
 Gay Firefox developers boycott Mozilla to protest CEO hire - line-zero
http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/03/gay-firefox-developers-boycott-mozilla-to-protest-ceo-hire/
======
HillRat
They _should_ be protesting the fact that he's the person responsible for
JavaScript. (Hey, don't forget to tip your waitress and try the veal!)

More seriously, there's the open question as to whether a career technologist
is the right person for the CEO slot, especially since he appears to still be
in the trenches when it comes to projects like Rust.

Beyond that, this is a cautionary tale for potential CEOs -- within reason,
you can give money to politicians and money to foundations, but once you start
giving money to specific political causes you're risking a firestorm, and
rightfully so. While MoCo isn't exactly a Chik-Fil-A or Hobby Lobby, this is
the sort of the thing that causes PR flacks to either wake up in a cold sweat
(if they're employees) or start planning the color of their new Aventador (if
on agency contract).

~~~
ben0x539
I'm not sure Eich is particularly involved with Rust (anymore?) beyond having
his name on some recent related press release.

~~~
kibwen
Eich hasn't been involved in Rust for the three years that I've been watching
the project. Whether he was involved before that, I don't know, but given the
primitive and under-the-radar state of pre-2011 Rust it seems unlikely.

------
jack-r-abbit
Meh. Prop 8 passed the people's vote with 7,001,084 Californians voting in
favor of it and 6,401,482 voting against. Are we to start boycotting every
company that employs one of those 7 million people?

I'm glad it was made right in the end and I hope at least some of those 7
million people have changed their opinion... but I don't think we need to keep
dwelling on it.

~~~
redbad
1\. There is a difference between voting for something and funding it.

2\. There is a difference between being employed by a company and being its
CEO.

3\. These differences are significant.

~~~
javert
I strongly disagree with #1.

~~~
zorpner
Really? Because one is a private and one is a public act, and you might hope a
potential CEO would understand that difference.

------
ender7
If this were any other company I don't think this would turn any heads.
However, much of Mozilla's ethos and community support is built on ethical
rather than capitalistic foundations. It's hard to reconcile thoughts on a
company that seems to so value freedom in some areas but not in others [1].

[1] Inferring what Mozilla values based on the opinions of its CEO is not
particularly _fair_ , but then again I'm not sure it's unfair either.

~~~
wodenokoto
I think the not in "but not in others" is over-qualifying.

Saying that Mozilla does not value gay rights because of 1000 dollars, donated
once, indirectly associated with Mozilla is a crazy given how much they
actually spend directly on supporting the cause yearly.

I'm not saying that a care package for 1.000 dollars negates Eichs
contribution. But you can't say they don't value gay rights either.

~~~
hugi
What type of person you choose to head your operations obviously reflects your
ideals.

It really doesn't matter if Mr. Eich donated 1000 dollars or a million
dollars, he opposes basic human rights. And apparently Mozilla is fine with
that.

~~~
hkphooey
This is silly, almost fascist.

What next?

If a person doesn't donate to a campaign supporting gay marriage, does that
mean the person is a bigot and homophobic?

~~~
eropple
How about a guy who donates to people who _are_ homophobic bigots and who make
being homophobic bigots a central part of their schtick? Like this guy, who
Eich donated money to (it's on OpenSecrets):
[http://www.tommcclintock.com/press-releases/mcclintock-
calle...](http://www.tommcclintock.com/press-releases/mcclintock-called-the-
california-supreme-courts-decision-to-permit-gay-marriage-a-tra)

There's a pattern here. This issue is one that's important to Eich. I will
certainly judge him on that and judge those who empower him and there's
absolutely nothing _fascist_ about exercising my freedom of association.

------
lawl
I totally see how this could upset people. But I'm not sure how his management
qualities are tied to his political opinions.

It's the same with politicans, what the fuck has an affair to do with their
political views?

I 100% support gay marriage. I also understand they're upset. But I don't know
if this is the right reaction.

~~~
Karellen
"what the fuck has an affair to do with their political views?"

Uh, integrity? If a politician won't keep probably the most solemn vow they've
ever made, to the person they were most committed to in their life, in front
of all the other people they care about most, why the fuck do you think
they'll keep some fucking campaign promise to you and a bunch of other
faceless citizens they've never met to make your lives better, instead of
taking a backhander from some lobbyist to fuck you all over instead?

And if they're not going to keep their campaign promises (yeah, yeah, no need
to point out the incredible naïvety of that particular "if") then why _should_
you let them stay in a position of power that they can use to better
themselves at your expense? Boot them out, get the next one in, and keep doing
it until they learn the lesson that we fucking demand better.

I don't know what kind of world you _want_ to live in, but one where we've
already given up and don't even try to maintain a pretense of holding our
politicians to account for their honesty isn't the one I'm going for.

~~~
lawl
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_marriage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_marriage)

Just saying... Making public you're in an open relationship will kill your
career as a politican just as fast, wanna bet?

~~~
Zigurd
That's a terrible example. It would only be a career killer among people with
a propensity toward intolerance. And there are plenty of places, some of which
are represented by politicians with unconventional relationships, that don't
care.

------
steve19
tolerance is a two way street. would it be OK for conservative muslims to
protest a gay CEO? no. in a democracy and in a world with many differing
points of view at some point you just have to tolerate each others beliefs,
regardless of how much you oppose them, and just get along.

edit: and now my words are being twisted. I never said being gay was a belief.
what one person thinks of a proposed law is a belief.

edit edit: tolerance is not "I am OK with the gays but will never freely
associate with one of them" nor is "I am tolerant of his views on gay marriage
but I hate him and will never have anything to do with him".

tolerance is" I hate what you think/belive/lifestyle/god/wear but I won't hold
it against you". my sister frequently nurses racists who are very rude to her.
she tolerates then as gives them as good care as she gives anyone else. that
is tolerance.

welcome to democracy. people have different opinion. they have different
religious beliefs and different upbringing. just get along people.

~~~
oneeyedpigeon
Being gay isn't a belief.

~~~
hkphooey
If it's not a choice or a belief, is it genetic?

~~~
woofyman
In my personal experience as a gay man it's not a choice. It may or not be
genetic but it's definitely innate.

~~~
sockypuppy
If people don't choose their sex partners, why is rape a crime?

------
jkelsey
I'm trying to keep this in perspective with all the massively positive things
that Mozilla has done over the years. I've used Firefox all the time,
proclaimed the value of Mozilla to others, and even donated to Mozilla.
Regardless, I'm having a hard time getting past this. I started up Firefox
this morning, and almost immediately, I felt dirty. I closed it and switched
over to Chromium.

I can't buy the argument that it's just his personal political opinion and
that the type of inclusion that Mozilla wants to have requires a large
ecosystem of diverse opinions. Perhaps on issues like income inequality,
taxation, foreign policy. Hell, if this was about him being a massive gun-
rights advocate, I could see myself budging on not letting it bother me like
this.

Sorry, but human rights are human rights, and contributing to a effort to deny
a group of people a right that everybody else enjoys based simply on their
sexual orientation, gender, ethnicity, or culture is as disgusting a human
behavioral trait as it comes. It needs to rooted out from our collective human
identity.

I don't necessarily want to see Eich removed. His contributions to free and
open source software are incredibly significant and deserve praise. However,
simply pointing out Mozilla's health care policies isn't going to cut it.
Without anything more significant, an apology or something, I'm just going to
see Firefox and Mozilla as tarnish under a shade of bigotry. It's not a
purposeful perspective, or something I will enjoy, but I can't just let this
slide away like it's nothing.

~~~
joyeuse6701
Will you boycott every company that has an employee that has belief that isn't
yours? Isn't that the definition of intolerance? One of those things, I guess,
can't tolerate the intolerant =).

~~~
jkelsey
No, that's not what I argued. I agree with the notion that there's room for
honest political disagreements within a community. However, I consider equal
treatment of LGBT people to be a human right, and human rights don't fall
under the spectrum of honest political disagreements.

Honest political disagreement are about the _hows_ of accomplishing the
humanity's goals of equal liberty and justice for all. Anti-marriage-equality
advocates are about the _outcome_ of said equal liberty and justice; that is,
preventing it for LGBT people and treating them as second-class citizens.

> One of those things, I guess, can't tolerate the intolerant =).

That's not accurate. I can tolerate the intolerant. I'm not asking for their
civil liberties to be taken away like Prop 8 attempted to take away from LGBT
people.

All I'm stating that I'm not going to be as supportive and praise of Mozilla
and Firefox as I used to be. Don't get me wrong, Mozilla is still a great
organization made up of wonderful people, and the whole organization shouldn't
be ruined by the actions of one member. But that this one person now is the
head of the organization tarnished it significantly.

------
yuchi
Gosh. I’m really upset not by the news about Eich as the new CEO, but about
learning that such an idol in my life is anti-LGTB. I really hate this kind of
situations.

~~~
katowulf
Maybe it would be appropriate to ask him why he was against it before deciding
he's anti-LGTB. I'd imagine that, being an intelligent and capable human
being, he deserves the consideration of hearing his case before you knock him
off the pedestal.

~~~
alxndr
TFA links to his 2012 personal statement:
[https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-
diversity/](https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/)

~~~
mikeash
Sadly, he doesn't explain himself _at all_. He says he has no animosity, but
provides no explanation for how such a thing could be done without it.

I imagine he thinks he has a sound, non-hateful reasoning behind his position
which will not be taken as such if discussed. In context, I'd guess he's
_probably_ wrong about it being sound and non-hateful. Often, being unwilling
to discuss one's positions is part of your brain trying to tell the rest of
you that you've got it wrong. Not always, obviously, but I'd say it's the way
to bet.

In any case, if you're willing to make a public stand on something (and given
the political finance laws he donated under, it qualifies as a public stand)
then you should be willing to discuss your stand. If he's not willing to
discuss it then we don't necessarily have to assume the very best.

~~~
bzbarsky
Note that the linked-to article explicitly says he's willing to discuss this
in private, and Brendan _does_ answer his mail. You're obviously under no
obligation to do so, but you if you care to find out what he was thinking you
could contact him and ask.

I _do_ wish he were willing to discuss this in public, though. People talking
to him one on one obviously doesn't scale.

------
DanielBMarkham
I am very sorry that some people are upset with the political opinions of
other people.

Now can somebody get this political bullshit off the front page of HN? Please?
Nothing productive can come from a logical and reasonable conversation with
people who are, by definition, very upset. Half the posts here are "hell
yeah!" and the other half are baiting arguments from others who feel
impassioned by the issue. Not a good topic.

~~~
tptacek
This issue is uncomfortably political for HN, but I feel like I should chime
in to say that HN is clearly not split down the middle about support for
Eich's political position. I haven't seen a single comment defending it.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
I'll happily defend the man's right to hold all sorts of inappropriate and
unpopular opinions. Do we want the tech community to be some kind of PC witch
hunt, where people who say or do unpopular things will be banned from
employment?

If that's the case, then that's wrong -- and it hurts the tech community at
large for it to be that way.

This is a witch hunt. It may be a witch hunt for good reasons, and for a cause
I support (which I do), but let's get it clear: people are protesting because
somebody has a job that has opinions they don't like. That's not a healthy
attitude for any community and any job.

I don't care if the man's a nazi. We live in a free country where _diversity
of opinion, problem-solving skills, and life experiences_ are invaluable for
creative and productive team performance. This kind of thing is horrible and
detestable, no matter what the man thinks in private.

If he's a criminal, fire him. If he proposes some policy that is bad for his
company, fire him. If he has some personality defect that is bringing harm to
Mozilla's name, fire him.

Otherwise? Leave him alone and let him do his job.

~~~
mikeash
I believe they're protesting not his opinions, but his efforts to have his
opinions turned into laws.

It's one thing to be against gay marriage. It's quite another to spend one's
own money on outlawing it.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
So let's play this through in an imaginary scenario.

Next year I decide I like my neighbor, who's running for governor in the
American Nazi party. I write him a check for $500.

So now I can't work in the tech industry? Really? And this makes sense to
folks?

So you're saying _thinking_ is okay, but _acting_ is not. So is there some
list of things I can and can't do and expect to have a job? Or is it just made
up off-the-cuff by anybody with an internet search and an axe to grind?

Do you realize how chilling this is? We're going to raise an entire generation
of tech leadership who are acutely tuned never to do anything publicly that
might indicate they have an opinion -- and are smart enough to hold all their
real feelings inside, no matter how terrible. It's bad for those folks, it's
bad for the industry, and it's bad for the rest of us. It's just bad all the
way around.

We all have to vote the same way, give money to the same causes, say the same
things -- or face collective group punishment. And this seems sane?

~~~
mikeash
Please come up with a different scenario, because you're never going to
convince me that it's wrong to try to discourage you from putting me in a
concentration camp, or taking any steps to put in power someone who would.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Sure, discourage me. Come out in the public square and let's have it out. You
use your powers of free speech and persuasion and convince me I'm wrong. If I
feel strongly about my opinions, I'll do the same to try to persuade you that
you're wrong. Democracy at work.

Start poking around to find whatever job I have and then try to get me fired?
Really? That counts as "discouragement" in your book?

You realize, of course, that there are some folks with really nasty opinions
out there, folks who would do all the things you mention. Folks who would
bring back slavery. And so on.

I must have missed the big public outrage over these folks where we try to get
them fired and otherwise interfere with their personal and work lives because
of their political opinions. I also missed the part where this became
acceptable behavior.

~~~
mikeash
As a practical matter, the less money you have, the less you can fund your
attempts to have me killed.

~~~
twoodfin
What about folks who think substantial U.S. carbon emission restrictions
aren't a smart or effective policy and politically donate to that effect?
There are likely a lot of people here who believe passionately that such
inaction will lead to an uninhabitable planet. Serious, life-and-death stuff.
Worth trying to get someone fired from their tech job?

~~~
mikeash
I think there's a big difference that comes down to motivation. Somebody who
tries to get a Nazi elected wants, at some level, for me to die. Thus, I
cannot trust them to treat me well.

Similarly, somebody who tries to get a gay marriage ban passed thinks that
consenting adults should be prevented from marrying, and since there are no
good rational reasons to do that (it's possible that there are some, but none
have ever been presented to me, and there has been opportunity) then it
indicates not only a prejudice against homosexuals, but a willingness to
interfere in their lives. Again, they can't be trusted to treat homosexuals
well in other contexts where they might have power.

Somebody who fights against carbon emission restrictions isn't doing it
because they want the planet to die. Instead, they have examined the
information and come to a different conclusion. You might say it's the _wrong_
conclusion, and I'd completely agree with that, but that is ultimately a
failure of brainpower rather than of motivations. They presumably have good
reasons for why they act that way, which means they can be reasoned _with_.
That makes it much more feasible to deal with them, and ultimately makes them
much less harmful.

~~~
SamReidHughes
How about people that donate to fight the existence of polyamorous marriage
licenses? Do you want to get them fired?

> there are no good rational reasons to do that

If you lived in the south bay area like I do, you'd suffer far more oppression
from people with houses that oppose any and all kinds of development, than you
would from the government not recognizing gay marriage (if you were gay).
These people cost me thousands of dollars per year, and they make poorer
people even worse off, driving them out of high-rent communities into far more
dangerous areas and making them spend time and energy commuting. If some home-
owner from west of El Camino that donated to the "Residents First" candidate's
campaign in the Mountain View city elections became the CEO of Mozilla, how
should I feel then? His cause is based in purely wicked selfishness, not some
arbitrary nonsensical moral axioms or reasoning that you might call
irrational.

At least Eich donated against Prop. 8 because he thought it was the right
thing to do. He didn't gain any personal benefit from that donation -- it was
at quite direct harm to himself (to the tune of $1000). That donation is
actually a positive sign of moral character, relative to most people's bland
non-contributing apathy. He just has bad moral axioms or couldn't think about
this matter rationally.

> Again, they can't be trusted to treat homosexuals well in other contexts
> where they might have power.

I don't think you have an accurate model of how the average pious Christian
that lives in California would behave (assuming that's the root cause of
Eich's choices). You've come to false conclusions about what donating to anti-
gay-marriage causes implies about one's personal attitude towards gay people.
I'm sure there's some form of hypothetical marriage license that you wouldn't
be in favor of, but that doesn't mean you're bigoted against those people. The
state doesn't approve of anything but nuclear family marriage and its same-sex
facsimile. I don't think that you'd be evil or couldn't be reasoned with if
you believed that the state should encourage this social structure, it's just
that your moral axioms or your views on what marriage is for are (probably)
different than mine.

Actually, I'm just trying to be persuasive. The real reason you're wrong is
that your opinion is built on your delusion that you and other people have
free will, specifically, that of Eich having it. Going from the free will to
no-free-will perspective, your attitude towards Eich maps to an attitude
towards the universe being imperfect. So it happens to be imperfect in a way
visible at the top of Mozilla. Big whoop.

~~~
mikeash
Your distinction between selfless and selfish actors is interesting, because I
reach the opposite conclusion. In my opinion, the most dangerous and
frightening people _by far_ are those who sacrifice in order to hurt others.
Most people are selfish. I can understand them and I can deal with them. If I
need something from them, I just have to figure out what they would want that
they value more than what I want, and arrange a trade.

I can't understand your last paragraph at all. I'm not sure that free will is
even a coherent concept, let alone a real thing, but I also don't see how one
can possibly live without _assuming_ it.

------
Camillo
I'd like to urge everyone to consider whether it's a good idea to comment on
this story. If you voice an opinion in support of Eich, obviously that's going
to be a liability in the future. But voicing an opinion against him is also a
liability - there is no telling how the zeitgeist might change ten or twenty
years from now. I think it's best to voice no opinion at all - and I hope this
comment is not misconstrued as support for any particular position.

~~~
kefka
And I would argue that fighting against marriage rights (for LGBT) is our
version of Jim Crow laws. History will show that people; all people deserve
equal rights and protections under the law. Desegregation took decades, and
arguably still isn't completely successful, given laws that disproportionately
target black communities.

And this isn't about a church refusing to marry someone because of their
sexuality. This is about governmental rights and legal rights conferred to
married couples.

Or on a more dour note: What happens if a homosexual couple moves to a state
that bans that practice, and they choose to divorce?

That's why this stuff is important.

~~~
drone
If it's important, shouldn't people be able to have a conversation, and fund a
conversation?

The supreme court has equated financial contribution with speech, and many of
us agree with that position.

Therefore, we can only see this as an attempt to ostracize and attack anyone
who speaks to the opposite side. This action is chilling on speech, which is
exactly what the OP was talking about. Just because you don't see it that way,
doesn't mean it isn't, and won't be perceived by others that way.

I think proposition 8 was the wrong thing, promoted for bad reasons and on the
wrong side of where society needs to be, but I also happen to feel that this
attempt to quash any possibility of opposing free speech by ensuring to mob
anyone who rises to the top having once taken a view we don't agree with as
far more dangerous and harmful for our society than prop 8 could ever have
been. It enforces positions without the liberty of allowing speech, and
without the ability to challenge in court, as bad laws do.

~~~
kefka
> The supreme court has equated financial contribution with speech, and many
> of us agree with that position.

I think this is the root issue here. SCOTUS declared by fiat that financial
contribution is speech. According to our law, it is now.

The people do not see that the same way. Giving lip service is speech, while
money is altogether something different. What it is, I do not know.

And it seems much more akin to "buying laws", which I think many people find
something terribly wrong in our government today.

~~~
drone
While there are situations where the exercising of speech in that manner can
cause harm (e.g. very large contributions to politicians), I believe that harm
is outweighed by the good. No on can outlaw me donating to the EFF, or other
charitable organizations, which would most certainly happen when it suits the
lawmakers' purposes, given that it is enshrined as speech and protected by the
1st amendment. Just like the first amendment protects hateful speech, it also
protects beneficial and helpful speech. Perhaps you're not thinking of Buckley
v. Valeo, but instead of Citizens United, that countered that speech could not
be restricted because it was done by a corporation. I am not venturing into
that territory here.

There is almost always some harm done by liberty, that is the pain of
humanity. There is much further harm done when we restrict liberty to protect
the senses. That is my opinion, and I am as surely unlikely to be swayed from
it as you are yours.

~~~
kefka
I was not up on my case law regarding Buckley v. Valeo, but I do remember now
after having looked it up. Unfortunately, I don't have the legal backbone to
discuss case law proper. I was trying to discuss more akin to philosopher
language.

After having slept on why money in politics bothers me, I think I can better
explain why it does.

Normally, a vote from me counts as the same as a vote from any resident in
Indiana. And I can extrapolate that to show that my vote is pretty much equal
to any citizen in the US. When we add money, it changes that "1 person, 1
vote" to "1 rich person, lots of votes: 1 poor person, 1 vote"

When we distill that down, we are saying that a rich person is much more
important than an average income person, or even that homeless indigent voters
are worthless. That doesn't sit right with me.

------
xupybd
I understand why people could get offended about this. But as I understand it
most who oppose this have a religious reason to do so. Now religion is as
deeply person and important to a person as is the right to marry. So where do
we draw the line on what we allow others to think, believe or support?

As a for instance my Aunty is vegan and is offended that I or any one else
would ever eat meat. And I know eating meat is much less of an issue, but I
support her right to oppose the eating of meat. She has would vote against my
ability to eat meat. But my response would not be to attack her as a person
but simply vote in the opposite direction.

On the other end I can see why a Jewish person living in Nazi Germany would
have attached Hitler and the Nazi party at any chance they got.

But is there a middle ground?

~~~
smirksirlot
Just because your religion says so doesn't mean I have to follow it. I'm not
trying to make you change your religion - you can live the way you want - but
that is _not_ the way I want.

The appropriate middle ground is just that. You can be as religious as you
want, tell me that I live in sin etc., but you don't get to force me to not be
with the person I love. Similarly, I don't get to force legislation to make
everyone atheist.

~~~
xupybd
I think you miss the point. I am trying to get a discussion on where we draw
the line on how we assert our political beliefs in everyday life.

For instance there has been talk here on the freedom of association. I support
that to a degree. But not to the degree where I would want society to allow a
shop keeper to only serve straight white males. But I would want a society
that allows a church/temple/(name your religious building) to discriminate on
not marrying people from outside of that faith.

This article got me thinking why have I drawn these lines. And wanted to open
a discussion on how we decide when is it okay to limit someone's freedoms. I
think the majority are saying lets try to prevent this guys ability to work
for this company. Because he wants to limit who can marry who. But why is one
okay and not the other? I'm not trying to take either side I'm just trying to
ask why.

------
vezzy-fnord
I think people would be much more serene if they stopped idolizing certain
programmers, computer scientists and tech people in general as demigods. As
influential, intelligent and wise as they may be, they are quite fallible, and
their political views are very likely to be a volatile mess, like most other
people.

If it's any consolation, there has yet to be a cult tech figure who is a neo-
Nazi/white nationalist or anything of the sort. Or am I wrong?

The world would be a much better place if we could learn to separate the
artist's work from the artist's personal deeds and opinions. Otherwise you'd
probably be unable to enjoy anything made before the 20th century.

~~~
bsder
> The world would be a much better place if we could learn to separate the
> artist's work from the artist's personal deeds and opinions.

In what way does that make the world a better place?

Why should we celebrate an artist who does shitty things when there is almost
certainly someone equally as talented who does not?

~~~
wyclif
Let me know when you're going to start boycotting Picasso paintings.

~~~
nknighthb
Why would I need to boycott something I have no use for in the first place?

------
smoyer
I don't support gay-marriage either ... I've said it before and I'll repeat it
again (if necessary). My religious beliefs hold that marriage is between a man
and a woman, and I choose to follow my religion because it's something I feel
deeply about. Asking me to compromise my religious beliefs or be called
homophobic (I'm not), full of hatred (I'm not) or even biased (I'm not) just
isn't fair.

I've got friends that live an alternative life-style, and I can discuss this
sanely with them. We don't have to agree on everything to be friends and we
certainly don't agree on whether their lifestyle can be aligned with my
religious beliefs, but we also don't make it the focal point of our
relationship.

I've never said I was against the various domestic partnership rules that
allow equal insurance, tax breaks and other benefits to committed partners.
I'm simply not willing to use the word marriage to describe the relationship.

So when I see all the commotion about a measly $1000 donation to support
proposition 8 in CA, I wonder why anyone is actually wasting their time on a
protest. I don't think that Eich is filled with hatred ... I suspect he barely
thinks about it at all. But why is it okay when the hatred is directed at him?
Why are people so consumed by the issue that they give up vast amounts of
their time and energy?

I can live without hating ... can you?

P.S. I'll admit that there are probably things and people in the world that
are worth hating.

~~~
mikeyouse
You mentioned a key part of your moral defense:

    
    
        I've never said I was against the various domestic
        partnership rules that allow equal insurance, tax breaks
        and other benefits to committed partners.
    

That's where you and Eich differ. By donating to the Prop-8 campaign, he was
directly supporting state-sponsored discrimination. It goes past personal
beliefs when you take steps to strip others of their rights.

------
mindslight
Oh cuil, it's apparently time for the entitled mob to direct its groupthink
towards tearing down one of the rare worthwhile software companies.

~~~
oneeyedpigeon
Sorry, can you explain exactly where the bar is set to determine how
'worthwhile' a software company has to be before we turn a blind eye to their
having a homophobic CEO?

~~~
michaelwww
I am for gay marraige. Eich is against it. These facts don't necessarily make
me a homophile or Eich a homophobe. We have differing views on what marraige
means.

------
oddshocks
Solidarity with all developers planning to protest

------
badman_ting
Why does rarebit pulling their app represent a lack if respect for personal
beliefs? Why is it ok for Eich to do what he will but not ok for others to act
in response to that? That's bullshit.

Actions have consequences. __Actions have consequences. __

------
Houshalter
I don't get why his personal views have anything to do with the business. This
is an absurd non-issue.

------
jbeja
Is sad. Just when i was going to learn JS.

~~~
Bahamut
What the heck does this have to do with JS?

~~~
gtremper
He invented Javascript.

~~~
Bahamut
I know that part, but boycotting the language he created over 10 years ago &
doesn't actively develop is a stretch is more what I was getting at.

~~~
gtremper
I think he was being a bit facetious.

~~~
jbeja
I wasn't :).

------
sockypuppy

        s/LGBT-friendly/orthodox/
        s/hateful/heretical/
    

And we thought we were over the sloppy thinking habits that lead to forceful
suppression of unpopular viewpoints...

------
lexcorvus
There's a common wrong argument against this sort of boycott, but its
comparably common rebuttal is subtly wrong as well.

 _common wrong argument_ : This is a violation of Eich's freedom of speech.

 _subtly wrong rebuttal_ : The First Amendment protects you against government
infringement of free speech (including campaign donations, since money is
"speech"), but it doesn't protect you against the social consequences of that
speech.

While true on its surface, the reason this rebuttal is subtly wrong is that it
ignores a critical distinction, which is that, as a "protected class", _gays
are privileged under the law_. This means that you are especially vulnerable
to being sued for violating their rights. As Mencius Moldbug put it in the
context of McCarthyism and the anti-Communist Red Scare [1]:

"[M]ost of what we call 'McCarthyism' was a matter of 'social consequences.'
Besides, the social consequences work for one and only one reason: there's an
iron fist in the velvet glove. Being sued for disrespecting a privileged
class—excuse me, a _protected_ class—is not in any way a social consequence,
but rather a _political_ one."

To appreciate the asymmetry, imagine a counterfactual reality in which Eich
donated _against_ of Prop. 8 instead of for it. In this context, suppose he
made a comment in the workplace about his support for gay marriage. Suppose
further that some Mozilla employees, who happened to vigorously _oppose_ gay
marriage, sued on the grounds of a "hostile working environment". Such a
lawsuit would have _no chance of success_. In contrast, in the real reality we
actually live in, Eich will now have to monitor his workplace speech very
carefully—one wrong word about gay marriage could be all it takes to
precipitate a lawsuit against him and the Mozilla Foundation. It would be
unwise to underestimate the chances of such a suit's success.

In the counterfactual universe, a pro–gay marriage Eich might still face a
boycott or protests, but they would be _incomparably weaker_ because non-gays
are not a protected class. Whereas in real reality, the "social consequences"
of a boycott are supported by _the full power of the US Federal Government_.
For obvious reasons, such boycotts have a habit of succeeding.

[1]: [Technology, communism, and the Brown Scare]([http://unqualified-
reservations.blogspot.com/2013/09/technol...](http://unqualified-
reservations.blogspot.com/2013/09/technology-communism-and-brown-scare.html))

~~~
mikeash
Non-gays are absolutely a protected class. Sexual orientation is what's
protected, not a _particular_ orientation.

A business that discriminates against straight people is just as liable under
the law as a business that discriminates against gay people. (This is not, as
I understand it, currently illegal under federal law. Many states outlaw it,
though.)

The problem is that you see Prop 8 as symmetrical, but it is not. Prop 8 is an
attempt to remove rights from a group of people. Opposing prop 8 is not an
attempt to remove rights from other people, but rather to grant them to
everyone.

The proper analogy would be a hypothetical Prop 88 which seeks to ban straight
marriage while allowing gay marriage. Ignoring the complete impossibility of
such a thing ever going anywhere, donating money to support the passage of
such a proposition would rightfully attract a great deal of negative
attention.

~~~
lexcorvus
_Sexual orientation is what 's protected_

Right—same with race, creed, and gender. That's the theory, at least. How
fearful do you expect, say, the Super Bowl–winning Seattle Seahawks are of a
lawsuit alleging racial discrimination on the grounds that its defensive squad
is biased against non-blacks?

[http://fantasyfootballwarehouse.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/...](http://fantasyfootballwarehouse.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/07/seahawks.jpg?260551)

In practice, the treatment of "underrepresented" minorities vs.
"overrepresented" groups is almost completely asymmetric.

 _Prop 8 is an attempt to remove rights from a group of people._

You can't remove a right that doesn't exist. Even if you're generally
sympathetic to gay rights (as I am), the idea that the framers of the
California state constitution intended to protect the right of two men (or two
women) to marry each other is risible.

 _The proper analogy would be a hypothetical Prop 88 which seeks to ban
straight marriage while allowing gay marriage._

You're assuming that gay marriage and straight marriage are equally valid
relationships. This may be true, but the whole point of Prop. 8 was an
explicit rejection of this premise. By positing a symmetry between gay and
straight marriage, you're simply begging the question.

~~~
mikeash
It's not "begging the question", it's simple logic.

If Elsa can marry Joe, but Steve cannot marry Joe, and this is purely because
Elsa is a woman and Steve is a man, then you're prohibiting Steve from doing
something purely because of his sex. Such discrimination based on a person's
sex is wrong.

Really, sexual orientation is a red herring in this debate, but people can't
properly break the situation down. Bans on "gay marriage" take rights away
from everyone, not just homosexuals; although I may never exercise my right to
marry a man, I should still have that right.

------
michaelwww
What Brendan Eich does with his own money on his own time is none of my
concern. His opposition to Google Dart is my concern and I wish he would
lighten up about that.

------
ArtDev
Now I am the one regretting the donation I gave to the Mozilla Foundation last
year.

------
joyeuse6701
So, do Gay Firefox developers boycott Javascript too?

~~~
badman_ting
Yes, they prefer ECMAscript.

------
NextUserName
What he did is support the disagreement that what is now considered a "right"
by an increasingly liberal society was indeed a "right". What is wrong with
this? Liberals and gays need to realize that they are often bigots against
religion. Those believing the Bible's teachings have a different set of moral
standards. I find it ironic that this man is called immoral by liberals and
that gays are dubbed the immoral ones by believers in God.

Can't Liberals see that Believers hold themselves to a different set of
standards? It is not often personal (though unfortunately for some religious
extremists it is). The only hate that is being displayed here is by the anti-
religious groups and individuals.

Think of it like this. A girl is invited to a friend's birthday party. She
does not attend because her father forbids her to go and won't driver her
there either. She tries to explain it to her friend, but here friend hates her
now because can not come. Is this fair to the girl?

Some of you will say that this case is more like the girl paying someone to
disrupt the party. Again, if the girl's father was responsible as God is for
believer's convictions, then should the girl be hated anyway? I suppose if you
think that the girl's father only existed in her own mind (was a phantasy)
then you would think this.

Still does not seem fair? Well what if it came out later that the girl
planning the party was going to do something harmful to the guests. By
disrupting the party, the girl who looked cruel now in hindsight looks like a
hero. This knowledge of the devious girl's plan is akin to the belief and
knowledge that religious people have in God.

God cannot be proven or dis-proven via science. So how do atheists know they
are really correct? how do religious people? At least the religious people
have a basis that does not rely on unexplained things. A God and a creation
are certainly a more plausible and simple explanation to our existence then
any offered by atheists.

So who are the real bigots here? From each side's perspective, it is the
other. My hope is that each side will respect (not agree with) the others
reasons and not show hatred toward the other. If a gay person donates to a
fund pushing gay marriage, don't show hate toward them, if a religious person
donates to the opposition, the same applies. This is almost sportsmanship in a
way. Play hard against the opposition, but when they fall down (when they are
in need of help), show them kindness, help them up and continue the
competition.

~~~
mikeyouse

        The only hate that is being displayed here is by the
        anti-religious groups and individuals.
    

Aren't you forgetting the people trying to implement state-sponsored
discrimination.

    
    
        God cannot be proven or dis-proven via science. So how
        do atheists know they are really correct? how do
        religious people? At least the religious people have
        a basis that does not rely on unexplained things. A God
        and a creation are certainly a more plausible and simple
        explanation to our existence then any offered by atheists.
    

Insane presuppositions aside. The existence of God has nothing to do with
equal rights under state laws. Prop 8 wasn't a referendum on whether or not
God exists, it was a vote by a 'tyrannical majority' to strip the rights of
the minority.

    
    
        So who are the real bigots here?
    

The people who try to deny rights to others.

    
    
        Play hard against the opposition, but when they fall
        down (when they are in need of help), show them kindness,
        help them up and continue the competition.
    

Or just don't actively work to harm other people, that will go much further.

