Mozilla employees call for their new CEO to step down

Earlier this week, Mozilla announced that it had appointed a new CEO: JavaScript creator Brendan Eich. But that choice was immediately mired in controversy, as it emerged that Eich had donated money towards the Proposition 8 campaign in California that opposed same-sex marriages.

The controversy quickly escalated, as some app developers sought to distance themselves from Mozilla in direct response to Eich's appointment, even going as far as pulling their apps from the Firefox Marketplace. 

Things have now worsened further, as employees of the Mozilla Foundation itself have called on their new CEO to resign. As Ars Technica reports, Chris McAvoy, who heads up Mozilla’s Open Badges project tweeted: “I love @mozilla but I’m disappointed this week”, in response to Eich’s appointment.

McAvoy added: @mozilla stands for openness and empowerment, but is acting in the opposite way.” In a further tweet, his words were unequivocal: 

Many more Mozilla staff retweeted these sentiments and added their own, calling on Eich to resign.  

Ars Technica also reports that, earlier this week, Brendan Eich issued a statement on his personal blog, in which he recognised “concerns about my commitment to fostering equality and welcome for LGBT [lesbian, gay, bi and transgender] individuals at Mozilla.” He said that he was committed to a range of plans to “work with LGBT communities and allies”.

Recognising the uphill struggle that he faces in winning over the hearts and minds of his employees, the new CEO also said: “I don’t ask for trust free of context, or without a solid structure to support accountability. No leader or person who has a privileged position should.” 

Source: Ars Technica | Rainbow flag image shown is a mock-up and not an official Mozilla photo 

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Criminals use hacked Android phones to mine crypto-currencies

Next Story

Windows Phone version of new HTC One said to be on the way

138 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I wouldn't want to work for or support someone who has actively worked to prevent me from having the same rights and benefits under the law regardless of whom I love and marry.

I find it unfortunate that it's so difficult for people to have constructive debates about LGBTQ individuals and equality. I guess it's because for many people, their beliefs on this have roots in faith or religion, and I have no idea how one out-debates faith.

I think it is sad people are missing the obvious point. The CEO of a popular company should not be saying "I endorse gay marriage" or "I am against gay marriage" or expressing any opinion about social issues AT ALL. He should not say "I like religion" or "I hate religion".
This is real life people, and not an internet forum where we all freely express out opinions.

As a company representative, 1) it is bad PR to have opinions on controversial issues 2) anything he says reflects on his employees.

Yes, he is entitled to having an opinion. However, he should be professional enough to abide by the job requirements.
A CEO should be diplomatic.

That's corporate culture turning ppl into the fags of today! We would DO ... SAY .... and now even THINK .... ANYTHING which would make our brand SELL.

If defending an unnatural act as gay marriage is socially & morally correct, so should be expressing one's opinions!!

Sadly ... We humans are very quick to disregard the rights of whom we don't agree with!!

A lot of people here have always said Firefox is gay. ;-). I'm sick to death of the whole thing, I don't care where you put your junk, I shouldn't even know you're gay, straight or whatever else. What people do off the job is their business.

So I'm a gay guy and an unapologetic, outspoken advocate of equality. I think this whole thing -- asking him to step down -- stinks, in principle.

I can illustrate it pretty simply:

I'm an atheist and I find religious people very tedious at times. I find the notion of "god" ridiculous, kind of like Santa Claus for grownups (be good or you don't get any presents / go to hell forever!). But just as I can't help being gay, and just as I didn't choose it, I could no more choose to believe in the supernatural than they could stop believing -- it's just part of who they are and if I am to demand they respect me for who and what I am, I damn well better be prepared to make the same allowances for others.

This man is wrong to oppose equality, don't get me wrong, but part of being a free human being is the right to be wrong within the limits of the law, isn't it?

At my last job, I managed a team of over a dozen people, several of whom were quite religious, a couple of whom were devout evangelicals. I have been "out" since way before it was safe or smart, so everyone at work knew that side of my life, they knew my partner (been together 12 years), and it was no big deal.

We all respected each other and we all got along. If I had an issue with their inane religious chatter at times I smiled and kept my mouth shut because, even though that talk has no specific place in the workplace, I wasn't going to run a damn bootcamp where it was "head down, no talking!" all the time. In exchange, if they ever found my "lifestyle" upsetting, I certainly never knew about it.

In fact, it may be that they were more accepting of me than I of them, at times. Or maybe not, none of us ever let on in any case, as was appropriate. A lifetime of having a certain sort of people up in my business all the time, telling me how vile I am for just existing, has given me, maybe, just a little bit of hypersensitivity and bitterness toward certain religious types, you know? But I was a professional and they were professionals and we did our jobs, because THAT was what we were in that place to do, to the best of our abilities.

So I let them be my example, and I tried to be theirs, and we all more than just got along, by the end. When I left the company to move to Australia there was a big party and they all came, every one of them. There were tears and genuine, warm well-wishes all around. My partner was there and was shocked and moved at how sad everyone was to see me go, what a tight-knit group we'd become: gay, straight, black, white, Asian, male, female, ages 23 to 60's, from an assortment of religious backgrounds.

Over the years, despite our differences, we'd become like a big extended family.

And yet, there were more of them than me. They could have asked me to step down for being gay, for being an atheist, for saying things in MY PRIVATE LIFE about believers, in moments of frustration and anger, that were more than unkind. I've done that. I still do it. There ARE believers who are contemptuous and seek to beat others down, and I am not soft-spoken when I meet them, but these were not those people.

So just because this man thinks what he thinks and feels what he feels, there's no reason to believe he can't put that in a box where it belongs while he does HIS JOB, if he's a professional.

Is there any evidence that he'd behave unprofessionally? Any evidence that he'd bring his prejudices, whatever they might be, to work with him? Until there is, he deserves the benefit of the doubt and these damn thought police need to shut the hell up. Or should we all expect to be treated as if we'll behave at our very worst all the time? Who'd ever get hired for anything?

He worked for that $1,000 he spent (for nothing, it turns out) defending that stupid anti-gay marriage lawsuit, and he can damn well spend it however he wants. Judge his personal life by that if you want to, but judge his professional life by how he conducts himself AT WORK.

If I wanted to spend $1,000 of my hard-earned money on atheist outreach or some other stupid, useless thing, should I be blacklisted, even though I could work quite efficiently with true believers, in harmony, every damn day of my professional life?

What the hell is wrong with these people? "I don't agree with you on something, so I can't work with you." Really? They're not asking you to be his best friend forever and ever, so shut up and do your job and let him do his until he gives you a PROFESSIONAL REASON to cry foul.

I don't care what his views are. He created javascript, the worse language in history. that is why he shouldn't be CEO. He's done enough harm to the web.

neonspark said,
I don't care what his views are. He created javascript, the worse language in history. that is why he shouldn't be CEO. He's done enough harm to the web.

So, if I'm reading you right, he's ####ed all web developers up the arse, and wants to make amends by opposing gay rights.

One's figurative, the other literal.

One thing that strikes me in the comments of this article is the use of opinion, but one thing that is important to note is public and private opinions are two different things and should be treated as such.

If an individual publicly supports a cause that flies in the face of others there will be backlash especially when said individual takes the reigns of a company that publicly supports another cause, a cause that is very important to their employees then that will cause ripples within that company.

Ok, let's me bet about this one : it wasn't a consensus but a small group of employees claimed it in representation of all employees.

If the employees can no longer work in his presence I suggest they leave and be replaced with people who put work first, instead of all this left-wing rubbish.

What people don't seem to realize is that this stuff cuts both ways.

Where it a few years ago, would you support calling for a CEO to step down because of a donation they made in support of gay rights? Like his choices or not, he has to have the right to make his own choices just as you do... It's a slippery slope.

Utterly false equivalency.

In one case, we have this CEO who doesn't believe in equal rights or equal treatment under the law and actually went so far as to donate to a cause that sought to strip a subgroup of his Fellow Americans of the same basic civil rights he himself takes for granted... a position based on hatred, intolerance, and flat out ignorance.

In the other hypothetical case, you have someone supporting equal rights and equal treatment for all people under the law.

In no way are the two cases even remotely similar. It's called a false equivalency. Its' a logical fallacy used to prop-up irrational and unreasonable opinions and positions.

There's no slippery slope here.

If he had donated big to the KKK White Supremacist organization, I doubt you'd be coming back with this kind of "reasoning", am I right? No different.

Not quite the same things, one is refusing to allow you to do something whereas the other is supporting your right to do as you please. In the land of the free it's an important distinction.

pmbAustin said,
Utterly false equivalency.

In one case, we have this CEO who doesn't believe in equal rights or equal treatment under the law and actually went so far as to donate to a cause that sought to strip a subgroup of his Fellow Americans of the same basic civil rights he himself takes for granted... a position based on hatred, intolerance, and flat out ignorance.

In the other hypothetical case, you have someone supporting equal rights and equal treatment for all people under the law.

In no way are the two cases even remotely similar. It's called a false equivalency. Its' a logical fallacy used to prop-up irrational and unreasonable opinions and positions.

There's no slippery slope here.

If he had donated big to the KKK White Supremacist organization, I doubt you'd be coming back with this kind of "reasoning", am I right? No different.


It IS no different. Both were popular viewpoints at their time and considered acceptable.

What you are arguing is that others only have freedom of speech and choice when they agree with YOU... How long until you find a situation in which YOUR freedoms of choice are being infringed upon because someone disagrees with you... Will that also be fine?

Slippery slope.

I'm gay, and I would rather support someone's own freedoms, because I know (and understand) what it means to lose those... We JUST got through a period without even the most basic freedoms of speech, action, and choice. It is irrational and ridiculous to then impose similar restrictions on others and NOT expect that to come full circle in one form or another at some point...

I'm not really clear on what you're arguing. It SEEMS like you're arguing that people should be free to take rights away from other people without consequences. I sure hope you're not arguing that.

He has all the freedom of speech he can handle (this isn't a first amendment issue in the slightest). What he doesn't have -- nobody has -- is freedom from consequences of his speech. If he wants to be a publicly ignorant bigot, he's free to do so. If he wants to advocate stripping his fellow Americans of the same basic civil & human rights he takes for granted for himself, he can do so. But he's not guaranteed anywhere by anyone that he is free of the consequences of taking such positions.

I'm really sick and tired of people advocating equality and equal treatment being considered the exact same as those advocating intolerance and second-class citizenship for others. They're not "the same", and insisting that intolerance be tolerated in the name of 'tolerance' is just stupidity.

This guy made his own bed, and he gets to lie in it. More power to those who choose to stand up to his brand of ignorant bigotry and intolerance, to call it out, and shame it. It's one of the few ways our society has moved forward in history... towards more tolerance more egalitarianism, more true, real freedom and liberty and justice FOR ALL, not just the chosen few wealthy straight white Christian males that feel they're the only ones that deserve it all.

pmbAustin said,
I'm not really clear on what you're arguing. It SEEMS like you're arguing that people should be free to take rights away from other people without consequences. I sure hope you're not arguing that.

He has all the freedom of speech he can handle (this isn't a first amendment issue in the slightest). What he doesn't have -- nobody has -- is freedom from consequences of his speech. If he wants to be a publicly ignorant bigot, he's free to do so. If he wants to advocate stripping his fellow Americans of the same basic civil & human rights he takes for granted for himself, he can do so. But he's not guaranteed anywhere by anyone that he is free of the consequences of taking such positions.

I'm really sick and tired of people advocating equality and equal treatment being considered the exact same as those advocating intolerance and second-class citizenship for others. They're not "the same", and insisting that intolerance be tolerated in the name of 'tolerance' is just stupidity.

This guy made his own bed, and he gets to lie in it. More power to those who choose to stand up to his brand of ignorant bigotry and intolerance, to call it out, and shame it. It's one of the few ways our society has moved forward in history... towards more tolerance more egalitarianism, more true, real freedom and liberty and justice FOR ALL, not just the chosen few wealthy straight white Christian males that feel they're the only ones that deserve it all.


It seems as though you are attempting to twist my words. I would certainly hope this is not the case, as I'm not a fan of this rather juvenile practice.

To be clear. I support gay rights. I personally don't understand the argument those against gay rights have. HOWEVER, just as the gay community expects others to respect their freedoms and opinions, so too do others deserve the same.

I find it absurd for you to support the same treatment for others that you are railing against. Rights are rights whether you agree with how someone uses those freedoms (or their opinions) or not.

Had the rights of the LGBT community been respected, discrimination would never have even been an issue. ANY restriction on another's rights or freedoms is discrimination, and just because the tables have turned does not magically make it O.K. or morally just.

Discrimination and limitations on an individual's rights and freedoms never leads to something good.

Ignoring of course that his opinion in no way affects his ability to run the company, this entire argument has nothing to do with "protecting gay rights", it's about beating down someone you disagree with and silencing a difference of opinion. Limiting freedoms...

People often confuse being anti-gay with being anti-gay-marriage. Just because you don't think homosexuals should get married doesn't mean that you hate homosexuals.

Yeah, it does. It means you believe you are superior to them and they shouldn't have the same civil rights or equal treatment under the law that you yourself take for granted. To be anti-marriage-equality is to be anti-gay. You can't weasel your way out of that. It's ignorant bigotry, period.

pmbAustin said,
Yeah, it does. It means you believe you are superior to them and they shouldn't have the same civil rights or equal treatment under the law that you yourself take for granted. To be anti-marriage-equality is to be anti-gay. You can't weasel your way out of that. It's ignorant bigotry, period.

No, its not ignorant bigotry. Its having a basis or picture of what marriage should look like. There are a lot of people who are anti-gay-marriage and are not fighting over keeping "civil rights" or "equal treatment under the law" away from gay people but protecting the idea of marriage they believe in. There is a distinction between a tax break someone might qualify for and the picture of marriage a person thinks is appropriate.

Ignorance often comes into play when people fail to see THEIR views (especially when they disagree with them) and just claim they are bigots. This is much more complicated than "they dont want them to have tax breaks and insurance and other legal stuff" that is for sure.

Yeah, it is ignorant bigotry, forcing your opinion into law that affects others, based on ignorance and intolerance. You can try to dress it up however you like, but no matter how you dance around it, it's ignorant bigotry. You don't think gay people deserve the same civil rights and treatment under the law that you enjoy.

EVERYONE who is 'anti-marriage equality' is actively fighting to prevent gay people having the same civil rights and equal treatment under the law that they enjoy. Period. That is precisely what they are doing.

Same sex marriage has *nothing* to do with religion. Two atheists that are beyond child-bearing years can get married by going down to City Hall and signing a contract.

YOU are the one failing to see other view points here. YOU are the one defending ignorant bigotry.

This is not at all complicated. Do you believe all Americans deserve equal treatment under the law, and equal rights & opportunities, or don't you? Clearly you don't... clearly you think some segments of the population are "second class citizens". And that makes you an ignorant bigot, because you're both wrong and intolerant.

pmbAustin said,
Yeah, it is ignorant bigotry, forcing your opinion into law that affects others, based on ignorance and intolerance. You can try to dress it up however you like, but no matter how you dance around it, it's ignorant bigotry. You don't think gay people deserve the same civil rights and treatment under the law that you enjoy.

EVERYONE who is 'anti-marriage equality' is actively fighting to prevent gay people having the same civil rights and equal treatment under the law that they enjoy. Period. That is precisely what they are doing.

Same sex marriage has *nothing* to do with religion. Two atheists that are beyond child-bearing years can get married by going down to City Hall and signing a contract.

YOU are the one failing to see other view points here. YOU are the one defending ignorant bigotry.

This is not at all complicated. Do you believe all Americans deserve equal treatment under the law, and equal rights & opportunities, or don't you? Clearly you don't... clearly you think some segments of the population are "second class citizens". And that makes you an ignorant bigot, because you're both wrong and intolerant.

Did you not read what I said before? My stance on marriage has NOTHING to to with keeping "equal rights" (I put it in quotes because the word rights is another ground of contention. What are rights? Who gives rights? How do we determine them?) or "equal opportunity" away from gay people who want to live together.

The contested point is on the word marriage. Its strictly religious. The Christian view point (and the one I take) is that God made man and woman to be together. Not man and man or woman and woman. A marriage then deals with being one under God's authority.

This is what is not being understood. People just say "they are bigots because they dont want equal rights for gay people" when its really "equal rights is great, but dont stamp down on my beliefs and faith and call me a bigot because I think marriage is more than "love" and tax breaks." And people who wont understand that are ignorant and people who are prejudice and intolerant towards my opinions and beliefs are the bigots. Yet they call me an ignorant bigot.

No, if this was a fight over civil union (which all "marriages" in our country should probably be anyways and leave marriage to religious people/organizations) you probably wouldnt hear very much of anything from the "anti-gay-marriage" crowd but that would be "separate but equal" and we cant have that.

So I will stand by that I am not a bigot or ignorant on this issue. I just love my God more than the whims of society. And I hold that their is a higher purpose to marriage than a country can give to it. Take the "equal rights" and the "civil rights" and let me have my view on marriage.

And STOP calling me ignorant bigot and intolerant because I am none of those. Stop being arrogant.

Except it's not religious. Or do you only recognize marriages that are performed in a Christian church? No other religions should be allowed to marry either by your viewpoint?

pmbAustin said,
Yeah, it does. It means you believe you are superior to them and they shouldn't have the same civil rights or equal treatment under the law that you yourself take for granted. To be anti-marriage-equality is to be anti-gay. You can't weasel your way out of that. It's ignorant bigotry, period.

Gays have always had the EXACT same rights as everyone else.
There's never been anything stopping a gay male from falling in love with and marrying a gay female.

That's a blatant and total lie. It's sad you believe that.

Your statement is so ludicrously ignorant, it's the exact same as saying "You as a straight man could always marry another straight man." You'd never want to, because it's not in your nature.

You have the right and ability to marry the person you love, to be considered as family in the eyes of the law, above all others. Gay people are denied that right in too many states right now.

Opposition to same-sex marriage equality is not substantially different than the ignorant bigoted opposition to inter-racial marriage back in the 50s when that was legalized. Your argument there would be that interracial couples who wanted to get married "had the same rights" as you because they could always marry people of their same race.

WHICH MISSES THE ENTIRE POINT. Which is why it's such an ignorant thing to say.

Educate yourself.

icwhatudidthere said,
Except it's not religious. Or do you only recognize marriages that are performed in a Christian church? No other religions should be allowed to marry either by your viewpoint?

See, marriage is religious. And I dont want to be thought a bigot because you think I want discrimination against gay people when I really just want to be able to hold onto the ideals of my faith without name calling.

But there seems to be zero commitment of non-religious folks trying to understand religious folks. Its just name calling and bullying. But, I will admit, there is also little understanding (though I think there is a lot more than there was) of the religious folks and the non-religious on this issue.

And I think this name calling and arrogance needs to stop on both sides. Diversity should be something we can work through but it takes both sides on this.

"The contested point is on the word marriage. Its strictly religious."

This is where you're completely, totally, utterly, and provably wrong. Religion does not "own" the word marriage.

Marriage is a civil contract with The State that declares two people who are otherwise unrelated to be treated as "family" within the eyes of the law.

I can disprove your entire stupid, simplistic, irrational notion with one simple fact: I have two friends who are atheists who got married at City Hall. They are MARRIED. They have a MARRIAGE LICENSE. And religion has nothing to do with it.

Regardless, your RELIGIOUS opinion should not be LEGISLATED and MANDATED in order to affect other people who do not share your backwards and ignorantly bigoted ideas and notions.

If you don't want to marry someone of the same sex, don't. If your church doesn't want to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies, then it doesn't have to.

But don't confuse "weddings" (the religious ceremony) with "marriage" (the civil legal document and framework between the couple and The State).

The Christian (or Jewish Or Islamic or Quaker or Scientologist or Mormon or whatever) "viewpoint" is completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter one bit what they believe. Their "beliefs" shouldn't affect the law, or anyone outside of their church.

Never mind you speak of Christians as if they're a monolithic group. MANY religions, including many sects of Christianity, support same-sex unions, some having performed same sex weddings for decades now.

Your ignorance and arrogance are stunning to me. Grow up and educate yourself. Your personal religious beliefs are no basis for denying American Citizens the same civil rights as you take for granted. Period.

You are both ignorant AND a bigot, whether you care to acknowledge this or not. This reality is not contingent on your "belief". You are COMPLETELY ignorant on this topic, and significantly bigoted, and deeply arrogant. You are factually wrong, but so blind that you refuse to see.


pmbAustin said,
That's a blatant and total lie. It's sad you believe that.

Your statement is so ludicrously ignorant, it's the exact same as saying "You as a straight man could always marry another straight man." You'd never want to, because it's not in your nature.

You have the right and ability to marry the person you love, to be considered as family in the eyes of the law, above all others. Gay people are denied that right in too many states right now.

Opposition to same-sex marriage equality is not substantially different than the ignorant bigoted opposition to inter-racial marriage back in the 50s when that was legalized. Your argument there would be that interracial couples who wanted to get married "had the same rights" as you because they could always marry people of their same race.


Wow what an absolutely hateful and intolerant thing to say, you are an obvious poster-child for the hateful and intolerant, full of name-calling, denials and outright dishonesty, using far-reaching and dissimilar examples to compare the plight of the LGBT to that of blacks.

How ignorant and arrogant of you!

pmbAustin said,
"The contested point is on the word marriage. Its strictly religious."

This is where you're completely, totally, utterly, and provably wrong. Religion does not "own" the word marriage.

Marriage is a civil contract with The State that declares two people who are otherwise unrelated to be treated as "family" within the eyes of the law.

I can disprove your entire stupid, simplistic, irrational notion with one simple fact: I have two friends who are atheists who got married at City Hall. They are MARRIED. They have a MARRIAGE LICENSE. And religion has nothing to do with it.

Regardless, your RELIGIOUS opinion should not be LEGISLATED and MANDATED in order to affect other people who do not share your backwards and ignorantly bigoted ideas and notions.

If you don't want to marry someone of the same sex, don't. If your church doesn't want to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies, then it doesn't have to.

But don't confuse "weddings" (the religious ceremony) with "marriage" (the civil legal document and framework between the couple and The State).

The Christian (or Jewish Or Islamic or Quaker or Scientologist or Mormon or whatever) "viewpoint" is completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter one bit what they believe. Their "beliefs" shouldn't affect the law, or anyone outside of their church.

Never mind you speak of Christians as if they're a monolithic group. MANY religions, including many sects of Christianity, support same-sex unions, some having performed same sex weddings for decades now.

Your ignorance and arrogance are stunning to me. Grow up and educate yourself. Your personal religious beliefs are no basis for denying American Citizens the same civil rights as you take for granted. Period.

You are both ignorant AND a bigot, whether you care to acknowledge this or not. This reality is not contingent on your "belief". You are COMPLETELY ignorant on this topic, and significantly bigoted, and deeply arrogant. You are factually wrong, but so blind that you refuse to see.


Lol, dont pop a blood vessel man. How many times do you have to bash me with the word bigot? Want to do it some more?

The fact is I am actually consistent with my faith on this. The Bible says homosexuality is a sin. It says a lot of things are sins too I might add. People dont follow it. Thats fine. I try to. Like I said, this is a religious argument for me. What you dont understand is that it is a religious argument for me. God pictured marriage to be like Jesus and his church. And it was first displayed with Adam and Eve. How I try to live my marriage is based of what Jesus did for His church. So, you see, marriage IS religious for me.

Also, what do you want from me? To say I think its ok cause I cant do that (I gotta be consistent with my world view right)? Or to say if they get tax brakes, covered under insurance, whatever it is, its ok? What exactly are they not getting now that you consider civil rights I have had to enjoy? Yes, tell me that. What rights do I have they dont? Lets see how many I object to (honestly, probably wont be many). What would satisfy you and say ok, he isnt a bigot anymore?

Then, while you are at it, please tell me who or what gives us rights as people. What are human rights and why should I follow these human rights. What authority outlines these things for us to accept and follow?

OR, you can just call me an ignorant bigot and attack me some more. That is also an option.

Also, its the weekend so have a good one! =) This firefox thing will be interesting for sure... Maybe it will unfold by Monday.

pmbAustin said,
That's a blatant and total lie. It's sad you believe that.

Your statement is so ludicrously ignorant, it's the exact same as saying "You as a straight man could always marry another straight man." You'd never want to, because it's not in your nature.


It's ironic that these days, people treat their mental preferences and desires as immutable, and their physical bodies are the changeable ones. Even for this, a choice was made.

There are many silent ones who made the choice to be responsible and start a normal, run-of-the-mill nuclear family in spite of their slightly off-centre sexual preferences, and they are empowered by their own choices.

So don't go around shouting freedom, because you lose half your freedom when you make a choice. Most of us simply stick to the choice of being the gender of our genes and our private parts.

trieste said,

It's ironic that these days, people treat their mental preferences and desires as immutable, and their physical bodies are the changeable ones. Even for this, a choice was made.

There are many silent ones who made the choice to be responsible and start a normal, run-of-the-mill nuclear family in spite of their slightly off-centre sexual preferences, and they are empowered by their own choices.

So don't go around shouting freedom, because you lose half your freedom when you make a choice. Most of us simply stick to the choice of being the gender of our genes and our private parts.

The way I see it (and where the guy replying to you doesn't stay calm to explain) is: You are free to have your religious view on gay marriage. I won't fault you or "call you a bigot" because this is your religion and your right to have. That is the beauty of this country: you can have your beliefs and I can have mine and neither are more correct.

Here is the problem though: religion is never supposed to be used for decision making by the government. Once you put yourself aside the gay marriage debate and view the argument as a whole, the only reason it isn't legalized federally is purely on the traditional and religious definition of what is considered to be "marriage". THIS is the problem: the government should solely view marriage as a contract and any religious definition of it should fall under each religion to define under their congregation.

Honestly, it seems like everyone thinks their opinion about marriage is correct and wants the government to validate that. I challenge that notion with the golden rule: I'll mind my business and you mind your own. Once you fully enforce the separation of church and state clause of the constitution, you'll see that there is no more misunderstanding of marriage from the government's view and we can put this issue behind us.

He's allowed to have his opinion. He's even allowed to donate money to any cause he wants. As long as it doesn't affect his ability to do his job properly, what relevance does it have?

FloatingFatMan said,
He's allowed to have his opinion. He's even allowed to donate money to any cause he wants. As long as it doesn't affect his ability to do his job properly, what relevance does it have?

For the CEO personally, it has zero relevance. For a company that emphasizes "freedom" to have a CEO who, publicly, donated to a fund that goes against "freedom" (solely in the sense that the fund's purpose is to go against same sex marriages), it doesn't take a lot of brains to see why he finds himself where he is. Ironically, them casting him out removes his freedom but in America the CEO has to be "perfect" which means kissing the ass of investors/employees.

Do I agree with the employees actions? No. Do I think he ought to be able to do whatever the hell he wants with his money (as long as he doesn't break the law)? Yes.

he's not working as a freedom fighter. he's working as a manager. I agree that as long as he can do his job and not let his views cause problems, he can believe in whatever he wants.

pmbAustin said,
Would you be asking this question if he had donated to a White Supremacist organization or the KKK just a few years ago?

I don't play the "what if" game. He didn't do either of those things, so your question is pointless.

FloatingFatMan said,
I'd also point out that he made this donate long before he got this job.

Do our past actions haunt us forever? Especially perfectly legal ones?

Yes. It's all about the perceived bias, which may or may not exist. And it's not just employees there are users as well. Let's see what he has to say on the matter.

Depicus said,

And it's not just employees there are users as well. Let's see what he has to say on the matter.

And some developers, according to what was written here so it seems this is damaging the company´s image whether what he has done was ok/legal or not.

FloatingFatMan said,

I don't play the "what if" game. He didn't do either of those things, so your question is pointless.


This!

I agree with FloatingFatman... It isn't even like he was actively campaigning or picketing... It was nothing more than a donation.

FloatingFatMan said,
He's allowed to have his opinion. He's even allowed to donate money to any cause he wants. As long as it doesn't affect his ability to do his job properly, what relevance does it have?

How is he going to treat the gay people who work for him? Will they receive advancement, raises, etc? All that remains to be seen but he's not starting out on the right foot.

hagjohn said,

How is he going to treat the gay people who work for him? Will they receive advancement, raises, etc? All that remains to be seen but he's not starting out on the right foot.

That's all covered by anti-discrimination laws.

No, the question isn't pointless. The question exposes the hypocrisy of those who think nobody should be outraged over this (because you know damn well they'd be outraged in an exactly equivalent situation that involved race instead of sexual orientation).

hagjohn said,

Don't you think that's why they are tying to avoid?


They're not trying to "avoid" anything... Their opinion is right, his is "wrong", and they want to teach him a lesson... It has less to do with "them" than they would ever admit.

pmbAustin said,
Would you be asking this question if he had donated to a White Supremacist organization or the KKK just a few years ago?

False equivocation.

Gotta love this. All these people or groups want equal rights and to be heard but yet these same people don't respect others did their views. Can't have it both ways and equality comes from everyone.

techbeck said,
Gotta love this. All these people or groups want equal rights and to be heard but yet these same people don't respect others did their views. Can't have it both ways and equality comes from everyone.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences or criticism.

False equivalency.

Asking for tolerance doesn't mean you have to tolerate intolerance. That's just stupidity.

Why would you respect the views of someone in the KKK? I'm guessing you wouldn't, so apparently you have a double standard here.

pmbAustin said,
False equivalency.

Asking for tolerance doesn't mean you have to tolerate intolerance. That's just stupidity.

Why would you respect the views of someone in the KKK? I'm guessing you wouldn't, so apparently you have a double standard here.

There are exceptions to every rule. People who do not approve or think gar marriage is right are not hurting anyone. The KKK is a way different story and the extreme.

Yes, people who try to ban same-sex marriage are hurting people. Prop 8 passing hurt people. This CEO contributed to that hurting people.

Why do you think people aren't being hurt by being denied the over 1000 rights & responsibilities afforded with the civil marriage contract?

No, the KKK is not way different, and is no more extreme. The only difference is the target.

pmbAustin said,
No, the KKK is not way different, and is no more extreme. The only difference is the target.

So, people against same sex marriage go around and kill people to? Burn crosses on lawns?

If someone is just voicing their opinion, then that is their right and people should respect that. Now, if someone is doing something illegal, then that is a different story.

fuzi0719 said,
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences or criticism.

Seems to work exactly like this if you're "the minority".

Any sort of criticism of homosexuality or same-sex marriage gets you called a bigot, a homophobe etc.

Criticize straight people or even white people and it's all "haha lol".

That's the problem these days. The "oppressed" have become exactly that which they sought to slay in the first place.

How many people have the KKK (still an active organization) killed in the last ten years? Do you know? I bet you don't.

And how many gays have been bashed, either by people who explicitly are against gay marriage or by those that feel enabled by such people explaining that gays are "sub human" and "not worthy" of equal treatment under the law? I bet you don't know that either.

Not all opinions are worthy of respect. Respect is earned. Someone spouting ignorant bigoted hateful intolerant b.s. and working explicitly to strip fellow American Citizens of equal treatment under the law and basic, fundamental civil rights does not deserve respect for their "opinions"... opinions that are based in ignorance and intolerance.

"Any sort of criticism of homosexuality or same-sex marriage gets you called a bigot, a homophobe etc."

As well it should, because it's ignorant and bigoted. Just like anyone making sweeping racist statements can be called out for the bigots they are. I'm not sure why you have a problem with this.

pmbAustin said,
Yes, people who try to ban same-sex marriage are hurting people. Prop 8 passing hurt people. This CEO contributed to that hurting people.

Why do you think people aren't being hurt by being denied the over 1000 rights & responsibilities afforded with the civil marriage contract?

No, the KKK is not way different, and is no more extreme. The only difference is the target.

Are LGBT people all over California being lynched because of Prop 8?

Trying to understand what it is you're equivocating with the KKK here.

pmbAustin said,
How many people have the KKK (still an active organization) killed in the last ten years? Do you know? I bet you don't.

And how many gays have been bashed, either by people who explicitly are against gay marriage or by those that feel enabled by such people explaining that gays are "sub human" and "not worthy" of equal treatment under the law? I bet you don't know that either.

Not all opinions are worthy of respect. Respect is earned. Someone spouting ignorant bigoted hateful intolerant b.s. and working explicitly to strip fellow American Citizens of equal treatment under the law and basic, fundamental civil rights does not deserve respect for their "opinions"... opinions that are based in ignorance and intolerance.

That argument would make sense if that's what the CEO did. On the contrary, it's a minority of those who don't believe in gay marriage that does what you're talking about.

I have no problem with Homosexuals, Aliens, or any other things/choices people make about their lives. My issue is when they make a ginormous deal about a situation and rub it in everyone else's face. Is homosexuality normal in all aspects of nature? Noone really knows but most sources point to no, a penis and ###### make species carry on and most things in nature mate up with the opposite sex. That being said i have no problem with LGBT as I am friends with quite a few. However I don't like my 5 year old son coming home from kindergarten asking about it constantly because others in the classroom are talking about it and making himself wonder what he is. Yes there are girls at age 6 on the playground holding hands and kissing saying they are lesbians, etc.

The tech/gaming industry seems to be pushing the LGBT topic to the extreme for the last 1-2 years for some reason. You do not see this kind of push in any other sector. I realize our area is the most open and friendly but the viciousness of this topic keeps rearing its ugly head. People should be allowed to have their own opinions and not be chastised for them, especially against a group of people supposedly so open and understanding of people's choices (LGBT).

This guy didn't necessarily do anything wrong but i think he does need to at least clarify his stance, and if enough workers do find fault with his stance i think he should step down, only for the good of company morale. People pulling apps from the Mozilla store are stupid. In the end what does it matter what someone's beliefs or sexual preference are as long as they do an honest day's work and do well at it.

For example congress today tries to be as clean cut as possible in everything but has lost sight of the people and their job. 20+ years ago congress was drunk, people had affairs, their personal lives were a mess but they were understanding of real issues and got work done. As long as someone is good at their job and doesn't mix personal life/views with their professional it shouldn't matter. Just like the USA's supposed separation of Church and State.

You, sir, are a bigot. In case you didn't know. Do you know what gives it away? You compared homosexuality to being an alien, as opposed to a person. Quite telling.

blaktron said,
You, sir, are a bigot. In case you didn't know. Do you know what gives it away? You compared homosexuality to being an alien, as opposed to a person. Quite telling.

And you sir are a troll, I made no comparison between aliens and homosexuality. I said I have no problem with homosexuals / Aliens / etc which could mean people of color / race / gender / sexual orientation / other life choices (i.e. Amish)/ etc. To those ends why would throwing the word alien even matter. Why should aliens be discriminated upon if real? I have no problem with any living being as long as its nice and decent.

blaktron said,
You, sir, are a bigot. In case you didn't know. Do you know what gives it away? You compared homosexuality to being an alien, as opposed to a person. Quite telling.

And you, sir, must resort to name-calling instead of countering his arguments?? Calling someone a bigot as soon as they say something you don't agree with is lame.

Bigot or no, I will defend his right to say anything and everything you may or may not agree with.

zeroomegazx said,
I have no problem with Homosexuals, Aliens, or any other things/choices people make about their lives.
Yet you then relate how you DO have problems with them. Which is it?
zeroomegazx said,
My issue is when they make a ginormous deal about a situation and rub it in everyone else's face. Is homosexuality normal in all aspects of nature? Noone really knows but most sources point to no, a penis and ###### make species carry on and most things in nature mate up with the opposite sex.
Most things in nature kill and eat each other, too.
zeroomegazx said,
That being said i have no problem with LGBT as I am friends with quite a few.
Most racists claim to have black friends, too.
zeroomegazx said,
However I don't like my 5 year old son coming home from kindergarten asking about it constantly
It is YOUR job to talk to your children about issues in the world. Gay people exist, we're not going to hide and lie anymore just because you're too immature and uncomfortable to discuss things with your children. Grow up.

fuzi0719 said,
Yet you then relate how you DO have problems with them. Which is it? Most things in nature kill and eat each other, too. Most racists claim to have black friends, too. It is YOUR job to talk to your children about issues in the world. Gay people exist, we're not going to hide and lie anymore just because you're too immature and uncomfortable to discuss things with your children. Grow up.

I have problems with people making bigger deals out of things than need to be no matter their cause.

Most things in nature also don't make huge deals about anomalies in their species and go about their business not killing eachother. And in case you've never heard of issues like the middle east, we kill each other all the time. Hell the US has tons of Homicides every day over stupid petty garbage.

My job is to talk to my children about such issues but not when they are 5-6, they shouldn't be worried about any sexual issues until a bit later in life. The fact that the media is blitzing some of this stuff and small children pick up on it is a bit much.

Homosexuals exist and you shouldn't have to lie or hide, I don't think there is a single comment here saying that. But I think there is a place and time for you discussion on equality just like every other sect that has had to fight for it.

You sir need to grow up and realize that while being homosexual may be something you are all pushing for on equality there are many people that don't believe you should have completely equal rights to those that are also different than you.

It is an unfortunate fact that science cannot yet tell us why human beings seem to be able to have so many different sexual/gender identities vs other animals and organisms on this planet. To most people it is not right and you get discriminated horribly. But to go against what seems the natural order of things on this planet for copulation without reason is something as hard to describe as what created the sun and planets.

Be it the natural order of things or a genetic mutation or choice or whatever the cause of ANY situation/life choice/etc, LGBT shouldn't be persecuted the way they are in some areas. That doesn't give you the right to discard the other 95% of the populations opinion's just as it is not right for us to discard yours. Everyone deserves a fair chance to voice how they feel and not feel like they can't speak it.

Do the MATURE thing and MATURELY discuss your issues on Homosexuality instead of acting like a TROLL and saying we want you to hide and lie about who you are.

blaktron said,
You, sir, are a bigot. In case you didn't know. Do you know what gives it away? You compared homosexuality to being an alien, as opposed to a person. Quite telling.

Wow, so much for not moralising to others.

Do to others what you want others to do to you, hypocrite.

zeroomegazx said,

It is an unfortunate fact that science cannot yet tell us why human beings seem to be able to have so many different sexual/gender identities vs other animals and organisms on this planet. To most people it is not right and you get discriminated horribly. But to go against what seems the natural order of things on this planet for copulation without reason is something as hard to describe as what created the sun and planets.

Many animals show same sex behavior. Don't drag your ignorance in here and start calling it science.

Sad state of affairs. I sometimes get the feeling we are headed back to the middle ages instead of going forward.

Edited by Borix, Mar 28 2014, 12:20pm :

the only thing these employees should be focusing on is how to make their products better ! and I mean devoting all their time and effort on that.. as long as CEO personal views (and whatever he does legally on his spare time) don't make him break fair treatment of employees in the workplace
spoiled lazy employees..

Badcat007 said,
the only thing these employees should be focusing on is how to make their products better ! and I mean devoting all their time and effort on that.. as long as CEO personal views (and whatever he does legally on his spare time) don't make him break fair treatment of employees in the workplace
spoiled lazy employees..

Their product is freeware. They come from a non-profit background. They aren't motivated by just their paycheck. It's very likely they hold stronger views than employees in most companies. Given how they make freeware its very possible these strong views are of the liberal kind.

Maybe the CEO simply doesn't fit in with the rest of them. I'm not saying they are greenpeace or anything like that but I can imagine personal views of the CEO being more important to them than to employees of a cooky factory. Their motivation to create products might come from the mission of the company and the culture within.

we may be on to something.. the problem may lie in the vision of Mozilla (ie what the cny is about etc..) they should decide either to be a software producer and for that they need the best CEO to compete or some sort of benevolent / human advocacy non profit org..
my personal view is that you cannot be both

While the subject matter is neither here nor there for me the PR battle for Mozilla isn't looking great. I can imagine every other article starting with "...outspoken anti-gay activist Eich of Mozilla....".

The question is if Eich is worth more than a considerable part of Mozilla staff and evangelists. A CEO is no stronger than his/her team.

Depicus said,
While the subject matter is neither here nor there for me the PR battle for Mozilla isn't looking great. I can imagine every other article starting with "...outspoken anti-gay activist Eich of Mozilla....".

that is because the media is religiousphobic.

torrentthief said,

that is because the media is religiousphobic.

I wouldn't disagree with you, and when they choose to bad straight marriage I'll object to that as well. Or if they banned anything religious that doesn't harm me.

torrentthief said,

that is because the media is religiousphobic.

I don't think the media are religiousphobic. I think you're seeing increasing numbers of people, including journalists, calling out the "activist religious types" for their utter hypocrisy. That of course will sting a bit, but seems to be well-deserved.

Skwerl said,

Religion is a virus. Logic/reason is the vaccine.

You assume someone cant be religious and logical and have reason. Only in America and Europe and the Internet are those opinions even given credit.

But when someone limits logic/reason to non-religious people they do a disservice to everyone because many religious people are logical and reason very well. And, there are very logical/reasoned people out there over the years who are religious. Ravi Zacharias and his whole team, CS Lewis, JRR Tolkien just to name a few. Great minds. Great thinkers. All "religious".

Logic/reason has many problems of their own and cant account for everything that happens in life unless it is reduced down to near nothingness and meaninglessness.

Depicus said,
While the subject matter is neither here nor there for me the PR battle for Mozilla isn't looking great. I can imagine every other article starting with "...outspoken anti-gay activist Eich of Mozilla....".


Then it will be that news source using emotive language to stir up discrimination against him instead of engaging him on the tech topic concerned and nothing more. A very common tactic in modern times.

Breach said,
What does Mozilla have to do with gay rights?

that's what happens when you allow your employee to extend their arms freely.

Well, it's a problem if the employees are gay/bi themselves, or if you want to stand up for someone working with you who are. :p ~5% belong to the LGBT community, and if each those have five people standing up for them... You do the math.

As for relevancy, it's like being a woman and having a CEO wanting to take away women's suffrage. No, that company wouldn't have anything to do with politics but it could be enough of an obstacle in personal opinions to look for others. Companies are organic things made of people, not mechanical constructs.

Edited by Northgrove, Mar 28 2014, 11:46am :

Fair point. Personally I wouldn't care what my CEO's personal views and activities on social issues are as long as these are not introduced in the work place though.

And indeed if stuff like this gets in the way of working together either they or he should quit.

It will likely all blow over in a week and be forgotten. He's an brainwashed douchebag, but if he proves he can still run the place, everything will be fine.

You are factually wrong. That statement makes you an ignorant bigot. Replace LGBT with "black" or "Asian" or "latino" or "female"... and see how it reads.

onizuka001 said,
LGBT is the bad thing.

I guess you believe in that big book of fairy tales just because it says so. Could I interest you in some miracle snake oil guaranteed to get you women and riches?

pmbAustin said,
You are factually wrong. That statement makes you an ignorant bigot. Replace LGBT with "black" or "Asian" or "latino" or "female"... and see how it reads.

Assuming you think its not a choice then that may be a valid opinion. If you think it is, then its not a valid statement. For some it might not be a choice, I dont know. But for some it has been shown that it is a choice. Simplifying this issue to skin color or gender is not really accurate.

They could also be talking about the organization which can be considered kind of a bully and not mean the people the letters claim to represent.

Scabrat said,

Assuming you think its not a choice then that may be a valid opinion. If you think it is, then its not a valid statement. For some it might not be a choice, I dont know. But for some it has been shown that it is a choice. Simplifying this issue to skin color or gender is not really accurate.
Don't forget that the issue is specifically about marriage, which is a choice. There are no other "rights" that he feels should be different for gays and straights.

When was the last time you could not feed yourself because two men or two women got married ?

When was the last time a puppy died because two men or two women got married ?

What the employees of Mozilla are saying is they don't think Eich can say he is unbias towards a group of employees, be they gay, black, tall, ginger. He has allowed himself to be seen as anti something and if you are that something then you would feel rightly worried. Imagine for a moment your new boss said he hated Neowin and everybody on it, would you feel comfortable ?

I'm not sure he should resign but he does need to clear the air and state his beliefs.

Regardless, its still Discrimination towards a straight person

Edit: even in my last post I said that my friends (Who are Gay and lesbian ) are saying that this is Discrimination

EvilAstroboy said,
Regardless, its still Discrimination towards a straight person
This has nothing to do with the CEO being straight. If the CEO were black, would you be claiming racial discrimination?

Jazirian said,
This has nothing to do with the CEO being straight. If the CEO were black, would you be claiming racial discrimination?

an act or instance of discriminating, or of making a distinction

Don't think you have quite got the hang of this discrimination thing yet....

If I call for you to resign because you are black or gay or christian then that is discrimination, if I call for you to resign because of your actions that is not discrimination.

So tell me, If Straight Employees don't like a Gay CEO because he funds a Gay-Marriage campaign , is it ok for the Employees to tell him to leave because they do not like his Choice ? or would it be discriminating ?

If they want him to leave because he is gay then that is discrimination, if they want him to leave because he funds a gay marriage campaign that's not discrimination.

EvilAstroboy said,
Regardless, its still Discrimination towards a straight person

Edit: even in my last post I said that my friends (Who are Gay and lesbian ) are saying that this is Discrimination

Oh, well, since you have gay and lesbian friends, that makes you an expert! /s That's like the racist saying, "I have black friends who agree with me."

EvilAstroboy said,
Regardless, its still Discrimination towards a straight person

Edit: even in my last post I said that my friends (Who are Gay and lesbian ) are saying that this is Discrimination

It has nothing to do with him being straight. If he had been gay and supported Proposition 8, people would be just as pissed.

Depicus said,
Imagine for a moment your new boss said he hated Neowin and everybody on it, would you feel comfortable?

When did he say he hated anyone? I have no problem with people saying they dont like Neowin and dont go to them for news. And then give the Verge money. Hate is far more cruel and serious than someone who has an opinion or a belief of what is right and wrong and then gives money to support their view.

When people throw around hate, bigot, etc, like this they do an injustice to what is actually hateful, bigoted, and whatever else is despicable out there.

Depicus said,
Don't think you have quite got the hang of this discrimination thing yet....

If I call for you to resign because you are black or gay or christian then that is discrimination, if I call for you to resign because of your actions that is not discrimination.


You don't get discrimination, except the legal and emotive languages you've subconsciously assimilated.

If I don't call for you to resign because you donated to pro-choice, but call for you to resign because you donated to pro-life, that's discrimination against someone's personal beliefs. What are beliefs for, if they do not spur you to action?

So only those who are anti-Prop 8 are allowed to act on their beliefs by calling for resignations of their opponents, but those who are pro-Prop 8 must keep their beliefs quiet?

Game over. It's a culture clash and no new CEO can fix it. At 'best' he is able to get half of the company behind his views. At which point he'll have destoyed the identity of the workforce. No man is alike but a succesful corporate culture can give people the idea that they are similar. You just have to avoid all the topics that might expose their differences. If he stays around then it will seriously effect their group performance.

Ronnet said,
Game over. It's a culture clash and no new CEO can fix it. At 'best' he is able to get half of the company behind his views. At which point he'll have destoyed the identity of the workforce. No man is alike but a succesful corporate culture can give people the idea that they are similar. You just have to avoid all the topics that might expose their differences. If he stays around then it will seriously effect their group performance.

As a boss, you can't please all employees neither is the work of the boss to be pleased.

Brony said,

As a boss, you can't please all employees neither is the work of the boss to be pleased.

Its the work of the boss to please all stakeholders, at least to an acceptable degree. The larger the organization, the harder it becomes. I imagine its particularly hard for Mozilla given how they develop freeware and started out as a non-proft organization. Employees are more likely to hold stronger and more liberal views. The nature of their business dictates that employees must be empowered and are thus more likely to be outspoken. So they have a strong yet fragile culture. For such a company the personal views of the CEO are much more important then for a more mechanistic organization. If employees, across-the-board, are displeased with him because of his diffferent views then it certainly will be a problem.

seta-san said,
so now a guy isn't allowed to have an opinion? just stupid. i think it's time to get new employees.

Everybody has an opinion and nobody us equal. However you have to pick a CEO that fits the company's culture. Either he doesn't fit in or he exposed a topic on which the Mozilla worforce is sharply divided, Either way its bad, to keep their cultural identity its best if he steps down right away. Or it will become a wide spread discussion on the workfloor. There are a lot of interesting case studies regarding this topic. Corporte cultures are very fragile. They can greatly increase productivity and innovation (Apple for example) but once they're broken it takes ages to repair and often the company is bankrupt before that time.

seta-san said,
so now a guy isn't allowed to have an opinion? just stupid. i think it's time to get new employees.

There's opinions and there's actions. It was just an opinion until he decided to become an activist by pledging financial support to the movement.

By saying he's being attacked solely for a point of view, you're either misunderstanding the facts, misrepresenting the facts, or lying. And if you have to lie to have your own opinion, then what good is your opinion?

If he'd have donated money to an anti-god or anti-black groups would that be ok ?

The tech industry has be be one of the most diverse communities on the planet so anything anti is going to rock the boat.

Opinions are like genital warts, best kept to themselves where it would cause offence to others.

seta-san said,
so now a guy isn't allowed to have an opinion? just stupid. i think it's time to get new employees.

So what im understanding from these guys who are responding to you, is that, It's ok to be a Gay Employee(s) and not like a straight CEO because he funds something that the Employees don't like ( in Australia, it would be classed as Discrimination) and don't want you there because of your Choices

Shame on them... and here they are crying out for Equal rights ....

Also, posted this up on my FB and a fair few Gay/Lesbians have already cursed the Employees for Discriminating the CEO due his choice

/Shame

But also, what they are saying, its ok

Joshie said,

There's opinions and there's actions. It was just an opinion until he decided to become an activist by pledging financial support to the movement.

Donating money to a cause doesn't make you an activist. His personal opinions are his own. If i were him i'd fire these employees for insubordination.

seta-san said,
so now a guy isn't allowed to have an opinion? just stupid. i think it's time to get new employees.

Don't worry. What this article fails to point out is that only a minority are asking him to stop down. The majority agree with you that he has freedom to that opinion, and recognise that not supporting same-sex marriage is not synonymous with treating homosexuals unfairly.

http://www.glazman.org/weblog/...14/03/25/Welcome-Brendan%21
http://www.glazman.org/weblog/...php?post/2014/03/27/A-moron...

Meph said,

Don't worry. What this article fails to point out is that only a minority are asking him to stop down. The majority agree with you that he has freedom to that opinion, and recognise that not supporting same-sex marriage is not synonymous with treating homosexuals unfairly.

http://www.glazman.org/weblog/...14/03/25/Welcome-Brendan%21
http://www.glazman.org/weblog/...php?post/2014/03/27/A-moron...

People are indeed free to have different opinions. However opposing same-sex marriage is treating homosexuals unfairly in the eyes of some people. You saying otherwise doesnt make it a fact. Its a hot topic, opinions are strongly divided. Some Mozilla employees relate the topic to their company's culture and at this point its unknown how most employees feel about it.

True enough, only a few have made a statement about it. However in general opinions are sharpely divided. It wouldnt suprise me that this also holds for Mozilla. As this discussion continues on the workfloor it could destroy their group identity. Purely looking at it from a business perspecive, its not good to have a CEO with such a strong opinion on such a topic.

Depicus said,

Opinions are like genital warts, best kept to themselves where it would cause offence to others.

Shut up, who cares about your opinion!

No, but in all seriousness, one shouldn't ever tell anyone to not air their opinions due to the "unfortunate" consequence of potentially offending someone. Nobody have the responsibility to avoid offending others. If someone is offended by anything, it's their issue and they have to deal with it and somehow get over it.

My opinions are for most parts on the totally opposite end of my fellow citizens in the country in which I live in (Norway). Many of these opinions do offend them, and the reasons for that is that most of them are sheeps who clearly can't think for themselves. Not being exposed to controversial ideas and opinions, which might offend you, makes people into sheeple.

Share your opinions freely, and if you can't face the consequences of your opinions, then either leave the neighbourhood, society or country. If someone have an opinion, they truly believe their opinion is correct, right and just. If you keep what you think is correct, right and just locked down inside your head - your brain might melt :-D

seta-san said,
so now a guy isn't allowed to have an opinion? just stupid. i think it's time to get new employees.

If you feel strongly about something and said company feels strongly about the exact opposite you could be in the wrong place.

Yes clearly the only reason why people could possibily have an opinion that is different from your own is because they are sheeps and cant think for themselves. If they could they would totally agree with you because you're right and they are wrong. /sarcasm

While I agree with you on not having to consider offending others when it concerns just you as a person of flesh and blood. This concerns the legal entity that is Mozilla, of which this man is the CEO. He has to manage both the structure and culture of the entire organization. As figurehead its not smart to have such an outspoken opinion when its your 'time in office'. Its the same with politicians. You dont just keep it to yourself to avoid offending people. You keep it to yourself to create or keep a strong culture that increases productivity and innovation.

In short he isnt responsible for avoiding offending others but he is responsible for Mozilla.

EvilAstroboy said,

So what im understanding from these guys who are responding to you, is that, It's ok to be a Gay Employee(s) and not like a straight CEO because he funds something that the Employees don't like ( in Australia, it would be classed as Discrimination) and don't want you there because of your Choices

Shame on them... and here they are crying out for Equal rights ....

Also, posted this up on my FB and a fair few Gay/Lesbians have already cursed the Employees for Discriminating the CEO due his choice

/Shame

But also, what they are saying, its ok

Right on!

seta-san said,
so now a guy isn't allowed to have an opinion? just stupid. i think it's time to get new employees.

So an employee isn't allowed to have their own opinion?

It works both ways.

seta-san said,
so now a guy isn't allowed to have an opinion? just stupid. i think it's time to get new employees.

No one is saying he can't have an opinion.

Mobius Enigma said,

So an employee isn't allowed to have their own opinion?

It works both ways.

they weren't voicing their opinions that they support gay marriage they were saying he should resign for having his opinions. Who on earth tells their boss they should resign for having a different opinion. They should resign themselves if they don't like their boss.

torrentthief said,

they weren't voicing their opinions that they support gay marriage they were saying he should resign for having his opinions. Who on earth tells their boss they should resign for having a different opinion. They should resign themselves if they don't like their boss.

So if Tim Cook was found to be a supporter of anti-Jewish groups, the employees should just keep their mouth shut? (*Trying to demonstrate that your take on this shouldn't matter based on if you agree with the political view or not.)

Employees ask CEOs to step down for any number of reasons that affect the company, bad policies, bad decisions, etc.

This isn't new or unique to a polarizing political view.

agreed...it seems that is now the other way around that if you are against gay or gay marriage or anything against it you are now the one that should be out when I see it as discrimination.

Sondre Bjellås said,

Shut up, who cares about your opinion!

No, but in all seriousness, one shouldn't ever tell anyone to not air their opinions due to the "unfortunate" consequence of potentially offending someone. Nobody have the responsibility to avoid offending others. If someone is offended by anything, it's their issue and they have to deal with it and somehow get over it.

Exactly!

I will defend anyone's right to say something offensive, politically incorrect, or whatever, regardless of the issues or whether I agree with you or not. Censorship of opinions is a VERY DANGEROUS road to travel down.

Without trying to start a discussion on religion, the "love chapter" many people like to recite at weddings puts it exactly right... it says "love does not take offense" (yeah different translations may use different words). Basically it seems nobody is actually following the whole "tolerance" thing, especially the ones that scream for tolerance the most!

Depicus said,
If he'd have donated money to an anti-god or anti-black groups would that be ok ?

The tech industry has be be one of the most diverse communities on the planet so anything anti is going to rock the boat.

Opinions are like genital warts, best kept to themselves where it would cause offence to others.

No, but do a Google Images search for the culture you're choosing to support. Gross. Print some and hang them near your desk at work, to show your support. Watch your boss'/co-worker's faces when they see them... 'Normal'? I don't think so! :D

Yes, everyone is entitled to have an opinion but company representatives are expected to keep a low profile and not share their opinions. It's called being professional.
Don't take it personally. That is how real life is.
Both supporting gay marriage and being anti-gay marriage are opinions he is expected not to express.

Wow.

You're actually supporting a hateful ignorant bigot who went out of his way to fund an organization that sought to strip fellow Americans of some basic civil and human rights that you yourself take for granted.

And you dismiss all that as just "an opinion"?

Wow. That says a lot about you, and none of it is good.

68k said,
No, but do a Google Images search for the culture you're choosing to support. Gross. Print some and hang them near your desk at work, to show your support. Watch your boss'/co-worker's faces when they see them... 'Normal'? I don't think so! :D

"Gross?" Wow, I happen to think the thought of you copulating is pretty disgusting, and I'm even more turned off by the idea of someone like you producing children. The world is going to be one big redneck trailer park in a couple generations.

domboy said,

Exactly!

I will defend anyone's right to say something offensive, politically incorrect, or whatever, regardless of the issues or whether I agree with you or not. Censorship of opinions is a VERY DANGEROUS road to travel down.

Without trying to start a discussion on religion, the "love chapter" many people like to recite at weddings puts it exactly right... it says "love does not take offense" (yeah different translations may use different words). Basically it seems nobody is actually following the whole "tolerance" thing, especially the ones that scream for tolerance the most!

If you were a minority on the receiving end of decades of intolerance, you'd probably speak up a bit, too.

pmbAustin said,
Wow.

You're actually supporting a hateful ignorant bigot who went out of his way to fund an organization that sought to strip fellow Americans of some basic civil and human rights that you yourself take for granted.

And you dismiss all that as just "an opinion"?

Wow. That says a lot about you, and none of it is good.

Its kinda sadbecause usually when I hear hateful ignorant bigot stringed together its usually the person using the "hateful ignorant bigot" that is more hateful, ignorant to the persons world view, beliefs, and history, and is intolerant of their beliefs.

It is his opinion and he acted on it. Good for him. And good for the people with different opinions and them acting on that.

How completely moronic. Do you have heterosexual porn hung around your desk at work? People who have more forward thinking views don't need to adorn their working environment with evidence of their views because unlike the people with backward, closed outlooks on life we don't feel the need to cram it down everyone else's throats because we've decided that we know how everyone else should live their lives, we leave that to "religious folks". As it's quite chilly just now, I look forward to burning in hell :) Mmm Toasty!

Ronnet said,

Purely looking at it from a business perspecive, its not good to have a CEO with such a strong opinion on such a topic.

Who's the one with the strong opinion? One who donates in a personal capacity, or one who loudly demands that the CEO steps down because he got offended?

trieste said,

Who's the one with the strong opinion? One who donates in a personal capacity, or one who loudly demands that the CEO steps down because he got offended?

Both. But the position of a employee isn't the same as that of a CEO. Whether you think its fair or not, the CEO is often seen as the figurehead of an organization. Especially in an organization that has its roots in non-profit business. They're not activists like Greenpeace but these employees are motivated by my than just their paycheck. Freeware is relaed to more liberal views and people that make it are idealists.