Mozilla CEO resigns because of Prop 8 donation in 2008

[Kleves]

On further reflection, this point I find even more unpalatable.  So, basically, your problem with him is that he didn't publicly renounce his previously-held views as incorrect, and thus he deserves what he got.

A self-criticism session or two would have done wonders for this guy.

[Admiral Yi]

Well the decision that overturned Prop 8 did say:

unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause because no compelling state interest justifies denying same-sex couples the fundamental right to marry

Does that disprove my point?

[Eddie Teach]

Everyone gets mad once in a while the differences are how we display it.

And shouting and cursing is more acceptable than violence. So you could learn something from your brother.

[Legbiter]

A self-criticism session or two would have done wonders for this guy.

Never give them an inch I say. Public self-flagellation only whets their appetite. If they catch you out in a perceived Thoughtcrime, don't grovel.

[Sheilbh]

Well he didn't just oppose gay marriage. He funded a group whose sole aim was to get rid of California's existing policy of allowing gay marriages.

He donate $1000 during a campaign that spent $83 million. I think 'funding' anything's putting it a bit strong.

[Barrister]

1) I still contend that he could have dodged the issue by evolving in the issue, much like Obama. If he'd busted out some "it made sense to me at the time, but now I realize I was wrong, how hurtful it was and I'm sorry" statement he'd likely have been fine. The issue is not that he donated to a hateful cause back when it was considered okay and normal (by many) to hold that hate; it's that he did that and then refused to walk it back or otherwise engage in any kind of damage control once it became an issue after social mores changed.

On further reflection, this point I find even more unpalatable.  So, basically, your problem with him is that he didn't publicly renounce his previously-held views as incorrect, and thus he deserves what he got.

Exactly.

I have no problem with people being fired for doing 'bad things'.

But making a political donation can not possible be construed as a bad act by itself.  It's only by taking the donation as a sign of what the man believes, and therefore firing him for having bad thoughts instead.

[garbon]

Well he didn't just oppose gay marriage. He funded a group whose sole aim was to get rid of California's existing policy of allowing gay marriages.

He donate $1000 during a campaign that spent $83 million. I think 'funding' anything's putting it a bit strong.

So where do we draw the line on dollar amount that we can take it into consideration?

[garbon]

But making a political donation can not possible be construed as a bad act by itself.  It's only by taking the donation as a sign of what the man believes, and therefore firing him for having bad thoughts instead.

Do you think it unfair to draw the conclusion that he wanted to take away the right to marry that gay people enjoyed in the state at that time?

[Iormlund]

Exactly.

I have no problem with people being fired for doing 'bad things'.

But making a political donation can not possible be construed as a bad act by itself.  It's only by taking the donation as a sign of what the man believes, and therefore firing him for having bad thoughts instead.

He explicitly supported a campaign to treat a segment of the population as second-class citizens.

That's not a thought, that's taking active action to consciously deprive others of a right. It's no different than lobbying for anti-miscegenation laws.

[Admiral Yi]

He explicitly supported a campaign to treat a segment of the population as second-class citizens.

That's not a thought, that's taking active action to consciously deprive others of a right. It's no different than lobbying for anti-miscegenation laws.

Of course it is.  Prop 8 didn't criminalize anything.

[crazy canuck]

But making a political donation can not possible be construed as a bad act by itself.

"Cannot possibly"?   I think you can easily imagine a political contribution that might be condemned.     

[crazy canuck]

He explicitly supported a campaign to treat a segment of the population as second-class citizens.

That's not a thought, that's taking active action to consciously deprive others of a right. It's no different than lobbying for anti-miscegenation laws.

Of course it is.  Prop 8 didn't criminalize anything.

You dont see a distinction between merely holding a belief that gays should not marry and fininacially supporting an initiative which would make it illegal for them to do so?

[Sheilbh]

That's not a thought, that's taking active action to consciously deprive others of a right. It's no different than lobbying for anti-miscegenation laws.

Except there's no reason for that except racism. There are other reasons for opposing gay marriage than homophobia.

[garbon]

He explicitly supported a campaign to treat a segment of the population as second-class citizens.

That's not a thought, that's taking active action to consciously deprive others of a right. It's no different than lobbying for anti-miscegenation laws.

Of course it is.  Prop 8 didn't criminalize anything.

True though apparently Wisconsin has criminalized going to another state to have a marriage performed that is not permitted in Wisconsin.

[Sheilbh]

True though apparently Wisconsin has criminalized going to another state to have a marriage performed that is not permitted in Wisconsin.