
Brendan Eich of Mozilla gave $1000 to support gay marriage ban - evilswan
http://projects.latimes.com/prop8/donation/8930/
======
rjknight
I don't want to condemn Brendan Eich until I've heard his side of the story,
though I think he has almost certainly acted in a way that I can't approve of
here. I'm disappointed by his donation, though no more disappointed than I am
about any of the other donors - I don't expect higher standards of Brendan or
Mozilla than I would of anyone else, and I think that people condemning him
should remember that liking Mozilla's products is not contingent on liking the
personal politics of people who work for Mozilla.

His personal views have no bearing on the work that Mozilla does, or his work
as part of that. As a private individual he's entitled to his own views and to
support those views with his own money, and I personally believe that society
benefits from allowing a distinction between the personal and professional
spheres. _Brendan Eich the public figure_ should retain respect as a pivotal
figure in the development of the web, even if _Brendan Eich the private
individual_ holds views that some (though by no means _all_ ) people find
deeply objectionable.

------
hcatlin
As a programmer living in California whose foreign-same-sex-marriage is not
recognized by the state... I'm halfway to setting up a Mozilla boycott. It's
not Mozilla itself that gave the money, of course... its just their most
visible (and well paid) employee.

~~~
MatthewPhillips
You're entitled to boycott any company for any reason, however I would
encourage you to reconsider your position. This is what you are asking of
Mozilla:

1) To have a political position on this issue. 2) To enforce that political
position on all of its employees.

#1 is somewhat reasonable (that is, it's a bit abnormal for a company to have
a specific political position not related to their business but not completely
unheard of), but #2 is _very_ impractical and I would argue damaging.

~~~
malrase
I understand where you're coming from with point 2. It can be very damaging
for a company. Firing people because they're a Democrat or a Republican (or
forcing all your employees to vote for Romney or Santorum) is going to get you
in trouble, and quickly.

However, I believe the split here comes whether this is a "political issue" or
a "human rights issue". In my opinion, it's human rights. And I believe any
company should ensure that its employees are not fighting against equality. I
guess this also ties into equality for its employees. I assume there are LGBT
employees of Mozilla, and I think they must feel pretty uncomfortable right
now.

Unfortunately (again, in my opinion, etc.), it's treated as a political
standpoint, something that big parties can argue about. But it isn't - it's
about whether LGBT individuals have the same rights as straight people.

~~~
malrase
(Obviously, this instance can be taken solely as a political issue - donating
to a political campaign. However, I think the underlying human rights issue is
still there. This is an assumption. Mr Eich could have donated for purely
political reasons... but I find that difficult to comprehend.)

~~~
tzs
He could have donated for religious reasons. Prop. 8 was supported by the
Catholic Church, the Mormons, orthodox Jews, and many evangelical churches.

------
daeken
As a Mozilla employee that strongly supports the right of all persons to
marry, let me be the first to say: who the hell cares? At the end of the day,
what he believes doesn't matter to me or anyone else.

~~~
jjdsampson
I sincerely don't see the problem. I think those opposed to Prop 8 should
demonstrate a bit more tolerance to everybody who may not agree with them.

Now if the $1,000 went towards Westboro Baptist Church, so that they could
lash out and call people "faggots", then I would be a bit upset.

~~~
hcatlin
You and I might disagree on tax policy... that's fine! We might disagree on
flavors of ice cream too! We're still fine. But, when you say that I have no
right to call my husband my husband. And the very idea that I have a loving
relationship with him that the government might recognize and treat equally
with a same-sex couple. That very idea prompts you to go google for "nom",
then find the donation page, you then have to go get your wallet, you then
have to fill out the form on the site, then you type in the credit card number
(check it twice!), you then click donate. All of that action was precipitated
by the very thought of me and my husband being married. Remember, Prop 8
happened _after_ gay marriage was legal in California. I'm far less offended
by Westboro, because they have no concept of what they are doing. They
function in a crazy world that is separate from ours. To know that a fellow
language inventor has such feeling about _me_... that is hard to describe...
and is different than a normal political disagreeance.

~~~
petercooper
Maybe this is being overprecise and I share your viewpoint here, but singling
out Brendan is perhaps best left until he shares his side of the story. This
could be a mistake/error in accounting. I don't know how the US donation
system works and if that's likely at all, but..

Of course, if it isn't a mistake, I totally agree. I just find something
published by the LA Times to be.. well.. not a real guarantee of authenticity.

~~~
gergles
Maybe he accidentally gave them money twice:

[http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx...](http://cal-
access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1302592&session=2007&view=received&psort=NAME&page=5)

<http://puu.sh/nOlT>

------
underscor
This isn't really an HN topic, is it?

Also, anyone can fucking donate to whoever they want. Notice in the "name"
column it says "Brendan Elch", not "Mozilla, Inc." What he does with his money
is his business.

~~~
EvilTrout
It says "Mozilla" right beside his name. I think most people would have less
of an issue of he donated without stating his employer.

~~~
ubernostrum
In the US, currently, if an individual donates more than $200 to certain types
of political campaigns, that individual's name, address, occupation and
employer must be included in campaign finance disclosures. $1000 > $200, so
that's why the information is there.

As an aside: my previous job was in journalism, and generally in that field
there's a (self-enforced) ethical code against making such donations largely
because the employer's name is disclosed and could lead people to assume
endorsement by a news outlet.

------
eldude
The assumption here is that there's no legitimate reason for supporting a gay
marriage ban. Obviously A LOT of people disagree with that fundamental
assumption, otherwise the potential ban wouldn't exist.

Personally, you have to address why the government is involved in marriage at
all. From my understanding, it is for the purpose of encouraging the family
unit and the perpetuation of society through offspring. Gay people can't have
offspring unless you count lesbians and artificial insemination, but that
takes the conversation down a whole other tangent.

My main point simply being, there are non-human-rights justifications for not
endorsing / encouraging gay marriage, so judgment is premature.

~~~
petercooper
By that logic, people who are infertile, have certain disabilities, or who
don't plan to have children shouldn't be allowed to get married either. I'm
not convinced those are similarly good reasons to restrict marriage.

~~~
eldude
One is a passive granting of rights for a purpose, the other is an active
taking away of rights based on faulty reasoning.

Offering a conducive environment will always necessarily benefit others. If it
didn't it'd simply be called a reward. Gay marriage proponents obviously call
these assumptions into question, but unfortunately offer a worse alternative.

While there may be reasoning to support limiting marriage perks to those who
procreate, that only hurts their argument that those benefits should instead
be extended to gays who are least worth incentivizing.

There is no more infertile a couple than one that lacks the ability based not
on imperfections, but upon their intrinsic biology.

------
stadacona
Just removed Firefox for Ubuntu from my system. I've been using Firefox for 8
years under both Windows and Linux, and stuck with it despite all the bugs,
but this is outrageous. I won't miss it. Chrome is far better.

------
wglb
This would fall under the heading of "political discussion".

~~~
gergles
Yet amazingly the 40,000 "OH HAI SEXISM" posts that blanketed HN for the last
week don't?

~~~
prodigal_erik
That's at least arguing about whether or not the tech industry has a
widespread issue. This is singling out one guy (whose best-known work already
had a mixed reputation among nerds). Even if it turns out Mozilla really is
being run by a reactionary religious zealot, it doesn't seem to affect their
technical direction nor the use of their donated funds.

------
michaeld1948
Mr Eich's personal beliefs are of no consequence; when his personal beliefs
and his employer's name are connected, then there is a problem. I occasionally
have used Firefox for searches. Mr Eich's proud display of hatred, using the
Mozilla name on his contribution to Prop H8, contributes to my not using
Mozilla again!

~~~
ubernostrum
You may want to read this: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3795704>

