Mozilla's new CEO resigns following backlash over anti-gay-marriage contributions

Ten days ago, Mozilla proudly announced that its long time chief technology officer, Brendan Eich, would be its new CEO. Now Mozilla has revealed that Eich has stepped down from that position after reports hit the Internet he had donated money to an anti-gay-marriage campaign.

Soon after Eich's appointment, it was revealed that he contributed $1,000 in 2008 towards a campaign that supported California's Proposition 8, which was written to ban gay marriages in that state. Many Mozilla team members publicly wrote on their Twitter and Facebook accounts asking Eich to resign

In an interview with CNet on Tuesday, Eich said he was not planning to step down but dodged questions about his own beliefs concerning gays and if he would made the same campaign donations again, stating, "It seems that's a dead issue. I don't want to answer hypotheticals."

In a blog post today, Mozilla's executive chairwoman Mitchell Baker made the announcement about Eich's decision to depart. She added:

We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: it’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves. We didn’t act like you’d expect Mozilla to act. We didn’t move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We’re sorry. We must do better.

Eich has been with the company since it was first launched in 1998 and helped to develop the Netscape Navigator browser, the direct ancestor to Mozilla's Firefox browser. He had served as its CTO since 2005 and also created the JavaScript programming language.

Baker says that the future for Mozilla's leadership "is still being discussed" but more information will be revealed next week.

Source: Mozilla | Image via Mozilla

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft: Office for iPad surpasses 12 million downloads

Next Story

Build Day 2: Start menus, DirectX, Cortana and Microsoft's return to relevance

214 Comments

View more comments

Well, what is Mozilla's loss will be someone else's gain.
I hope he does well in his new role wherever that may be and shows the world that he can be at the forefront of something brilliant regardless of what his personal beliefs are.
If he doesn't let them interfere with his work, then long may he do good things for his next company.

He should be allowed whatever views he wants in his personal life, and do to whatever he wishes with his personal money. This is Chic Fil A all over again.

More "tolerance" for the immoral left. I wish businesses would just be neutral on all this and concentrate on being businesses. I commend Mr. Eich on personally taking a stand. This a personal decision of morality, personally acted upon--not officially as a rep of Mozilla. The folks at Mozilla should have remained completely neutral and simply said that the individual views and actions of employees do not necessarily reflect those of the corporate entity known as Mozilla.

Intolerance for intolerance is intelligence. If an oppressor claims his oppression is actually "religious liberties" and should be tolerated, then I say, "Suck my ball sack. Don't outsource your hate to God. Just own your f-ucking hatred."

No one would put a known racist at the helm, or someone who devalues and/or abuses women ... so why would anyone be okay with a person who put money up to silence a minority known as LGBT? Because you don't like us? Well F-UCK YOU. If you don't like us, FINE. But guess what? Your religion is yours to keep, but to wield it as a weapon to oppress others? NO. And if you have forgotten, history is filled with tyrants who have killed and stolen in the name of religion. This is just the same story, different century.

seebaran said,
Intolerance for intolerance is intelligence.

No it isn't. Just as two wrongs don't make a right. Intolerance of someone else's differing view is just that, intolerance. It doesn't matter what the subject. If you really want tolerance, it goes both ways. Otherwise what you really want to change everyone else's opinion to match your own, and you're just kidding yourself on the whole "tolerance" thing. Again, I don't care what the subject is.

All your examples would be wrong if done in the context of work environment. A person's personal belief is their own, and what they do with their own money is also their own.

And here we have a perfect example of the hypocritical facade that is the "tolerance" movement in our society. It is a one-way street. It is "you will embrace our views and beliefs while compromising your own or we will bully you and shame you into submission". I have nothing against gay people, but many of their activist groups have become the very thing they claim about those that are opposed to their views and beliefs are - intolerant.

This guy should not have had to resign over personal beliefs and personal monetary support.

Rant time...

I am just curious why this now fired CEO would contribute to a fund that prevents me from marrying someone of my own gender. On my supposed wedding day, I would just be standing in a stuffy venue with people who love us and want to hear us recite some vows before we go to another room for cake and dancing. What is so freaking bothersome about that?! It's a private ceremony. I'm not saying he can't be married to someone opposite his gender. I'm not saying he can't believe what he wants.

All we LGBT folks want is some god damn dignity. We are humans, not sub-human. We work, pay taxes, contribute all the same but only receive a fraction of civil rights and protections in return. That's pretty f-ucked up. We are just another minority group among all the others that are already federally protected. Allow us those same protections. Anti-gay beliefs are fine by me, because I don't have to involve myself with those who hold those beliefs, but if you put those beliefs in action to ensure I remain unequal in a SECULAR RUN country, then we have issues. And those Mozilla employees and the public itself, as diverse as they are and we are, weren't going to let some bigot at the helm knowing he looks at LGBT people as unworthy of what heterosexuals get today.

And just because you have "religious liberties," you can't use them to marginalize people you just don't f-ucking like. The same with freedom of speech: You have it, but you can't yell fire if there isn't one. And you can't call 9-1-1 to b.s. around; there are legal consequences for abuse of your rights. And I will not tolerate abuse, or the mean-spirited actions of others. f-uck yes we will go to court, and make noise, and call people out. This loser CEO got what was coming to him. He helped hurt good loving families that look different than his own family.

I matter. Other minority groups matter. And if you disagree, f-ucking choke and die already.

Then question, in light of what you just wrote, why are civil union laws not enough? I'm honestly curious. If it's about social rights and standings, why do LGBT activist also insist that the term "marriage" which has it's origins as a religious sacrament, also be changed. This is what most of the conflict is about from what I understand... the changing of a sacred sacrament. If we left marriage to the church and everyone entered into civil unions for the social benefits and standing etc, would that work?

domboy said,
Then question, in light of what you just wrote, why are civil union laws not enough? I'm honestly curious. If it's about social rights and standings, why do LGBT activist also insist that the term "marriage" which has it's origins as a religious sacrament, also be changed. This is what most of the conflict is about from what I understand... the changing of a sacred sacrament. If we left marriage to the church and everyone entered into civil unions for the social benefits and standing etc, would that work?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal

domboy said,

What does racial segregation have to do with anything discussed in the previous two posts?


Its the exact same system you are proposing "Separate but equal"

TPreston said,

Its the exact same system you are proposing "Separate but equal"

No it's not. I'm suggesting that everybody, including gay, straight, whatever relationship combination (including combinations of more than two individuals) you can think up, that are wanting relationship benefits currently associated with the term "marriage" enter into civil unions. Leave the marriage sacrament to the church, and dissociate it from any form of social/government benefits.

Everybody will be equal under the same system, and those that want to also have their union blessed by some religion can do some without any legal ramifications, and also without spiritual leaders being forced to bless combinations they don't agree with.

Explain to me how that equals anything remotely like racial segregation.

Edited by domboy, Apr 7 2014, 5:43pm :

domboy said,
No it's not. I'm suggesting that everybody, including gay, straight, whatever relationship combination (including combinations of more than two individuals) you can think up, that are wanting relationship benefits currently associated with the term "marriage" enter into civil unions. Leave the marriage sacrament to the church, and dissociate it from any form of social/government benefits.

1 Why ?
2 Which church ?

"Everybody will be equal under the same system, and those that want to also have their union blessed by some religion can do some without any legal ramifications, and also without spiritual leaders being forced to bless combinations they don't agree with."

We already have that with the first amendment ? They can refuse to bless inter-racial marriages if they wish

TPreston said,

1 Why ?
2 Which church ?

"Everybody will be equal under the same system, and those that want to also have their union blessed by some religion can do some without any legal ramifications, and also without spiritual leaders being forced to bless combinations they don't agree with."

We already have that with the first amendment ? They can refuse to bless inter-racial marriages if they wish

Why? To get rid of the argument over gay marriage, as the core of the argument is that many religions view homosexuality as wrong, and "marriage" is considered a sacrament in at least two well-known religions. Leave marriage to the church, as in any and all of them, not any particular one. Basically put it back as being a sacred sacrament in the church, just like blessings over children, and other such things. Outside of the church it would have no legal implications whatsoever.

In its stead, instigate civil unions (or whatever you want to call them) to replace it for everyone in our laws and corresponding benefits etc. Please note I said for everyone. All equal on the same level in secular society. Then if a gay couple wants some sort of religious blessing they can go find a place of worship that is fine with their beliefs and lifestyle (same with a straight couple). And at the same time we don't take away religious freedom from those who believe the life style is wrong. They are free to believe that, just as you are free to disagree with them. But forcing either side to violate their conscience via laws is a very dangerous path to start down. I don't care how old-fashioned, archaic, or outdated you may think their beliefs are.

Edited by domboy, Apr 7 2014, 9:59pm :

domboy said,
And at the same time we don't take away religious freedom from those who believe the life style is wrong. They are free to believe that, just as you are free to disagree with them. But forcing either side to violate their conscience via laws is a very dangerous path to start down. I don't care how old-fashioned, archaic, or outdated you may think their beliefs are.

Yeah we don't do that now, Nobody is forced to violate their conscience and preform a gay marriage.

TPreston said,

Yeah we don't do that now, Nobody is forced to violate their conscience and preform a gay marriage.

Not yet, but I wouldn't be so sure it won't happen in the near future, the way things are going.

domboy said,

Not yet, but I wouldn't be so sure it won't happen in the near future, the way things are going.


The way things are going ? What are you talking about ? Cite me one example of the government restricting the religious freedom of believers ? You cant because its enshrined in the constitution.

TPreston said,

The way things are going ? What are you talking about ? Cite me one example of the government restricting the religious freedom of believers ? You cant because its enshrined in the constitution.

Others in this comments have already mention examples of the court system forcing (or threatening to force) people to violate their conscience in how they run their private business or face fines, or have to close down. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see where that road can go. Heck, the situation this article itself is about it another example.

domboy said,

Others in this comments have already mention examples of the court system forcing (or threatening to force) people to violate their conscience in how they run their private business or face fines,

There we go ladies and gentlemen, There it is hanging out all pink and naked for you to see. I knew well that you had this untenable position and I dragged it out of you so I can reply to this.

domboy said,
What does racial segregation have to do with anything discussed in the previous two posts?

For something that TOTALLY IS NOT LIKE RACISIM111111!111 you sure do like voiding the civil rights act. No N*ggers No Gays. Same **** different generation.

Thanks for shooting yourself in the foot,

TPreston said,

There we go ladies and gentlemen, There it is hanging out all pink and naked for you to see. I knew well that you had this untenable position and I dragged it out of you so I can reply to this.

For something that TOTALLY IS NOT LIKE RACISIM111111!111 you sure do like voiding the civil rights act. No N*ggers No Gays. Same **** different generation.

Thanks for shooting yourself in the foot,

Your posts are making less and less sense. Voiding the civil rights act? Untenable position? Again, what the heck are you talking about? I'm sorry if you don't see where out culture and society are headed, but what I am seeing is that our efforts to not offend anyone and to be "tolerant" for everyone, we are overstepping the other direction. I have no problem with equal rights, but I have a problem with taking away constitutionally protected rights from everyone to please a minority.

I didn't mention any in my last post as others have already posted examples. Sorry if you didn't read their comments. You want specific examples. Take Hobby Lobby. A private business that is facing fines and a law suit if the owner does not comply with the specific mandates in the obamacare laws. Basically he is being force to violate his conscience because of government interference in how he runs his private business. How about those bakeries that got sued and/or are facing fines because they politely declined a special order for a gay wedding. Again private business owners being force to violate their conscience. If gay marriage is legalized by the federal government I have no doubt that a spiritual leader somewhere will be asked to marry a gay couple in-spite of the fact that he disagrees with it, and will get taken to court and forced into compliance, or loose the ability to marry people. That's what happened to the bakers after all. Which is my whole reason for suggesting removing "the sacrament of marriage" from the legal system and replacing it with something similar that does not have its origins in any church or religion.

Nobody is asking you to agree with their beliefs or position. It is possible for people to disagree and still be civil and get along. But forcing people to violate their conscience this is a dangerous road for our society to travel down. Maybe you happen to hold opinions that are the current politically correct socially acceptable position. If so, good for you. But if we start regulating beliefs, opinions, and thoughts, the day could easily come when something you believe in suddenly is no longer acceptable, or even against the law.

Edited by domboy, Apr 9 2014, 1:23pm :

domboy said,
I have no problem with equal rights, but I have a problem with taking away constitutionally protected rights from everyone to please a minority.

No n*ggers is as protected by the constitutionally protected as no gays, There is no right to discriminate.

You act shocked at my comparison to separate but equal then demand that business be allowed to refuse service to gay people. Same sh*t different generation.

Next youll be demanding the right to fire gay people upon discovery. History repeats itself.

"the day could easily come when something you believe in suddenly is no longer acceptable, or even against the law."

Yeah like segregation and employment discrimination, Go back to 1960 where your views belong.

Edited by TPreston, Apr 9 2014, 1:45pm :

TPreston said,

No n*ggers is as protected by the constitutionally protected as no gays, There is no right to discriminate.

You act shocked at my comparison to separate but equal then demand that business be allowed to refuse service to gay people. Same sh*t different generation.

Next youll be demanding the right to fire gay people upon discovery. History repeats itself.

"the day could easily come when something you believe in suddenly is no longer acceptable, or even against the law."

Yeah like segregation and employment discrimination, Go back to 1960 where your views belong.

Yes history is repeating itself, just this time the LGTB activists are becoming the new group of bullies. Sorry if you can't see it. The tables are turning, but they aren't stopping in the middle for a balance, they are tipping the other way. I just hope there is still time to level it out.

And another thing, you want us to be tolerant of your opinions, but you don't sound like very tolerant individual yourself based on your comments, so by your own words should I be intolerant of your intolerance?

Besides, who said any of this was my view? I am perfectly fine with equality and fairness, but when I see bulling now coming from the same people that screamed about being bullied, I see a problem. I want a fair and equal society. What I don't want is to replace one set of bullies for another set.

domboy said,

Yes history is repeating itself, just this time the LGTB activists are becoming the new group of bullies. Sorry if you can't see it.

I cant see it because it doesn't exist, There is no right to discriminate or to say stupid #### and not get fired. This treatment is nothing special it happens to outed racists all the time.

domboy said,
And another thing, you want us to be tolerant of your opinions

No I don't, Feel free to respond them and insult me I don't care.

domboy said,
but you dont sound like very tolerant individual yourself based on your comments, so by your own words should I be intolerant of your intolerance?

I respect their right to free speech, That's a given doesn't mean everyone else has to shut up though.

domboy said,
Besides, who said any of this was my view? I am perfectly fine with equality and fairness, but when I see bulling now coming from the same people that screamed about being bullied, I see a problem. I want a fair and equal society. What I don't want is to replace one set of bullies for another set.?

A fair and equal socity without that pesky civil rights act as you eluded to in the last news item, bring back the "no n*ggers k*ckes or irish" signs cause we want a fair and equal socity.

Give me a sodding break!

Commenting is disabled on this article.