Mozilla CEO resigns because of Prop 8 donation in 2008

[derspiess]

I'm of pure Aryan stock.

With Kentucky mutations

[Ed Anger]

I'm of pure Aryan stock.

With Kentucky mutations

[derspiess]

I'm of pure Aryan stock.

With Kentucky mutations

I think the rays from that blue moon cause it.

[Agelastus]

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.)

[Jacob]

The problem is the notion that he should've had a problem to deal with in the first place.

It's not a notion, it's a fact; as evidenced by the course of events.

[Jacob]

2) We are talking about denying someone else's basic human rights here.

One could, if one wanted, couch virtually any existing public policy issue in terms so that people on the other side from you are anathema.

Fair point. There is definitely a tendency in some quarters to shift all debate to a stark binary, with moral underpinnings.

Personally I try not to do so, but in this case I find it more persuasive than most.

[Jacob]

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.

Forget the "other reasons".  Assume it was straight homophobia.  So what?

What if they guy had donated to David Duke at some point in the past, but had otherwise never shown any other issues.  He hired black employees in the past, treated them fairly and with dignity, and did not use inappropriate language.  Is it really a good idea to fire someone in that kind of circumstance?

As a CEO of a company with worldwide aspirations? If he did not in any way address the issue of supporting racists?

I'd certainly avoid doing business with that company while this theoretical guy was in charge.

I'll note that Eich wasn't fired, he resigned when enough people proclaimed that they didn't want to do business with Mozilla while he remained in charge.

[Razgovory]

I'm of pure Aryan stock.

I didn't know you were Pakistani.

[Jacob]

I'm of pure Aryan stock.

I didn't know you were Pakistani.

It explains why he's so into Vedic medicine.

[Razgovory]

Only guy I ever heard going going on about Aryaness was a Pakistani guy.

[Ed Anger]

Well, you mutts can't marry a German now, can you?

[DGuller]

The problem is the notion that he should've had a problem to deal with in the first place.

It's not a notion, it's a fact; as evidenced by the course of events.

That's tautological reasoning.  You're saying that everything that became an issue should've become an issue, as evidenced by the fact that it became an issue.

[Jacob]

The problem is the notion that he should've had a problem to deal with in the first place.

It's not a notion, it's a fact; as evidenced by the course of events.

That's tautological reasoning.  You're saying that everything that became an issue should've become an issue, as evidenced by the fact that it became an issue.

No, because I'm not justifying or arguing about what ought to be. I'm noting what happened, why it happened, how it could have played out differently; I'm also saying I'm not particularly upset about it, and that I think you are incorrect about the broader implications if the events.

You are trying to frame some sort of absolute moral right or wrong here. I'm uninterested in that particular line of discussion, but you are still trying to construe my statements to fit into your debate parameters and in the process misrepresenting them.

[derspiess]

You are trying to frame some sort of absolute moral right or wrong here. I'm uninterested in that particular line of discussion,

[Jacob]

You are trying to frame some sort of absolute moral right or wrong here. I'm uninterested in that particular line of discussion,

I mean in terms of bringing the donation up for public discussion and the resulting resignation.

I believe that Eich's actions were morally wrong, but I'm not particularly interested in discussing that here; nor do I think there's a particular moral right or wrong to the events that transpired in the wake of him becoming CEO of Mozilla.

I'd have much greater concerns about non-C-level employees suffering consequences for political affiliations.