Gay marriage foes outraged at Mozilla CEO flap, call for boycott Dating website OkCupid says it's "satisfied" that Brendan Eich has stepped down as CEO of the Mozilla Corporation, but not everyone agrees, and Eich's decision hasn't spared the Firefox maker from calls for a boycott. Last week, OkCupid posted a message to its homepage urging Firefox users to switch to a different browser in …
I guess there were so many clicks from this article that you just had to milk it some more?
I guess I don't blame you guys. The comments here should be as funny as the last article too. Is Santorum going to show up again?
Fundamentally, we have free speech, we can also (to some extent) vote with our money and consumer feet.
Brendan Eich, paid money in to lobby so that a sector of society shouldn't have certain rights, I support his right to do this 100%, but free speech doesn't come with a "- and can't be criticised for it" suffix, I can't force him to think differently, that's his choice, and his choice to attempt to impose his view on others.
The protesters against Brendan Eich, were doing exactly the same, instead of paying to have a sector of society denied rights, they boycotted (and encouraged others to boycott) a product he was subsequently associated with, I support this action 100% too.
Neither action or protest was illegal, but was one protest disproportionate to the other? lets compare them; a man lost a job (and may find it difficult to get another in the same salary range), that's a bit shitty, he attempted to prevent an entire sector of society from getting legal recognition of love, and (some may say) more importantly legal protection, pension sharing, next of kin etc. if it was disproportionate, perhaps he lost a little as a result of attempting to take away a lot from others?
As a private citizen he made a modest donation to a campaign for reasons he did not make public and presumably had no intention of disclosing except for donation laws. And none of which has anything to do with making a web browser. He should have told the protesters to go bother someone else.
The main issue that caused the whole controversy is that he was appointed CEO. For years he was CTO and nobody peeped a thing about his donation on Prop8. But the moment he gets into the CEO chair, he's able to manage donations for the Mozilla Foundation. Which means that coupled with his beliefs, he theoretically could have started making Mozilla give donations to groups like the "Kill the Gays" organization that caused the Chik-Fil-A controversy last year. In fact, that other scandal was uncovered because of that company's CEO speaking against same-sex marriage, which led to LGBT groups checking out where Chik-Fil-A donations were really going.
On the other side, Eich doesn't seem to have had the intention of steering Mozilla into 'fund the crazies' mode, so the pressure on demanding his resignation does seem to be overkill. His whole contribution was a relatively minor one, and it was made years ago. Views have changed in the years between, what some people did a couple of years ago might not be indicative of what they think right now. Maybe Eich's "mistake" was not to say he's no longer against same-sex marriage… but that was probably not a good reason for him to be pressured into resigning.
There's no doubt there is someone out there with a hit list based on contributions for or against whatever cause. Heck it's easy when all they have to do is compare today's headline with the database, both conveniently hosted at the LA Times for simple one stop sniping.
Meanwhile as both sides square off with boycotts at 10 paces everyone else just sees a bunch of extremists with nothing constructive to offer and rightly ignores the whole thing.
>>As a private citizen he made a modest donation to a campaign for reasons he did not make public and presumably had no intention of disclosing except for donation laws.
So imposing his bigotry is fine if you keep it a secret?
Lobbying for slavery to be re-introduced is OK, if you don't tell anyone?
Remember, this is not merely a "view" he tried to get the law changed.
>>And none of which has anything to do with making a web browser. He should have told the protesters to go bother someone else.
Yep, his views have nothing to do with a browser, but why is his view relevant to gay people either? unless he's actually gay why is his view relevant to the world?, nobody is forcing him to marry a man.
His protest and the activists protests follow the same form.
"....So imposing his bigotry...." Major fail - objection to gay marriage does not make you a homophobic bigot, not unles you want to contend that the gay people also opposed to gay marriage are also homophobic bigots. You have also failed to show any demonstration of bigotry by Eich in his position at Mozilla that might actually make him unsuitable for the role.
"....Remember, this is not merely a "view" he tried to get the law changed...." As was his democratic right and was supported by 52% of those Californians that voted. The whole reason Prop8 was raised was because a standing law was changed to allow gay marriage. What you are saying is that only people that agree with you should be allowed to change the law - a massive fail of despotic arrogance.
"....unless he's actually gay why is his view relevant to the world?...." Logical fail - I'm not a paedophile but I have pretty strongs views on how that is wrong, but according to your logic only paedophiles should be allowed to voice an opinion on the legal age of consent.
...I dont care what his/her personal beliefs are provided he leaves them at the door when he enters the company building.
But using a position within a company to further them is a no-no. .
WE all know about 'Company X, where you need to be a born again Christian to work' or 'Company Y where only gay men get employed' or 'Company Z for which the primary requirement seems to be being a raving feminist, preferably lesbian'.
IN the end they fail because these are not the correct criteria for selecting the best people to run a given business.
But they make a lot of mess before they do.
It may well be that he never intended his particular thing to be publicised, but when you are a high up member of any organisation you effectively cease to have a private life.
If he had wanted to donate to a cause, anonymity was the appropriate method.
Anonymity is illegal when you're contributing more than a certain amount to a political campaign. Eich didn't have any choice in whether his support was made public or not.
The political campaign that he contributed to actually won at the ballot - he's being punished for supporting what was a mainstream point of view at the time. I don't see OKCupid boycotting the State of California because a majority of its voters supported exactly the same campaign that Eich made a donation to.
He did not make the donation recently as CEO, he did it years ago PRIVATELY when he was a CTO and without any publicity. Only just recently his donation by check came to light because of some newspaper nosing around who the donors were.
No matter what the cause, all people can donate what they want to who they want as a function of the 1st amendment and they can have and voice their OWN opinion.
Firing someone or forcing them to resign like this is exactly the same as having NAZI's painting the Star of David and "Juden" on your front door and all the bad stuff that follows.
There is NO difference between these actions.
"Firing someone or forcing them to resign like this is exactly the same as having NAZI's painting the Star of David and "Juden" on your front door and all the bad stuff that follows.
There is NO difference between these actions."
Really? It's closer to getting rid of someone who is the leader--- der führer, if you will-- of a company because you don't really want to align your or your company's support with someone who loves NAZI's (sic) and persecuting people he feels are inferior. That is behaviour you really want to discourage sooner, rather than later.
Note: this is sarcasm aimed straight at your idiotic comparison to Nazism and persecution of the Jews (and homosexuals, gypsies, and others that don't get mentioned). I'm sure herr Eichmann, er, mister Eich is not a Nazi and his desire to support knuckle-dragging flat-earth religious right loons stems from honest moral bankruptcy, rather than from some insane desire to round up all the homosexuals and put them into concentration camps.
The amount he donated was enough to require him to name his employer. If I understand correctly, it was the minimum amount required to trigger the requirement.
He could have donated less, a dollar less would not have required the association with his employer.
He can say what he wants, and so can his employees, customers and shareholders.
If your talent threatens to leave because of CEO and users threaten to boycott the product, then the "freedom of speech" ends with shareholders doing what they think is right for the company. Mozilla surely must have plenty gay people working there, surely they don't want to work for CEO who's actively campaigning against their human rights. Like I would never work for some weirdo creationist donating money to destroy science education in schools.
> He can say what he wants, and so can his employees, customers and shareholders.
Indeed, and nobody has said that he can't continue to retain his bigotted, 19th century beliefs.
All I know is that I wouldn't want to work with him.
I realise that a lot of these beliefs are fairly commonplace in the good ol' US of A and pretty unremarkable. In the rest of the world, we kinda got past all that years ago.
who's actively campaigning against their human rights
I thought he was just against gay marriage? Does "marriage" count as a "human right" now? Are there any other administrative procedures that are listed under "human rights" that I should know about?
Indeed, and nobody has said that he can't continue to retain his bigotted, 19th century beliefs.
Bigoted takes one "t".
Thank you for the heartfelt righthink message, btw.
> I thought he was just against gay marriage? Does "marriage" count as a "human right" now?
Where did I use the term human right?
As far as I'm concerned all things should be possible to all people, unless that action impinges on the exercise of the freedoms of other people. That's the very definition of a free country.
This man thinks that some freedoms enjoyed by one section of the community should be off limits to another and that that restriction should be embodied in law. Fair enough so far...it's a free country with freedom of speech. However, he didn't leave it at that. He performed a positive act to further those aims to enforce his "belief" on others.
We've had other people in the past who sought to impose their "beliefs" on others:
1) That black people should sit at the back of the bus or stand if a white person wants to sit.
2) That atheists should be hounded out of the community, because they are the spawn of satan.
3) That evolution shouldn't be taught in school because the good book says something else.
Thank goodness we only have to worry about gay marriage.
But I think that still qualifies him as a twat.
But that's just my opinion.
@skelband The human right implication was made by mraak see the original post "Freedom of speech goes both ways here" suggesting that eich was "...actively campaigning against their human rights." Thereby implying that marriage is a human right.
I think you got confused who was replying to you and who was replying to mraak.
@skelband said "As far as I'm concerned all things should be possible to all people, unless that action impinges on the exercise of the freedoms of other people. That's the very definition of a free country. This man thinks that some freedoms enjoyed by one section of the community should be off limits to another and that that restriction should be embodied in law. Fair enough so far...it's a free country with freedom of speech. However, he didn't leave it at that. He performed a positive act to further those aims to enforce his "belief" on others. We've had other people in the past who sought to impose their "beliefs" on others:"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh The irony of the above gay-fascist's opinion! Eich has just had the ultra-bigoted opinions of a minority group thrown at him and lost his job in the process, all in the name of 'right'. Yet those same cretins have abused HIS rights but that's OK - because it's only THEIR opinions that matter, isn't it?
I wonder if he campaigned against polygamy, combined marriages or children brides if that would have raised all this dust. There are countries were both are accepted social rights, and would not be happy it you remove them.
There's nothing as a "human right to marriage" as there's nothing like a "human right to have children".
But let's remove the finger, all this fuss about marriage is really about *money*. The right to "marriage" is really a right to "inheritance" and other ways to obtain easy money or advantages.
But let's remove the finger, all this fuss about marriage is really about *money*.
And the various other benefits afforded to people who are willing to inform the state that they are officially fucking each other.
I see no reason to deny this to any particular pair, or perhaps even group, of consenting adults. That or get rid of all the benefits for everyone, straight or gay. If the religionists want to claim that marriage is their exclusive property, then marriage must be removed from the state as an institution and contained solely within the church (temple, mosque, coven, whatever).
Anything else is theocracy.
@LDS,
Let's grant your "there is no human right to marriage" thesis, for the sake of argument. However, there is a _legal_ right to marriage, as long as you meet certain criteria (like not already being married, being over a certain age, etc).
And once married, there are a vast number of privileges and advantages available which are not afforded to unmarried people. Despite your claim about money, consider who gets to make medical decisions for someone incapable of making them for themselves. Sure, there are ways to circumvent the problem, but why should one group have to jump through hoops because they are denied the ability to marry who they want?
Fun fact: Prop 8 (supported by Eich-the-useless-CEO) was a reaction to the previous "Knight Initiative" (Prop 22) which was passed in 2000 and struck down as unconstitutional in 2008. Prop 22 was passed on March 7, 2000; the Fox TV show "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?" aired on February 15th, and the "marriage" was annulled on April 5th. Obviously, people in California cared deeply about "traditional marriage".
Another fun fact: "traditional marriage" obviously includes arranged marriages and child marriages.
Not money, no (although it is a factor, I don't belive it's the biggest one)
It's more about the right to visit your spouse in the emergency room (where only family members are allowed, so a "friend" wouldn't be)
It's about the right to descide for your spouse, if said spouse is incapacitated (like a partner in a marraige is allowed to do)
It's about beeing allowed to care for the children of your significant other, if something happens to them as well: Say one part of a gay pair has a child (by adoption or sperm donation or what ever), the other can not legaly adopt said child. Now something happens to the one with the child. In a marriage the responsibility for said child would go to the other spouse. Without marriage the responsibilty will go to the state.... So in one full sweep the child looses both it's parents and goes into the foster program.
And it is about making an official commitment in a way the way that they were brought up in.
There is a HUGE difference between RELIGIOUS MARRIAGE and LEGAL (Think City Hall) MARRIAGE.
THESE TWO NEED TO BE SEPARATED FROM EACHOTHER!!!!!!!!!
City Hall is available to almost anyone REGARDLESS of BELIEF STRUCTURE in many places.
This would remove some of the vehemence from the arguement!
In the rest of the world
Just like some Americans need to learn that the world does not begin and end between Point Udall and West Quoddy Head, I think some others need to learn that "rest of the world" is not solely contained within a small archipelago of islands off the North of France with dismally shit weather.
Unfortunately there is more than one country where the official view is somewhere between Medieval and Victorian as far as attitudes towards sex and intimate relationships go.
> Unfortunately there is more than one country where the official view is somewhere between Medieval and Victorian as far as attitudes towards sex and intimate relationships go.
Unfortunately, I fear you may be right.
Like cigarettes, we have exported our despicable Christian religious ideas to the continent of Africa where people are more afraid of what God will think about them using condoms than catching Aids.
Oh and uptightness about sexual matters are a fundamentally Christian idea to do with shame about our bodies and original sin. We could do with losing that particular religious stupidity while we're at it.
"Oh and uptightness about sexual matters are a fundamentally Christian idea to do with shame about our bodies and original sin."
Oh, I don't know, i'm sure that there have been many other religions throughout history and around the world that have propogated that particular attitude. Don't be so sure that christianity can claim all the credit for that one.
"Unfortunately there is more than one country where the official view is somewhere between Medieval and Victorian as far as attitudes towards sex and intimate relationships go."
Indeed, if you look at some of the many things that ARE legal in the United States compared to many other countries outside of the 'west' hegemony, you'd realise just how progressive they really are. Even the simple fact that so many people have the right to have so many different opinions for one.
Some people can, and some people can't, leave their beliefs as a private individual at home when they go to work. If he was one of the former group, then it was wrong to call for his resignation. If one of the latter group, it's his employees who shouuld have led the campaign to oust him.
In my book I'll contrast the speed with which he resigned to save his company embarassment (perhaps he should have toughed it out?), with a certain MP who resigned today after fighting an unjustifiable, legalistic, and threatening battle with the media over the facts of her abuse of the house of commons expenses system. I know who I'd rather work under!
Human right?
How is having the state recognize your relationship with another as a legally binding contract a human right?
He donated in support of keeping a narrow definition of marriage. It does not make him homophobic. It does not constitute "...actively campaigning against their human rights. "
In my country there is a prominent federal politician who is openly lesbien, but she has doesn't support the introduction of marriage equality laws. I going to assume that she's not a homophobe either.
Personal opinion disclaimer: I think marriage is not what many people beleive it is. It is state recognition of a relationship as a legal contract between two people in a consensual relationship. I think if you are going to recognize male/female relationships this way that should be extended to m/m and f/f relationships too, he'll while we're at it if people want polygamist marriages let them m/m/m, f/f/m/m any combination you like. Because I also beleive that you don't need state recognition to be committed in your relationship with another and people both sides should step back and realise that they can already have the bit that matters, the relationship, and that the bit they are fighting over is a trivial aside.
Yeah, they have the relationship, but they don't have the state given rights to go with it.
They can't visit their love in the ER, or make medical descions for them if they are incapacitated. If partner A has a child and something happends to this partner, Partner B can not take over the care for the child.
It's not about beeing allowed to go into a church and have some person say a few words, it's about the rights that come with it.
So, he wasn't campaigning against their human rights, "just" against their state rights.
Meanwhile:
A slave is somebody compelled to provide service to another. Elane Huguenin, a wedding photographer from New Mexico, was arraigned before [New Mexico's] state’s “human rights” soviet for politely declining to provide her services to a lesbian couple planning a “commitment ceremony” (the state doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage). The couple had no difficulty finding another photographer willing to accept payment for that service...
In its ruling upholding the actions of New Mexico’s “human rights” soviet, the State Supreme Court claimed that the lesbian couple had a right “to obtain goods and services from a public accommodation without discrimination on the basis of … sexual orientation.” This assumes that business owners like Huguenin have a duty to provide such services – and no right to decline participation in that transaction. In other words, involuntary servitude – despite being explicitly banned by the 13th Amendment – is justified in the service of “anti-discrimination” policy.
Attorneys on behalf of Huguenin appealed that ruling to the US Supreme Court, contending that it violated the free speech and religious liberty “guarantees” of the First Amendment – which it manifestly did. Huguenin’s legal counsel could have argued that the state’s Human Rights Act — which was amended in 2003 to include “sexual orientation” within the protected categories — represents a wholesale violation of property rights. This argument would only find traction, unfortunately, in a society where property rights are properly understood.
Huguenin’s counsel could have pointed out that the preferential treatment of property owners such as Mr. Darden [a hairdresser who would not accept business from New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez because she is an opponent of same-sex marriage with no ill effects] – who is allowed to discriminate against some customers on ideological grounds – violates the principle of equal protection under the law. But such preferential treatment is the entire point of “civil rights” enactments.
The US Supreme Court has declined Hugeunin’s appeal, tacitly ratifying the state supreme court’s endorsement of involuntary servitude in the name of “tolerance.”
All of this outraged entitled vocalatory minomajority is very confusing,
I think you'd make a better case if you didn't use loaded terms like "human rights soviet", and at least acknowledge that a lot of the more sympathetic coverage to this is coming from LGBT news sources. Yes, really.
You might also want to mention that at least one of the judges described the ruling as "sobering", or that the backlash this is likely going to cause is probably going to bring about a change in New Mexico's state law.
Though I do have to wonder what the reaction would have been if Ms Hugeunin had refused to photograph a wedding between two black people?
If you won't use a browser made by a company/organization that supports gay marriage, you can't use Firefox, Chrome, IE or Safari. What's that leave? Is Opera still around? No matter, pretty sure Norway is firmly in support of gay marriage.
If they wanted to boycott it because the pressure for his ouster was silencing free speech, they'd garner more support along with having some browser choices available to them.
Maybe the Koch brothers can take a break from spending millions on attack ads in the US and fund a browser built with conservative values, so when you try to visit msnbc.com it'll take you to foxnews.com, and when you try to visit huffingtonpost.com it'll take you to drudgereport.com :)
Fuckwit, the boycott against Mozilla has nothing to do with support or non-support of homosexual marriage. It is all about a company the gave in to fascists urging prosecution of a thoughtcrime. What's worse it was a thoughtcrime from 2008 when he simply went along with one Barack Obama's view of homosexual marriage. Then he wouldn't apologize, whoopy shit.
.deb packages The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
