Mozilla CEO resigns because of Prop 8 donation in 2008

[garbon]

He provided a group with money so that *they* could be outspoken publicly about the issue on his behalf.  Not exactly the same as expressing his feelings on gay marriage over dinner.

Yes a tiny sum six years ago.  For a person like him he might as well have given them a penny he found on the street. 

So no issue if one spends money for spiteful causes as long as it is only a mere trinket to the spender?

[Eddie Teach]

In the context of the US, I think you are being much to relaxed about victory. The abortion battle was "won" too, and that victory has turned into a not-victory in many places in the US through a thousand cuts. To assume that the victory on gay marriage is lasting, or even solid, when it's still not legal in many states seems optimistic to the point of negligence.

Look at polls that break down based on age. Gay marriage proponents have won the culture war, so winning the political one is inevitable.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/03/10/61-of-young-republicans-favor-same-sex-marriage/

[crazy canuck]

As I say we've won. We shouldn't spend our time punishing previous opponents and getting heretics to don ashes. I think we'd be better focusing on, say, Uganda and Kenya and India and Russia and what we can do to help there.

But I am not so sure this guy is an opponent in the past tense.  It seems to me this would have been an easy thing for him to turn around to be a very good story for him if he had simply come out (forgive the pun) and said something along the lines of acknowledging that times had changed and so had his view.  As you say things have moved very quickly.  If I reflect on my own change of attitude over the last 20 years I would hate to be held to the views I once held.  But I think the difference is I also acknowledge my error. 

In my view people should be held accountable for the views they hold in the public sphere.

[Razgovory]

Is donating money to an effort to prevent a certain group from marrying a foible?

What about running for POTUS while publicly saying you're against gay marriage? If people were willing to forgive Barry for that it seems odd they can't forgive a guy who never said a word about the issue and hasn't done anything in regard to the issue since 2008 (back when his position was shared publicly by the guy who went on to become President.)

People seem to forgive Obama for all sorts of things and it makes no sense to me.

People forgave Lincoln even though he waffled on the Slavery issue.

[garbon]

Is donating money to an effort to prevent a certain group from marrying a foible?

What about running for POTUS while publicly saying you're against gay marriage? If people were willing to forgive Barry for that it seems odd they can't forgive a guy who never said a word about the issue and hasn't done anything in regard to the issue since 2008 (back when his position was shared publicly by the guy who went on to become President.)

People seem to forgive Obama for all sorts of things and it makes no sense to me.

People forgave Lincoln even though he waffled on the Slavery issue.

What has Obama done to rate a comparison to one of our mythologized presidents? Being black while President?

[alfred russel]

People forgave Lincoln even though he waffled on the Slavery issue.

Lincoln didn't waffle on the slavery issue. He was consistently as anti slavery as the political climate would tolerate, and actively pushed an anti slavery agenda when possible.

I think Obama is similar, though obviously less aggressive on gay marriage than Lincoln was on slavery. I can't imagine Obama donating to Prop 8 advocates in 2008.

[The Brain]

There are many, many jobs where you should keep from publically speaking out on certain issues if you don't want to hurt your career. This is and always will be so. You may as well be upset with gravity.

He did not do or say anything publicly.  If he was outspoken publicly about this issue I would totally understand.

It reached the public. That's obviously all the public that needs to be there.

[celedhring]

People forgave Lincoln even though he waffled on the Slavery issue.

Lincoln didn't waffle on the slavery issue. He was consistently as anti slavery as the political climate would tolerate, and actively pushed an anti slavery agenda when possible.

I think Obama is similar, though obviously less aggressive on gay marriage than Lincoln was on slavery. I can't imagine Obama donating to Prop 8 advocates in 2008.

That has always been my understanding as well. Obama was as pro-gay as he could possibly be back then while still being electable. Ultimately, I believe actions speak louder than words, and two years into his term he was already abandoning DOMA.

Regarding the issue of Mozilla's CEO, I'm quite conflicted. On one hand, I do believe that Freedom of Speech doesn't equate to being shielded from others' reactions to your speech, on the other being punished with the loss of your job for actions unrelated to it and that ultimately aren't illegal, isn't something I can sympathize with. He doesn't seem to have used his position as a platform for those opinions either, so removing him from it doesn't seem to achieve anything. And, ultimately, he is being chastised for holding the same opinion that half of California had at the time. Should those people lose their jobs too? Pretty sure a lot of them have public positions too. It's such a slippery slope. Again, all parties involved are perfectly entitled to act in the way they did. I just wish stuff like this didn't happen, and opinions like Eich's were engaged in a different way.

There's also a bit of hipocrisy at hand since if I boycotted the products of every company with board members whose political opinions I find questionable, I'd have to move into a cave.

[Sheilbh]

In the context of the US, I think you are being much to relaxed about victory. The abortion battle was "won" too, and that victory has turned into a not-victory in many places in the US through a thousand cuts. To assume that the victory on gay marriage is lasting, or even solid, when it's still not legal in many states seems optimistic to the point of negligence.

I think people were making a mistake if they ever thought abortion was 'won':
http://features.pewforum.org/abortion-slideshow/
Similar slides. It's always been divisive, it's still divisive and that's true across generations. What's more, there's lots of positions within those headlines, for example most European style abortion laws could come under either legal or illegal in most cases. Gay marriage is a simpler, more clarifying issue, especially with the decline of civil partnerships - I do or I don't.

Also the abortion rules were defined by a court - which inevitably makes it more a litmus test and more divisive. Gay marriage is going the more enduring route of democratic change, though the courts are helping overrule gay marriage bans and were the catalyst.

But I am not so sure this guy is an opponent in the past tense.  It seems to me this would have been an easy thing for him to turn around to be a very good story for him if he had simply come out (forgive the pun) and said something along the lines of acknowledging that times had changed and so had his view.  As you say things have moved very quickly.  If I reflect on my own change of attitude over the last 20 years I would hate to be held to the views I once held.  But I think the difference is I also acknowledge my error. 

My view is, so what? Lots of people opposed gay marriage (including, as I say, the leadership of the major gay rights charities in the UK and the US) I mean when the first gay marriage case happened with a lesbian couple in Hawaii in the 80s the protesters outside were predominately lesbian activists protesting heterofascism.

What matters is that we win the argument (and we are) and that gay people can get married. People can hold whatever views they want and if they then come out the woodwork again and try to ban it we can beat the argument again. There is no need to go around punishing people for their aberrant views, or their failure to recant.

Also I think we need to be relatively phlegmatic about this sort of thing now, because of the internet. Almost everyone my age has said something in the public sphere, and I'd guess they've all said something controversial too at one point. God help us if we just have mass auto de fes for new Chief Executives and correspondents, denouncing their 17 year old selves. I think we'll just reach a critical mass where everyone's done or said a few things that are embarrassing on the internet and we'll just move on.

It reminds me of the recent story about an economist in the Trades Union Congress who was appointed economics correspondent on the flagship BBC news show. The Tories initially attacked him for that. Then it emerged that as a 19 year old student at Oxford he'd written a piece for the student paper about how he'd sort-of flirted with fascism as a 17 year old (early British fascism it should be said - Mosley and the New Party). Then this became a huge scandal and he wrote a post apologising and explaining himself. With the internet everyone, including our most worst selves, are publishing a lot of views.

And there's an amount of respect. There will be people who oppose gay marriage regardless - especially religious people.

[Sheilbh]

Should those people lose their jobs too? Pretty sure a lot of them have public positions too. It's such a slippery slope. Again, all parties involved are perfectly entitled to act in the way they did. I just wish stuff like this didn't happen, and opinions like Eich's were engaged in a different way.

Yep. And why just CEOs? What about a head of legal or a head of HR who may actually be in charge of a company's anti-discrimination policy? A CFO or a head of communications are pretty senior public faces for many companies, should they also be investigated?

[grumbler]

In a free society, you have a right to make yourself heard, but that doesn't mean you can hide behind pseudonyms and subterfuge to keep your identity secret. The founding fathers would never have failed to put their name to their arguments when debating the constitution, for instance.

Good point "alfred russel."   

[Razgovory]

Is donating money to an effort to prevent a certain group from marrying a foible?

What about running for POTUS while publicly saying you're against gay marriage? If people were willing to forgive Barry for that it seems odd they can't forgive a guy who never said a word about the issue and hasn't done anything in regard to the issue since 2008 (back when his position was shared publicly by the guy who went on to become President.)

People seem to forgive Obama for all sorts of things and it makes no sense to me.

People forgave Lincoln even though he waffled on the Slavery issue.

What has Obama done to rate a comparison to one of our mythologized presidents? Being black while President?

That's a different question.

[garbon]

And there's an amount of respect. There will be people who oppose gay marriage regardless - especially religious people.

Why should we have respect for a failure to adjust one's beliefs to modern values? Well actually, why should we have respect for individuals to fail to learn modern values?

[garbon]

That has always been my understanding as well. Obama was as pro-gay as he could possibly be back then while still being electable.

Yeah, he gave us a pretty logo.

And, ultimately, he is being chastised for holding the same opinion that half of California had at the time. Should those people lose their jobs too? Pretty sure a lot of them have public positions too. It's such a slippery slope. Again, all parties involved are perfectly entitled to act in the way they did. I just wish stuff like this didn't happen, and opinions like Eich's were engaged in a different way.

Actually, he's been chastised for paying for his outmoded views to be spread. And despite Sheilbh's triumphant declaration of mission accomplished, California took a large step backwards for 5 years. That's real people's lives affected.

To your question, sure, I think companies should be free to decide that they want to jettison employees for promotion of bigoted views. Tolerance is slim for many racial remarks and this is just adopting the same framework.

There's also a bit of hipocrisy at hand since if I boycotted the products of every company with board members whose political opinions I find questionable, I'd have to move into a cave.

I still never understand this position. If you are going to take a stand against one person, you must simultaneously take that same stand towards everyone equally culpable? Be reasonable, we're human and only have so much energy in the day. Also, there's something to be said about pooling resources against one target before moving onto the next.

[garbon]

This article struck me as first good overview with regards to the background.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/3/5579516/outfoxed-how-protests-forced-mozillas-ceo-to-resign-in-11-days