Mozilla CEO resigns because of Prop 8 donation in 2008

[garbon]

A bit histrionic but I dig it.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/saeedjones/whos-afraid-of-the-gay-mafia

And so, ultimately: I'm sorry if my equality is inconvenient for you. Or that you risk being taken to task for bigotry no longer afforded the veil of public opinion. If I sound cold, understand my words have been chilled by stories of a lesbian couple murdered last month in Houston, a 4-year-old boy in Oregon murdered by a mother who believed she could beat the gay out of him, more than 30 states where LGBT people can be fired for being out, and a nation where marriage equality is still not a reality for all of its citizens.

[derspiess]

Because it's fair to tie people who support traditional definition of marriage together with people who murder homosexuals, right.

[garbon]

Because it's fair to tie people who support traditional definition of marriage together with people who murder homosexuals, right.

Fair no, but then none of this is about what's fair. If it was, traditional marriage advocates wouldn't make such a big stink about something that inconveniences them as a labeling matter (unless of course they are bigoted about gays in which case well that's also not about fairness either).

[Valmy]

And so, ultimately: I’m sorry if my equality is inconvenient for you. Or that you risk being taken to task for bigotry no longer afforded the veil of public opinion. If I sound cold, understand my words have been chilled by stories of a lesbian couple murdered last month in Houston, a 4-year-old boy in Oregon murdered by a mother who believed she could beat the gay out of him, more than 30 states where LGBT people can be fired for being out, and a nation where marriage equality is still not a reality for all of its citizens.

Well you can pretty much justify any action, no matter how extreme, based on that rhetoric.  If you find somebody else's private views immoral it is open season to do whatever?  How interesting given the justifications for establishing the anti-LGBT laws and persecution in the first place. 

[garbon]

And so, ultimately: I’m sorry if my equality is inconvenient for you. Or that you risk being taken to task for bigotry no longer afforded the veil of public opinion. If I sound cold, understand my words have been chilled by stories of a lesbian couple murdered last month in Houston, a 4-year-old boy in Oregon murdered by a mother who believed she could beat the gay out of him, more than 30 states where LGBT people can be fired for being out, and a nation where marriage equality is still not a reality for all of its citizens.

Well you can pretty much justify any action, no matter how extreme, based on that rhetoric.  If you find somebody else's private views immoral it is open season to do whatever?  How interesting given the justifications for establishing the anti-LGBT laws and persecution in the first place. 

Slow down, cowboy. When the news starts filling up with violent assaults against accused homophobes then that'll be true.

[The Brain]

Last time I'll make an Aryan nazi joke. 

U sad bro?

Depressed.

Boring.

[derspiess]

I have to say I'm pleasantly surprised that there is such lively debate over the issue, both here and elsewhere.  I figured a large majority would either be happy with the end result or ignore it.

I dig what Andrew Sullivan had to say:

Will he now be forced to walk through the streets in shame? Why not the stocks? The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us.

[garbon]

Yeah Andrew Sullivan is wrong. Nothing new.

For instance, we hound people who make racist speeches all the time but I don't think most people see that as a terrible limit on free speech.

[Iormlund]

I don't get the 'free speech' argument. Nobody is saying prop 8 donors should be prosecuted. At least nobody sane.

'Free speech' is not the same as 'speech without consequences'.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't get the 'free speech' argument. Nobody is saying prop 8 donors should be prosecuted. At least nobody sane.

'Free speech' is not the same as 'speech without consequences'.

He said intimidated, not prosecuted.

[crazy canuck]

I don't get the 'free speech' argument. Nobody is saying prop 8 donors should be prosecuted. At least nobody sane.

'Free speech' is not the same as 'speech without consequences'.

He said intimidated, not prosecuted.

So where is the intimidation?  You are all about the free market Yi. Customers said they didnt like something about the company.  Thats the free market in action.

[grumbler]

Yeah Andrew Sullivan is wrong. Nothing new.

For instance, we hound people who make racist speeches all the time but I don't think most people see that as a terrible limit on free speech.

I think people do see it as chilling when people change the target of reprobation from actions to people.  Eich wasn't hounded for what he did; he was hounded for being the kind of person who would do what he did.

I don't have a big problem with that; the BoD at Mozilla had to decide whether his positive in the position outweighed the negatives, and obviously decided that they did not.  CEO is that kind of position.

The sanctimonious attitude of his detractors is a big turn-off, but those who are sanctimonious about this tend to be people whose moral code is pretty much "if it is good for me, I find it moral" anyway.  Who gives a fuck what those people think?

[Iormlund]

I would also get fired if I insulted my clients. So I don't, no matter how much they deserve it (and many do). Am I being intimidated? Are my Free Speech rights being infringed?

[derspiess]

I don't get the 'free speech' argument. Nobody is saying prop 8 donors should be prosecuted. At least nobody sane.

'Free speech' is not the same as 'speech without consequences'.

Sullivan addresses that argument here:

As I said last night, of course Mozilla has the right to purge a CEO because of his incorrect political views. Of course Eich was not stripped of his First Amendment rights. I'd fight till my last breath for Mozilla to retain that right. What I'm concerned with is the substantive reason for purging him. When people's lives and careers are subject to litmus tests, and fired if they do not publicly renounce what may well be their sincere conviction, we have crossed a line. This is McCarthyism applied by civil actors. This is the definition of intolerance. If a socially conservative private entity fired someone because they discovered he had donated against Prop 8, how would you feel? It's staggering to me that a minority long persecuted for holding unpopular views can now turn around and persecute others for the exact same reason. If we cannot live and work alongside people with whom we deeply disagree, we are finished as a liberal society.

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/04/04/dissents-of-the-day-63/

[The Brain]

"wah wah wah"