Then you're basically saying that the entire board and Eich himself are liars. And I don't believe that's a fair thing to say with zero evidence to the contrary.
Eich was a person that could have made the entire situation disappear in an instant by making a (completely meaningless given their history) matching donation to the HRC, and issuing a short post apologizing for his actions. Sure, many would see right through such a transparent act; but it would completely deflate the opposition in an instant -- guaranteed.
He didn't do so. To this day, he's still completely unapologetic for his actions. As much as I dislike the man, the one thing I cannot fault him for is that he is a man of integrity. I don't see him lying and pretending he voluntarily resigned.
> Then you're basically saying that the entire board and Eich himself are liars.
I see that the board claim he was not asked by the board to resign. You can differentiate I guess between "You see which way the wind is blowing, better do what needs to be done" and "Resign or we'll fire you" but that's really a distinction without a difference and would seamlessly segue into the other state, I expect.
> but it would completely deflate the opposition in an instant
Can you cite an instance of apologizing quelling an outrage mob?
> I see that the board claim he was not asked by the board to resign.
Well, you're free to your own opinions (and conspiracies), but not to your own facts. Preface your statements with, "I believe he was secretly (fired)", and that's fair enough.
But us arguing about it without any evidence is basically Russell's Teapot.
> Can you cite an instance of apologizing quelling an outrage mob?
It would have certainly worked here. From when I was born until 2015, we went from 15% approval to 55% approval for marriage equality. We had several prominent republicans, and even a democratic president change their public views to support marriage equality. Eich had a good 6+ years since his donation, so it wasn't like his mind couldn't have changed during that time. I don't recall anyone on our side ever denouncing someone who announced they 'evolved' on this topic. So yes, I'm extremely confident most people would have put this issue to rest.
However, again, a man of principle shouldn't lie. That covers both lying about a change of heart, as well as lying about resigning instead of having been fired.
I see no reason to believe that what both the board and Eich are claiming is technically false. If you define "fired" to include "you know where this is going, get out now and save some face by resigning" then yes, sure, I believe he was secretly fired.
It's not exactly a common occurrence for there to be backlash against CEOs for holding anti-gay views. I can only name the Mozilla and Chik-Fil-A CEOs, and neither apologized for it.
The best example I can give you is Rob Portman. He was vehemently anti-gay, until his son came out to him as gay. And then suddenly, like Dick Cheney before him, he found his empathy. However, I don't recall any gay rights groups continuing to protest against him after that.
So I'll turn the question back to you: can you name a case where someone announced a change of heart on gay rights and apologized, and the lynch mob kept on them after that?
