Mozilla CEO resigns because of Prop 8 donation in 2008

[grumbler]

There are circumstances in which a Creationist would never be tolerated (The Science Chair at a university for example) or a Marxist (The Executive Director of a free market think tank for example) or a gay marriage opponent (The CEO of a corporation who's customer base is largely on the other side of that issue for example).

Disagree completely.  Blanket intolerance of people because they happen to have views at variance with the mainstream is just another form of bigotry.  Th selection committee for any of these positions would have to consider the impact that the applicant's views might have on their success in the position for which being considered, but blanket intolerance robs the search committee of what may well be its best candidate, warts and all.  A science chair who is an excellent ;leader and administrator may do far more good with his leadership and administration than harm through his personal beliefs (ad the knowledge that he holds those beliefs) may cause.  A Marxist as the Executive Director of a free market think tank may cause all of the subordinates there top work even harder to overcome his or her devil's advocacy.  Etc.

[crazy canuck]

There are circumstances in which a Creationist would never be tolerated (The Science Chair at a university for example) or a Marxist (The Executive Director of a free market think tank for example) or a gay marriage opponent (The CEO of a corporation who's customer base is largely on the other side of that issue for example).

Disagree completely.  Blanket intolerance of people because they happen to have views at variance with the mainstream is just another form of bigotry.  Th selection committee for any of these positions would have to consider the impact that the applicant's views might have on their success in the position for which being considered, but blanket intolerance robs the search committee of what may well be its best candidate, warts and all.  A science chair who is an excellent ;leader and administrator may do far more good with his leadership and administration than harm through his personal beliefs (ad the knowledge that he holds those beliefs) may cause.  A Marxist as the Executive Director of a free market think tank may cause all of the subordinates there top work even harder to overcome his or her devil's advocacy.  Etc.

A chair who believes in Creation, particularly a Creationist that believes that people lived along side dinosaurs and that the world is only 6000 years old, now that would be a sight to see!

[Sheilbh]

I'd of course dislike that they were on the wrong side of the issue (aka tolerance) but I wouldn't take issue with them stifling free speech. I think there was recently some Christian charity that was going to recognize same sex partners of employees for benefits but then did an about face because of complaints from other Christian groups/supporters of the charity. I dislike that outcome but understand why that happens.

I've been arguing in another bit of the internet on precisely this little Evangelical feud. Basically I agree with other (mostly Catholic) Christians who point out that this is pharaseeism. How many employees commit adultery? How many Southern Baptists live in McMansions? Those things are contrary to the Gospel just as much as same sex marriage, but we should ignore them?

And let's imagine a world where every business is family-owned and Christian (a world like 1950s Bavaria, say) but there are gay people and they want to get married. Should those people just not work? Or in our world where gay marriage is legal, should opponents be subject to a glass ceiling until they recant? The Obama and Clinton comparison seems apt here because I suspect they both supported gay marriage in 2008, they just didn't feel they could say that but insincere evolution is better than sincere opposition.

It's wrong in both cases. Obviously there's an exception if the beliefs form a part of the job. I don't think anyone would expect Stonewall to hire an opponent of same sex marriage (or, prior to 2010, a supporter).

Would you have any complaints if a company asked its CEO to resign because he had donated to pro-gay marriage organizations?

Assuming it's not part of the job, yes. I'd be angry.

There are circumstances in which a Creationist would never be tolerated (The Science Chair at a university for example) or a Marxist (The Executive Director of a free market think tank for example) or a gay marriage opponent (The CEO of a corporation who's customer base is largely on the other side of that issue for example).

Fine. But I don't know how this works in a globalised world. We punish the organic Mormon farmer in Oregon for her views on same sex marriage, but buy flowers grown by a Kenyan farmer with almost certainly more retrogressive views. Mozilla's an American company but it has lots of programmers in Indonesia and customers all over the world. Should a CEO's views really match the customer base? Because I think that would actually be a huge step back for many companies on gay rights.

[crazy canuck]

Fine. But I don't know how this works in a globalised world. We punish the organic Mormon farmer in Oregon for her views on same sex marriage, but buy flowers grown by a Kenyan farmer with almost certainly more retrogressive views. Mozilla's an American company but it has lots of programmers in Indonesia and customers all over the world. Should a CEO's views really match the customer base? Because I think that would actually be a huge step back for many companies on gay rights.

It doesnt work universally.  It would of course be impossible to match a customer base.  What is possible is to have a CEO who is not offensive to a large portion of the customer base.  As Otto said many pages back, that is the reality in which CEOs of high profile companies or organizations operate. 

And as I said to you many pages back, boycots against products for reasons entirely unrelated to the product but related to some dislike for the company making the product have been a staple tool of the left for social change.  I am not sure why this is any different than the countless boycots over the last few decades - except perhaps that this one worked so effectively and quickly.

[Sheilbh]

And as I said to you many pages back, boycots against products for reasons entirely unrelated to the product but related to some dislike for the company making the product have been a staple tool of the left for social change.  I am not sure why this is any different than the countless boycots over the last few decades - except perhaps that this one worked so effectively and quickly.

I don't mind a boycott for a good reason. I don't think someone's opinion is a good reason. This is about scaring people, or punishing them not trying to change anything. As I've said it's the sort of thing that reminds me of the religious right more than anyone else.

Edit: And of course in this case a lot of this was prompted by a company whose CEO also donated to anti-gay marriage (and worse) politicians. It was a marketing stunt wrapped in conviction.

[garbon]

This is about scaring people, or punishing them not trying to change anything.

If someone is scared into not repeating the same actions, that is a change.

[crazy canuck]

And as I said to you many pages back, boycots against products for reasons entirely unrelated to the product but related to some dislike for the company making the product have been a staple tool of the left for social change.  I am not sure why this is any different than the countless boycots over the last few decades - except perhaps that this one worked so effectively and quickly.

I don't mind a boycott for a good reason. I don't think someone's opinion is a good reason. This is about scaring people, or punishing them not trying to change anything. As I've said it's the sort of thing that reminds me of the religious right more than anyone else.

Edit: And of course in this case a lot of this was prompted by a company whose CEO also donated to anti-gay marriage (and worse) politicians. It was a marketing stunt wrapped in conviction.

So now you are going to determine what is a "good reason" and what is not    People should be able to boycott whatever they wish.  The effectiveness of the boycott depends on how many people agree with them.  Its Yi's market knows best wet dream.

[Sheilbh]

So now you are going to determine what is a "good reason" and what is not    People should be able to boycott whatever they wish.  The effectiveness of the boycott depends on how many people agree with them. 

I've never said we should boycott boycotts.

As a lefty I am very unhappy with a trend in them that seems to me about punishing people for their opinions, not companies for their actions. I'm perhaps more prickly than normal about it because I think the British left are importing the culture war from the US.

I'd actually query the last bit though. This all happened within days. Bad PR is the real negative of a boycott especially one being publicised by another tech firm run by another (potential) homophobe looking to raise their profile.

Its Yi's market knows best wet dream.

You clearly know the way to convince me

[garbon]

OKC only joined in recently to what otherwise looks to have been an insular tech world concern.

[Jacob]

And as I said to you many pages back, boycots against products for reasons entirely unrelated to the product but related to some dislike for the company making the product have been a staple tool of the left for social change.  I am not sure why this is any different than the countless boycots over the last few decades - except perhaps that this one worked so effectively and quickly.

Not just of the left - the somewhat grandiosely named group "One Million Moms" are calling for boycotts all over the place for causes on the other end of the spectrum for example.

[Razgovory]

Southern Baptists boycotted Disney for years.

[Ed Anger]

Southern Baptists boycotted Disney for years.

I don't blame them.

[crazy canuck]

You clearly know the way to convince me

[crazy canuck]

And as I said to you many pages back, boycots against products for reasons entirely unrelated to the product but related to some dislike for the company making the product have been a staple tool of the left for social change.  I am not sure why this is any different than the countless boycots over the last few decades - except perhaps that this one worked so effectively and quickly.

Not just of the left - the somewhat grandiosely named group "One Million Moms" are calling for boycotts all over the place for causes on the other end of the spectrum for example.

Yeah, the right picked it up too.  But they stole it from the left. The surprising thing about this threatened boycott is that it worked so quickly and was handled so badly by the CEO in question.  That in itself was good enough reason to see him to the door.

[Valmy]

Um of course both sides do it.  We mentioned that Tea Party example in Wisconsin.  Disgusting.