest will come along and want it to be: Everyone is
allowed to marry one or more persons.

------
eik3_de
I wish I hadn't read the article.

He implicitly confirms his 2008 view. He says being against inclusiveness
actually _is_ inclusiveness. He says he's the best Mozilla CEO. He says that
much of Mozilla comes from Indonesia, where LGBT discrimination[1] seems to be
much more accepted.

I can't help but associate Firefox with Mozilla and Mozilla with it's head,
Mr. Eich. I wish I could only see the great people that stand behind Mozilla,
but atm when I look at the Firefox logo, I see the homophobe :(

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Indonesia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Indonesia)

------
sjwright
"If you had the opportunity to donate to a Proposition 8 cause today, would
you do so?"

"I hadn't thought about that. It seems that's a dead issue. I don't want to
answer hypotheticals."

I think that response speaks for itself.

While I don't feel comfortable lynching someone based on contextually
irrelevant beliefs, most of us see gay rights as an issue principally
comparable to issues of slavery and suffrage. It's the denying of rights to
"other people" for dubious reasons.

Hypothetically, if the CEO of another tech company was revealed to have
political interests in slavery, would we feel the need to tip-toe so
carefully?

~~~
joelrunyon
Slavery had economical consequences that aren't present in the current debate.
Slaves weren't just being denied rights, but they were being exploited for a
profit.

Visitation rights, marriage & tax benefits are relevant concerns in this
debate but comparing it to slavery really glosses over how terrible slavery
actually was.

~~~
byuu
I see it as the painfully slow march of human progress. Genocide was worse
than slavery, which was worse than internment, which was worse than misogyny,
which was worse than segregation, which was worse than anti-miscegenation,
which was worse than marriage inequality (as you could be jailed for it in
certain states.)

Marriage inequality is certainly not as bad as slavery, but it is definitely
the prevailing major civil rights issue of our time, at least in the US.

And once it's resolved, there will be a new rights issue that commands a
majority of interest: whether that be transgender rights, immigrant rights, or
something else.

To say that other things were worse, and diminish the importance of current
issues, is to diminish the great march of progress we are currently enjoying.

~~~
joelrunyon
I'm not that things were worse & this isn't important. That's not what the
parent commenter said or what I was refuting. He compared it directly to
slavery & that comparison / analogy is a poor one.

------
acjohnson55
In the grand scheme of things, our evidence that Brendan Eich is a raging
homophobe comes down to one 6 year old donation of $1000. Not a pattern of
actions at work, but one political action.

I support gay marriage today, but a decade ago, I didn't. I'm a bit ashamed to
admit that. It took a lot of time and a lot of incremental phases for me to
come around from someone who was openly opposed, to someone who tolerated, and
finally fairly recently to someone who actively supports gay relationships and
marriage. I'm still working on trying to bring my parents around to my point
of view. They espouse viewpoints I frankly find offensive today and I can
nearly guarantee that in the past they've donated more than $1000 to
organizations that oppose gay marriage. But I by no means think they're "bad
people". Eich is of my parents' generation, and I believe that empathy will
eventually win most of them over, not ultimatums.

To me, Mozilla has become an unfair target of convenience. A lot of people are
understandably still upset about Prop 8 and similar movements. But I think
people have chosen to open fire at Mozilla simply because it's a lot harder to
try to engage marriage equality opponents directly as people in a public way.

Clearly, it has worked to put the issue out in front, but I don't think it's
fair or ultimately productive. What's the endgame here? We can let the siege
continue against Mozilla, one of the few major players who really stands
behind the user. Maybe Eich will step down, and who knows what happens to
Mozilla. Maybe we'll get an insincere change of heart. But that's just a
victory for mob intimidation. I suppose maybe just maybe we'll get a sincere
reversal from Eich. He certainly seems sensitive to the pain he's caused. But
even if this happens, I don't know that the end would justify the means.

~~~
sanxiyn
I must correct you as a matter of fact.

"We're talking about a total of roughly $10,000 of donations over a period of
19 years, between 1991 and 2010. The man isn't being vilified over one
donation."

[http://tim.dreamwidth.org/1845008.html](http://tim.dreamwidth.org/1845008.html)

~~~
DanielStraight
You are deliberately taking that quote out of context to make a stronger
point. Eich gave money multiple times to particular _candidates_. Those
candidates may be opposed to homosexual marriage, but that in no way implies
that Eich's donation was for the purpose of blocking homosexual marriage. Eich
could have liked them for other reasons and not even known, or cared about,
their stance on marriage.

------
joelrunyon
Previous HN discussion (8 hours ago) -
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7512869](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7512869)

------
dredmorbius
While we're at it, there's good old Vic Gundotra at Google. He wrote in 2005

 _What about the people in the company who DON”T believe this is a human
rights issue? What about those people who believe homosexuality is a moral
/social issue? Should Ballmer just say these people are wrong? That “Microsoft
the corporation” has decided to take a stance on this social issue?...._

 _Should a CEO pick sides on an issue that is so divisive? Does being
"inclusive" and "diverse" suddenly stop when it involves views that are
different than the ones we hold?...._

 _I argue this is just exactly the same wrong you accuse the religious leader
of. You claim the preacher went beyond his walls. Well since when did a CEO
have the right to go well beyond his walls?...._

 _Social change should be initiated, and decided, outside the scope of
corporations._

[http://web.archive.org/web/20051119214319/http://vicgundotra...](http://web.archive.org/web/20051119214319/http://vicgundotra.com/RespondingToScoble.aspx)

------
ronaldx
So Eich recognises that "Mozilla is under a threat. We don't know how big" and
yet is "confident I am the best person for the job right now".

If that threat is real and (wholly or partly) stems from this controversy,
Eich as CEO could be the thing that kills Mozilla.

I'd say, based on his own words, he's not the best person for the job right
now.

~~~
rafe33
Just curious. What about when he was CTO? I agree his beliefs and actions are
gross, but why were their no calls for him to resign sooner?

~~~
ronaldx
Since you ask me: a CEO is the public representative of the company. It's also
their job to shape the company's directions and values.

~~~
sanxiyn
Eich doesn't seem interested in shaping Mozilla's value to be anti-LGBT.

I am an atheist, but I am okay with theistic CEOs as long as they don't try to
shape the company's value to be theistic. I do have a problem if CEO wants
company-wide religious ceremony.

~~~
hamax
What about a theistic CEO who would found a campaign against atheistic
marriage?

~~~
sanxiyn
What about a theistic colleague who would fund a campaign against atheistic
marriage? (More appropriate analogy would be someone who would fund the goal
of establishing a national religion.) Will I refuse to work with such
colleagues?

If the position is to be against someone-who-would-fund-blah as a CEO, but
okay as a colleague, this doesn't seem to help depriving the campaign blah
from being funded (as long as someone didn't plan to increase donation from
increased remuneration as a CEO). If the position is to be against someone-
who-would-fund-blah both as a CEO and a colleague, I am not sure I support
that position.

The main point being, while setting company-wide policy is greatly helped by
being CEO, funding campaigns is less so.

------
jmomo
This interview is absolutely damning.

Eich repeatedly uses the Mozilla Foundation as a shield to protect himself,
saying that Mozilla is being threatened, when it is he who is the cause of
these actions against Mozilla. He is showing that he has no qualms about using
the foundation to protect himself.

There is no longer a question that the man is a homophobe who believes in
using state power to enforce religious persecution on a specific minority
group. He says, "This group of people can't do this religious thing because it
offends me, and the state must prevent them from doing it." And, he voted for
it with his wallet, and affirmed that vote with this interview.

Marriage is a religious institution. My personal opinion is that the state has
no business being involved in marriage, including for reasons of taxes and
other special privileges. There are good historical reasons for these laws,
but they are no longer valid and we will need to change them, and can do so
without harm to any particular group (except for those who want to enforce
their own beliefs upon others, which is sadly common.)

CEO is a very particular position. It's the moral and character leadership
role of a company, and having a homophobe in this position is a serious
problem. For me, an intolerable problem.

------
kolme
Could? I think it's already hurting it, at least to a small extent.

Some users are already boycotting and some web pages (okcupid?) are displaying
a message to Firefox users.

I think Eich could be a great CEO (I like engineers as CEO's), but maybe
Mozilla should listen to the community and set an example of how FLOSS
companies should function in the 21st century.

A community poll would be really interesting to see.

~~~
mavdi
Who qualifies as community? I think a Mozilla vote is the better options. It's
up to them how they want to be seen by the world.

------
einhverfr
Inclusiveness is an interesting question. Does it include the solid majorities
in nations where getting married and having kids not only go together but are
how one prepares for retirement? In such countries, same-sex marriage is not
an issue and can't be raised until other things change. The relationship
between sexuality, marriage, and reproduction is different, _and I reject the
"human rights" argument which says basically we must push everyone on the
planet to accept modern American cultural structures regarding sexuality._

So I wonder. What does inclusiveness even mean when it comes to a global
effort like most open source software is today? How does the scale affect it?
Certainly Eich's donation is non-inclusive relative to the US, but it is more
inclusive globally than Google's efforts to push their agenda globally.

And how can one have inclusiveness when political dissent is punished?

~~~
nostromo
This argument, "to be inclusive, you must be inclusive of those who are not
inclusive" is tired. Rejecting bigotry does not make one a bigot.

To your main point, yes, homophobia is a global norm. So is racism. So is
sexism. That doesn't make them ok in Silicon Valley.

~~~
einhverfr
> That doesn't make them ok in Silicon Valley.

Yes, which is why I think that Eich was wrong, because this was a _California_
initiative.

But it is still less offensive than the racist white-mans-burden approach
Google is taking with this issue globally, assuming he resided in California
(if, OTOH, he resided in Washington State or anywhere else, it would be
similarly bad).

I would also totally take issue with the idea that homophobia is the norm and
this is why SSM is not recognized in most countries. The fact is that
marriage, reproduction, sexuality, and _retirement_ are tied together
differently in most countries than they are in the US today, and consequently
I don't think that modern American definitions of homophobia are very relevant
in most of the world. To hold the idea that _everyone should strive to have
kids they can retire with_ to be homophobic stretches the definition beyond
the breaking point, but that's the basis in almost all of the world. As social
security declines as a retirement option, maybe it will come back in the US,
but it isn't where we are now.

Similarly in much of the world, abortion is not seen as a human right for
similar reasons. Where sexuality, reproduction, marriage, and retirement are
closely bound, many of these issues are very, very different, and this is why
treating divisive issues as human rights is very, _very_ wrong.

------
mavdi
Eich seems like a lovely chap, I didn't really know about his donation. That
sadly qualifies him as a homophobe, once thing is disagreeing with gay
marriage, another is actively donating the cause to ban it.

On the other hand, I find some of the reaction silly. OKCupid for instance.
Firefox is the work of hundreds of people, taking a brush and striking them
all off isn't right. What best is that this is left to Mozilla, let them
handle this.

~~~
mercurial
> That sadly qualifies him as a homophobe, once thing is disagreeing with gay
> marriage, another is actively donating the cause to ban it.

All the difference is in how much you value your money. I'm not sure if it
makes him a homophobe, really, or somebody taking his interpretation of
religious texts (assuming that's the reason) too seriously.

That said, the current witch hunt leaves me uncomfortable.

~~~
iSnow
>All the difference is in how much you value your money

No, the difference is in holding an opinion vs. using the existing power that
money confers to deny equal rights to a group of people.

~~~
mercurial
I'm talking in terms of personal investment from the point of view of the
donor, not in terms of practical effects.

------
throwwwawwway
Whether Eich stays or goes, every person who values their career will hesitate
in future to donate to, or publicly support, anti-LGBT causes. I don't know if
that is an intentional goal of his public pillorying, but it will certainly be
its most effective outcome.

------
iSnow
>he disagreed with the assertion that being opposed to gay-marriage rights is
equivalent to being sexist or racist

Well of course, no one ever proudly confesses to being a bigot, homophobe,
sexist or racist.

"No, supporting Apartheid does not make me racist, I don't hate blacks, some
of my best friends are black. I just believe blacks and whites better live in
different quarters"

Mozilla just got a lot less appealing.

------
aashishkoirala
The article says he "invented JavaScript." Anyone know if this is accurate?

~~~
davidgerard
If only there were a popular and wide-ranging Internet-based encyclopedia
available ...

------
TausAmmer
So, one group(person) is attacking another group(person) based on beliefs.
What is the difference?

~~~
don_draper
Some would call him a bigot, not just someone with a different opinion.
Marriage can be a great thing and he wants to deny that to some people.

~~~
001sky
_Full Definition of BIGOT : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly
devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who
regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with
hatred and intolerance_

People need to check themselves in the mirror with their use of language.
Voting in a lawful election and supporting lawful candidates or ballot issues
does not in any way resemble the definition of a Bigot.

However, the hate going on here...based on such flimsy evidence...actually
looks a lot closer to meeting the threshold test. It is obstinant and
intolerant and disproportionate.

Cue the Irony.

~~~
don_draper
[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot](http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/bigot)

"a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group
(such as a racial or religious group)"

He refuses to accept gay people as equals. He things gay marriage is an
abomination to his religion. That's hateful if you ask me.

~~~
001sky
_That_ link actually reads:

 _big·ot noun \ˈbi-gət\

: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a
bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the
members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

Full Definition of BIGOT : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted
to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or
treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and
intolerance._

------
puppetmaster3
it is ridiculous when employees have an ax to grind at work, for example their
politics or sexuality. at work, focus on work.

~~~
dalanmiller
It's not ridiculous at all. Where we spend our time and energy matters. I
cannot imagine the frustration I would feel being gay and working at Mozilla
knowing that the new CEO donated money to block the opportunity for me to be
married to my longtime partner. I just don't think that it would be possible
to continue work like nothing was wrong after that.

~~~
alandarev
That is a good and valid point. Interestingly, the opposite might hold as well
- gay opposition would not work for a gay CEO.

Wouldn't it be better if political opinions like that stayed private, so that
people can work with each other?

~~~
Drakim
People who are opposed to homosexuality and gay marriage can simply not be
homosexual and not get a gay marriage. They can literally throw their hands up
in the air and say "I don't want any part of this topic" and go on with their
life, ignoring it. Just like how somebody who isn't for interracial marriage
can simply marry a person of their own race, or somebody who isn't for
marriage at all can simply not get married.

Gay people don't have that luxury, because the issue being discussed concerns
their actual personal rights. Wether it's gay marriage, adoption or anti-
soddomy laws, it's things that affect them no matter if they want to be part
of the debate or not. They cannot throw up their arms and go on with their
life, because they can now not get married, not adopt children, and so on.

It's easy to say that they should keep their private life out of politics, but
politics has forced their private life into the spotlight.

