Mozilla CEO resigns because of Prop 8 donation in 2008

[Norgy]

Mosaic here.

[Ed Anger]

I don't know which is worse, the fudgepackers and social justice warrior online lynch mob, or the increasing amount of Consevatard emails telling everybody to uninstall Firefox. Like they know how. They have to get their nephew to do it.

Bleh.

[garbon]

FWIW, while Mr. Eich might care a lot about making sure I don't get married - I don't actually give a rat's ass about him or his donation beyond some generalized disgust. What does have me recoiling is how quick we are to defend him.

It's quaint how "not wanting to crucify him" equals defending him in your fag-fascist model.

I don't want to crucify him.

So since you agree with us why are you recoiling from our identical position?

Because his ouster doesn't have me concerned nor do I take it as as an indictment on the state of modern politics. I can't wait for the day when positions like his are only held by troglodytes and kept to oneself. No tears for the man who donated to an organization whose aim was to take rights away from a subgroup.

I also think most of the support for his ouster came from within tech circles/his own company (re: employees) rather than the power of shrieking gay activists. Unlike Marti, I don't read the Advocate but I'd never heard anything about the man till right before he resigned. Very different from say the Chick-fil-A situation.

[The Brain]

If the CEO of a company has donated money to keep the homofags down it may raise quite legitimate concerns among employees about his ability to deal fairly with gay employees. The dude does come across as being less than fit for the top job.

[grumbler]

If the CEO of a company has donated money to keep the homofags down it may raise quite legitimate concerns among employees about his ability to deal fairly with gay employees. The dude does come across as being less than fit for the top job.

I think that this is a legitimate concern.  I don't think that single concerns should disqualify candidates, though.  Such concerns should simply be taken into account, like all other strengths and weaknesses of the candidates.  I have no problems with internal or outside groups making noise about such concerns, however.

[Admiral Yi]

If the CEO of a company has donated money to keep the homofags down it may raise quite legitimate concerns among employees about his ability to deal fairly with gay employees. The dude does come across as being less than fit for the top job.

This assumption is the crux of the argument to my thinking.  If in fact Eich's motivation for donating was to keep homofags down, then yes, by all means, hound him out of his position.

However, the inability to conceive of motivations other than the desire to oppress is an intellectual failing.  For example, it is commonly stated by opponents of gay marriage that their objection is based on the religiously sanctified nature of marriage.  To ignore this and ascribe it to bigotry is similar to Seedy4NARL's attempt to portray objections to abortion as a "war on women." 

Not every position you disagree with has to be evil, even if it does make you feel better about yourself for being on the "right side."

[Neil]

Better yet, why not let people marry fucking furniture, or fictional characters.

GAYS ARE PURE EVIL.  LOOK AT THEM.  THEY ARE A CANCER AT THE HEART OF SOCIETY.

[Iormlund]

For example, it is commonly stated by opponents of gay marriage that their objection is based on the religiously sanctified nature of marriage.  To ignore this and ascribe it to bigotry is similar to Seedy4NARL's attempt to portray objections to abortion as a "war on women." 

Religiously motivated bigotry is still bigotry. Shielding yourself in your belief in magic fairies doesn't change anything.

Would you defend just as vigorously if he was a hindu who lobbied for a caste-based system, a Muslim who did likewise with Sharia law or a neo-nazi who practiced Ásatrú or is this just a prerogative of Christianity?

[The Brain]

If the CEO of a company has donated money to keep the homofags down it may raise quite legitimate concerns among employees about his ability to deal fairly with gay employees. The dude does come across as being less than fit for the top job.

This assumption is the crux of the argument to my thinking.  If in fact Eich's motivation for donating was to keep homofags down, then yes, by all means, hound him out of his position.

However, the inability to conceive of motivations other than the desire to oppress is an intellectual failing.  For example, it is commonly stated by opponents of gay marriage that their objection is based on the religiously sanctified nature of marriage.  To ignore this and ascribe it to bigotry is similar to Seedy4NARL's attempt to portray objections to abortion as a "war on women." 

Not every position you disagree with has to be evil, even if it does make you feel better about yourself for being on the "right side."

"The Bible made me do it" is not a relevant defense among adults.

[dps]

For example, it is commonly stated by opponents of gay marriage that their objection is based on the religiously sanctified nature of marriage.  To ignore this and ascribe it to bigotry is similar to Seedy4NARL's attempt to portray objections to abortion as a "war on women." 

Religiously motivated bigotry is still bigotry. Shielding yourself in your belief in magic fairies doesn't change anything.

Would you defend just as vigorously if he was a hindu who lobbied for a caste-based system, a Muslim who did likewise with Sharia law or a neo-nazi who practiced Ásatrú or is this just a prerogative of Christianity?

If their public lobbying was limited to relatively small contributions to groups that work through non-violent, democratic means, yes, absolutely.

[Admiral Yi]

"The Bible made me do it" is not a relevant defense among adults.

In a democracy people generally don't have to provide a defense for their positions.

[alfred russel]

As someone living in Georgia, when I was in college any sex act outside of marriage was illegal (some inside of marriage were illegal too). Going back to when my father was growing up, interracial marriage was illegal.

If you wanted to have sex legally, you had to marry someone of the opposite gender and same race. That was what was enacted into law by the legislature and governor. Almost all of that has gone away, though court action. Gay marriage is just the last domino to fall.

[garbon]

"The Bible made me do it" is not a relevant defense among adults.

In a democracy people generally don't have to provide a defense for their positions.

[Valmy]

Because his ouster doesn't have me concerned nor do I take it as as an indictment on the state of modern politics. I can't wait for the day when positions like his are only held by troglodytes and kept to oneself. No tears for the man who donated to an organization whose aim was to take rights away from a subgroup.

Ok well that is what we are concerned about.  Not sure why that means we are shedding tears or defending him or why having a concern about modern politics repels you for some reason. 

[Valmy]

For example, it is commonly stated by opponents of gay marriage that their objection is based on the religiously sanctified nature of marriage.  To ignore this and ascribe it to bigotry is similar to Seedy4NARL's attempt to portray objections to abortion as a "war on women." 

Religiously motivated bigotry is still bigotry. Shielding yourself in your belief in magic fairies doesn't change anything.

Would you defend just as vigorously if he was a hindu who lobbied for a caste-based system, a Muslim who did likewise with Sharia law or a neo-nazi who practiced Ásatrú or is this just a prerogative of Christianity?

I still cannot get over thinking it is a bit much to have somebody's career and life be ruined is equivalent to defending him.  But yes I do not think Hindus, Muslims and even Neo-Nazis should all be fired from their jobs.