Mozilla CEO resigns because of Prop 8 donation in 2008

[Valmy]

I'm of pure Aryan stock.

I didn't know you were Pakistani.

I never known what is going to set people off from that part of the world.  I have had Indians lose their shit when people mention the Aryans as the Aryan invasion theory was apparently constructed by evil Brits to justify their Empire while others are all like 'yeah we are Aryans we kick ass!'  No different than any other old world nationalist stuff but it is interesting how rather obscure historical topics in our part of the world are so emotionally charged in other places.  Kind of brings them to life for me and reminds me we are talking about stuff that matters.

[Capetan Mihali]

Probably like the ACW, if you flip the equation.

[Ed Anger]

Last time I'll make an Aryan nazi joke. 

[DGuller]

No, because I'm not justifying or arguing about what ought to be.

Then what exactly are you doing?  We don't discuss stories here about some guy getting fired because we want to wail over their bad fortune.  I would say that the vast majority of stories here that generate a discussion bring up a larger issue, at which point "what ought to be" in the story that became the focal point is a pretty fundamental and central question.

[Valmy]

Last time I'll make an Aryan nazi joke. 

[Ed Anger]

I would set you all on fire.

[Iormlund]

If marriage is a religious creation which the state piggy-backed onto, it can't change that meaning.

Don't be ridiculous. Marriage pre-dates Christianity by millennia.

Don't be ridiculous. Religion pre-dates Christianity by millenia as well.
Seriously, though. Co-habitation may not have been a religious creation; formal marriage almost certainly was. A bit difficult for it not to have been when the earliest civilisations seem to have formed around temples (see Sumer.) I'm having trouble thinking of any previous civilisation that formalised same-sex relationships as marriages even when they were accepted (such as in ancient Greece) or considered "de rigueur" (such as in ancient Sparta.)

I very much doubt Sheilbh is arguing for us to follow ancient marriage customs. For starters we don't even know how or when they came to be, since they pre-date recorded history as well.

[The Brain]

Last time I'll make an Aryan nazi joke. 

U sad bro?

[Razgovory]

I would set you all on fire.

Not Ide, I already called him.

[Jacob]

No, because I'm not justifying or arguing about what ought to be.

Then what exactly are you doing?  We don't discuss stories here about some guy getting fired because we want to wail over their bad fortune.  I would say that the vast majority of stories here that generate a discussion bring up a larger issue, at which point "what ought to be" in the story that became the focal point is a pretty fundamental and central question.

A CEO lost his job because he brought unwanted negative attention to his company for political activities unrelated to the company. This attention appears to have risen fairly organically from civil society, and the substance of it appears to be correct. He was unable or unwilling to address the negative PR repercussions, and he resigned.

That falls within the scope of what's acceptable in my view. I reject your suggestions that this represents something new or a slippery slope where political activity is somehow now more risky than it's been in the past.

Given the political climate in the US regarding various culture issues and the innumerable boycotts and denouncement that have been flying back and forth for years I'm not sure I understand what makes this stand out so much. As I understand it people have lost their jobs for volunteering for Planned Parenthood or believing in Creationism; OvB has given examples of people suffering professional repercussions for signing the Scott Walker recall petition.

I mean, if you think that in general US political culture should allow for a greater separation of political actions and professional life, that's a noble sentiment and one I can probably get behind; but can you explain to me what it is about the Eich case that makes it the catalyst and centre-piece for that sentiment as opposed to any of the many other places where the two bleed together?

[Sheilbh]

I mean, if you think that in general US political culture should allow for a greater separation of political actions and professional life, that's a noble sentiment and one I can probably get behind; but can you explain to me what it is about the Eich case that makes it the catalyst and centre-piece for that sentiment as opposed to any of the many other places where the two bleed together?

For me it's because it's my side. So there's a 'not in my name' element and, as you say, this has been a common tactic of the religious right which isn't a model I want to see followed. Unlike them I don't want to punish or scare people.

Also I'm still weirded out that OkCupid did what they did. As a company I can only assume they thought that by outing him and asking for a boycott they'd benefit. I'm not convinced I want companies trying to compete by out-virtuing each other.

Edit: And I think it matters that we're winning. Gay marriage is happening because we've heard all the arguments against it - and they've been beaten. Right now judges are considering whether businesses with religious owners can refuse to serve gay weddings (of course they shouldn't be able to). Overall I'm with Friedersdorf that this is a happy liberal open story of how you can change a culture in 10 years - but now we're adding a slightly nasty footnote of Eich and Mormon farmers.

I've said it before but I think the biggest reason America has the culture wars is because people enjoy them

[Jacob]

For me it's because it's my side. So there's a 'not in my name' element and, as you say, this has been a common tactic of the religious right which isn't a model I want to see followed. Unlike them I don't want to punish or scare people.

I think that's completely legitimate.

Also I'm still weirded out that OkCupid did what they did. As a company I can only assume they thought that by outing him and asking for a boycott they'd benefit. I'm not convinced I want companies trying to compete by out-virtuing each other.

Yeah, it's a bit weird. I suppose they figure it matches their target demographics; or perhaps someone senior there feels strongly about the issue.

[DGuller]

I mean, if you think that in general US political culture should allow for a greater separation of political actions and professional life, that's a noble sentiment and one I can probably get behind; but can you explain to me what it is about the Eich case that makes it the catalyst and centre-piece for that sentiment as opposed to any of the many other places where the two bleed together?

Because there is a thread for Eich's case, but there isn't a thread for any of those other cases.  Apart from that, there is an unmistakable sentiment that Eich deserved what he got because he held a wrong opinion, and when confronted didn't change his opinion to the correct one, whereas in most other cases the sentiment here would be squarely behind the fired employee.  Cases where the victim isn't sympathetic tend to generate more of the discussion.

[Valmy]

Because there is a thread for Eich's case, but there isn't a thread for any of those other cases.  Apart from that, there is an unmistakable sentiment that Eich deserved what he got because he held a wrong opinion, and when confronted didn't change his opinion to the correct one, whereas in most other cases the sentiment here would be squarely behind the fired employee.  Cases where the victim isn't sympathetic tend to generate more of the discussion.

True.  If he was fired for supporting gay marriage this would have been a pretty short thread.

[Ed Anger]

Last time I'll make an Aryan nazi joke. 

U sad bro?

Depressed.