Was the gay community right to target Mozilla’s Brendan Eich?

The new CEO of Mozilla, the parent-company of the Firefox Web browser, resigned yesterday.

Brendan Eich’s recent appointment ignited a firestorm of protest when word spread that Eich had donated $1,000 to the 2008 campaign to repeal gay marriage in California, called Proposition 8.

Things didn’t get any better for Eich when it was discovered that he also donated to far-right anti-everything bigot Pat Buchanan’s presidential run.

In the end, after an uprising from Mozilla’s own employees, which included half the board of directors quitting, Eich stepped down.

Conservatives are, are usual, up in arms about the “intolerance” of it all.  No, they’re not upset about Brendan Eich’s intolerance of gays. They’re upset about the intolerance of Eich’s victims – or as I like to put it, our intolerance of their intolerance.

Conn Carroll, the editor of the conservative Web site Townhall, took to Twitter to express his chagrin:


There’s always something charming about getting a lecture on tolerance from a party that routinely bashes gays, women, blacks, Latinos, Muslims and immigrants, and increasingly pays at the ballot box for its intolerance.  Sadly, conservatives only worry about “freedom” when it’s their freedom being called into question.  Townhall wasn’t nearly as concerned about the freedom of millions of gay couples in California who lost their right to wed in 2008 thanks to now-former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich.

But putting aside for a moment the Republican party’s endemic hypocrisy on issues of civil rights and bigotry, it’s important to consider whether it was right to hound Brendan Eich from his job at Mozilla.  So let’s consider just that.

Would that conservatives asked themselves these questions before bashing minorities

I remember back in 2000, when several friends and I launched the StopDrLaura.com campaign, intended to punish Paramount Studios for giving “Dr.” Laura Schlessinger a new TV show.

Schlessinger had been outspoken in her opposition to homosexuality (among other things), and called being gay a “biological error.”  Though my personal favorite was her linkage of gays and pedophiles, something the scientific organizations debunked a long time ago. Responding to a fax from a listener she just read, Schlessinger said:

“It goes on and says ‘Pedophilia and child molestation have zero to do with being gay, homosexual orientation’ and that’s not true. That is not true. How many letters have I read on the air from gay men who acknowledge that a huge portion of the male homosexual populace is predatory on young boys.”

Yeah, she was a peach.


The thing is, I worried about whether we were doing the right thing in going after her and (successfully) targeting her advertisers.  Not that I thought we were unjustified.  We told the truth, and the truth hurt.  The thing was, I could tell our campaign was working, that her show (and reputation) were suffering, and I honestly felt a bit sorry for her.  So I turned to that eternal font of wisdom, mom.

My mother, who was the parent I decidedly did not get my activist zeal from, asked me: “Do you think she’d be feeling sorry for you, if the shoe were on the other foot?”

And that answered that.

But I think it’s generally a good idea to question yourself.  If you’re going to imperil a man’s job, and in some cases his career, it ought to give you pause – or you’re not a very good human being.

But back to the matter of hand.  There are at least two questions to consider:

1. Did Brendan Eich deserve what he got?

2. Even if he did deserve it, was it wise and just to do what we did?

Did Brendan Eich deserve what he got?

You have to remember, the passage of Prop 8 was a huge deal in the gay community.  On election night in 2008, Democrats were ecstatic, gay Democrats, less so.  Prop 8 felt like a sucker punch to the gut, and we were furious.

And it’s not just the lies the religious right, Catholic, Mormon coalition put out there, it was the overall principle of actively trying to take civil rights away from a segment of society.  It’s one thing to not be in favor of gay marriage.  It’s quite another to spend $1,000 to take that right away from gay couples who had already earned it.  Marriage was legal for gay couples in California. Prop 8 quite literally took that right away.

And in fact, not only would Prop 8 repeal the right of gay couples to marry in California, there was significant concern that it would repeal the already-performed legal marriages of 18,000 gay couples in the state.  It was such a vicious proposal that its supporters weren’t simply “opposed to gay marriage,” they became “anti-gay activists,” and that’s another thing entirely.

Normally, I wouldn’t really care how a corporate CEO felt about marriage equality.  Don’t get me wrong, I care.  And I’d laud a CEO if she came out in support of it.  But I don’t think I’d launch a campaign against a company simply because its boss wasn’t quite there yet on marriage. I know lots of people who aren’t there yet – though that audience is slimming down fast.

But Brendan Eich wasn’t simply “not there yet” – he played an active role in creating and enforcing discrimination against millions of gay Californians.  So his offense was pretty severe, and it went arguably beyond “speech” – he joined the ranks of anti-gay activist.

But does that mean he can’t be CEO of a company?

Well.  I think once you reach the level of CEO in a visibly-named company, there’s greater internal sensitivity to anything in your life that could harm the business.

And I have a hard time believing that Mozilla would have hired a known racist, or anti-Semite for the job.  They wouldn’t have.  And, had that anti-black or anti-Jewish bigot finally left his job under public pressure, one suspects conservatives wouldn’t be as vocal in his defense.

So if society is going to tolerate recriminations for intolerant speech, then intolerance towards gays should be dealt with the same way we deal with any other prejudice.

But what about the crazies?

Probably the strongest argument, in my mind, against the kind of campaign that ended in Brendan Eich losing his job is the “what about the crazies” argument.

The gay community has been gifted with some pretty incredible leadership over the years.  Part of the reason we’ve been so successful in achieving our civil rights, and public acceptance, (and there are many reasons) is that we never quite let the lunatics run the asylum.  Our leadership has been fairly measured, including our activist leadership.

If you look at the top gay activists, the most influential ones over the past several decades, they’ve been a remarkably sharp, and relatively sane bunch.  And it tends to lead them to make good decisions in terms of politics overall, and specifically in terms of political targets.  I’d be hard-pressed to find examples of people we targeted for intolerance over the past few decades who didn’t deserve what they got.

I can’t say the same about Suey “Whiteness will always be the enemy” Park, the Asian-American activist who created the #cancelcolbert campaign.  If Park is speaking the truth in her never-ending stream of interviews, and always-busy Twitter feed, then she has a racist’s disdain for white people in general, and white men in particular, that casts serious doubt on her ability to accurately determine who is deserving of her righteous wrath.

Don’t get me wrong, I suspect Suey Park is eminently capable of harming the reputation of anyone she chooses.  I’m just not convinced that she’s intellectually or emotionally capable of choosing a legitimate target.  (If you have any lingering respect for Park, read her latest interview with Salon.)

And there’s the rub.  Gays, and gay activists in particular, have been awfully lucky that our leaders haven’t been, and aren’t to this day, freaking nuts. And while I have no problem trusting Dan Savage or Pam Spaulding with choosing an appropriate target for our righteous indignation, I wouldn’t trust the Suey Parks of the Internet any more than I would her bff Michelle Malkin.

And the problem isn’t just limited to Park.  Anyone who works in progressive politics is familiar with the never-ending (and of-late growing) Twitter mobs accusing them of being racist, sexist, misogynistic, homophobic, biphobic, transphobic, ableist, and my personal favorite from just last year: that I apparently hate all animals, especially cats (which was news to me, and to my dog who I incessantly tweet about).

There is no way I would empower any of these people to make the decision as to whether the Brendan Eichs of the world merit our rather-powerful-in-the-Internet-age ire.  They don’t have the judgment necessary to effectively and justly wield real power.

While Andrew Sullivan is more outraged about Eich from a philosophical perspective, I worry about it from a practical one.  I trust myself. And I trust my community – the gay one, at least. We’ve been pretty good at keeping our crazies at bay.  (The larger “LGBT” community, less so.)  But I’m left without much of an answer when confronted with the prospect of our proven-effective in-your-face mass advocacy empowering indiscriminate-discriminators like Suey Park.

That’s not to say I think it was wrong to go after Brendan Eich

That’s not to say that I think it was wrong to go after Brendan Eich and Mozilla, because I don’t.  But I do wonder, even worry sometimes, about whether what we’re doing on these various speech-campaigns is right, and whether they will continue to be as just as they have been to date.

I’ll close with the words of blogger, and techie, Julien Pierre:

Ultimately, it comes down to how much intolerance we can tolerate. I think it’s a good thing that the bigots are being pushed into the closet, for a change. I worry that many will still continue to promote their bigotry anonymously, however.

As someone who is in an interracial, same-sex marriage, I would certainly be just as upset if he had donated to a group that opposed interracial marriage. I suspect the rest of the world would be more upset about it than about his donation to “Yes on prop 8”.

There is a line between political opinions and human rights. Most people nowadays recognize that racism affects human rights and is not just a mere political opinion.

Many people, but not as many, also recognize that LGBT rights, including same-sex marriage, are human rights as well.

(It’s hugely important to our continued success that you share our stories on social media, using the “Like” buttons at the top and bottom of this story to share it on Facebook, Tweeting it, and sharing it on other services. Without that additional traffic, our advertising dies, and so do we. Thanks for your help.)

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

323 Responses to “Was the gay community right to target Mozilla’s Brendan Eich?”

  1. Joeg says:

    You are pure Genius, starting with your ever so creative screen name. If you bothered to go back and look at the roots of the conversation, I ended up posting here as I was amazed and appalled by the writer of the article equating gay marriage and the Holocaust, something you and most others chose to gloss right over in your fervor. Big difference between posting a comment to the authors article and “trolling”.

    Perhaps, Dick (and I hope I am not being overly familiar in referring to you by your first name), you would do well to look up the word “Tolerance”. It does not mean that everyone needs to agree with you, nor do they have to agree with me. In a free society, which we used to be, people were free to have their own views but it seems like your community (or hopefully just a small militant faction that is louder than they should be) believe that tolerance means that everyone must agree to, and submit to, your viewpoint.

  2. 10 inch gay dick says:

    ” I surely don’t believe that the homosexual lifestyle is right but I also believe that people have a right to live as they choose”.

    Interesting as this is exactly what I think about the christian lifestyle. So instead of trolling LGBT blog sites, shouldn’t you be somewhere busying yourself reading your favorite book of fairytales, the buy-bull?

  3. Joeg says:

    Sleepless night eh? Circling back around to vent some of that pent up anger. Good for you! I surely don’t believe that the homosexual lifestyle is right but I also believe that people have a right to live as they choose. My place is not to judge as I surely don’t want to be judged on some of the life choices I’ve made. Does that make me a homophobe? In your eyes I am sure I am. I can assure you that if you had the opportunity to follow me for a day you’d see it quite differently. While living in South Africa I had a men’s christian group that met at the coffee shop I owned one morning every week. 2 out of the 10 guys were gay and there was no judgement, no issue, simply a focus on helping every member to build their own relationship with their god.

    I do have to say that I am pleased that one person who replied here did, for a brief moment, respond to the focal issue of equating this whole argument to the holocaust. Something that you’ve had no interest in doing.

    Seems to me that anyone who does not want to stand up and cheer for the homosexual lifestyle is a homophobe to you and should be punished accordingly. Good luck with that, probably that bitter seed inside of you that is keeping you up at night.

  4. Luigi Proud DemoCat! says:

    No, we understood clearly that you are a homophobe who isn’t man enough to admit it.

  5. Luigi Proud DemoCat! says:

    Hate to burst your bubble, but states are falling one by one and within another year or so, same-sex marriage will be legal in all 50 states.

    Apparently, though, you’ve bought the lies and propaganda pushed by the Mormons, Catholics, and hate groups like the American Family Association that churches will be forced to marry same-sex couples. Sad that you’re not smart enough to figure out when you’re being lied to.

  6. Joeg says:

    I’d love for you to show the same outrage at the fact that the author chose to equate the right to gay marriage with the holocaust. You, and by that I mean the atheist left, do a masterful job at picking the eyes out of an argument and addressing just what you want to. So much for your chants of tolerance! Do you really believe that Barack Obama and ? Hillary Clinton changed their minds on their feelings about gay marriage or do you kinda, maybe, wonder just a little bit about the idea that maybe they just “say” that to get votes and donations? Personally, I’d rather deal with someone who is upfront about their beliefs.

    I really love the threat of recrimination, I’ll save you the headache.
    I am an NRA member and hold a concealed carry permit, simply because I believe in my right to protect my family and my property. I’m an outdoor sportsman and am prepared for the fact that in the event of a real catastrophe, my government is not going to protect anyone but themselves.
    I’m a member of Conservatives for Congress, because I believe our bloated government is totally out of control and that the only way to insure that you and I have our base freedoms intact is to reduce the government intrusion into our lives. Surely we share a common ground in that belief.
    I’m a registered republican although I have drifted over the last ten years as my mindset is fiscally conservative but socially liberal. Can’t say that I am headed Democrat though as I feel that they are focused on government being a bigger part of our lives.
    Other than that, I get the Harry and David catalog, Frontgate, Washingtonian Mag, and you’ll likely find an empty box of Girl Scout cookies, thin mints rock!
    Now, if you are talking about restricting my right to thin mints, we are going to have a problem.
    It’s really sad that you, and pretty much everyone else who chose to respond to my comment, is happy to overlook the ridiculous parallel that the author writes about and rather try to paint me as bigoted and discriminatory. You couldn’t be farther from the truth. Do I believe that the church should be forced to recognize gay marriage or gay people in general, no but I gotta tell you that I think the Pope Francis is right that it is not his place to judge. Do I believe that the gay community should have civil ceremony and the right to be legally recognized as a couple? Sure, I don’t see where it harms me or society in general. People in a committed relationship can’t be a bad thing.
    I think that you go about it the wrong way, you will not “change” peoples minds by shouting, screaming, or threatening. All you’ll succeed in doing is driving their prejudice under ground. Take a look at affirmative action, the wrong execution of the right idea can torpedo your goal very easily.

  7. Luigi Proud DemoCat! says:

    We’ll remember your point about it being OK to vote to deny a group of people equal rights. In fact, we’re digging through your trash right now to identify a minority group to which you belong so we can use that as an excuse to vote your rights out of existence.

  8. John E says:

    To Mr rerutled You are an Idiot, and obviously, you do not stand firm on your values, are you what you stating is, if people do not believe what you believe, they should be fired? or forced out?, you sir/mam sound like Job’s wife.

    His wife said to him, “Are you still maintaining your integrity? Curse God and die!”

  9. ribchwi says:

    Yes those commercials did demonize us. And Brendan Eichs contribution helped support this campaign. But Brendan Eich was not actively engaged in such an enterprise 2 weeks ago when he resigned. That is the whole point of writing that he “had effectively been neutralized by the state and federal Judicial system”.

    If you look through the archives, you’ll find many others who are now firmly in the pro-marriage camp who in the pasty worked for and allowed discrimination against us. By refusing to support marriage equality at the time, Obama lay down with dogs. Did he also rise up with fleas? Was he unfit to hold higher office because he didn’t support Gay marriage at the time? What about Jimmy Carter? Bill Clinton? Joe Biden? All of whom opposed marriage equality for many years while they held political office.

    You claim to know Brendan Eich. Did he ever treat you or any other LGBT person you know as less than at Mozilla? Ever sabotage you or anyone else you know in the work place? Ever treat a gay couple as less than a straight one at work? Did he ever oppose or seek to deny any benefits Mozilla was willing to extend to gay couples? Ever push for someone to not be promoted or fired for being pro-gay marriage?

    If not, how was he incapable of performing his duties to keep Mozilla inclusive as CEO?

  10. ribchwi says:

    Yes those commercials did demonize us. And Brendan Eichs contribution helped support this campaign. But Brendan Eich was not actively engaged in such an enterprise 2 weeks ago when he resigned. That is the whole point of writing that he “had effectively been neutralized by the state and federal Judicial system”.

    If you look through the archives, you’ll find many others who are now firmly in the pro-marriage camp who in the pasty worked for and allowed discrimination against us. By refusing to support marriage equality at the time, Obama lay down with dogs. Did he also rise up with fleas? Was he unfit to hold higher office because he didn’t support Gay marriage at the time? What about Jimmy Carter? Bill Clinton? Joe Biden? All of whom opposed marriage equality for many years while they held political office.

    You claim to know Brendan Eich. Did he ever treat you or any other LGBT person you know as less than? Ever sabotage you in the work place? Ever treat a gay couple as less than a straight one? Did he ever oppose or seek to deny any benefits Mozilla was willing to extend to gay couples? Ever push for someone to not be promoted or fired for being pro-gay marriage?

    If not, how was he incapable of performing his duties to keep Mozilla inclusive as CEO?

  11. ribchwi says:

    My point still stands. Eich was pressured into resigning, he didn’t leave simply and willingly. It would not have occurred to him to leave if he were not being pushed. That should be indisputable. He has an opinion regarding gay marriage, and he doesn’t have to apologize because he holds that opinion. As long as he is capable as CEO of doing the work and treating his employees, Gay or Straight, Married or single, equally. His record showed he was a person that did so in his other roles at Mozilla, there was no indication that he was incapable of continuing to do so.

    His actions six years ago was in support of the opinion he believed in, an opinion being debated at the time. His opinion may not have changed, but he is not now a threat to us. There is no reason why he could not uphold his duties as CEO, including being respectful of difference, including those who oppose him on this issue, and still believe for religious reasons that marriage should be between a man and a woman. And if you think that he couldn’t, I’d like to hear why not?

  12. xardox says:

    Yes, he did actively engage in a campaign to demonize us. The money he donated to support Proposition 8 went to pay for TV commercials that demonized gays with lies, and it went to passing a law that destroyed existing same sex marriages, so yes he endangered the institutions of liberty, that it took years for the Supreme Court to restore.

    Do you disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision? Are you also just as disrespectful of all the marriages that Brendan’s money went towards destroying that you don’t think the consequences of his actions matter, and that the people who spoke out against it were wrong?


    Face it: Brendan Eich chose to lie down with dogs, so he got up with fleas.

    Here are some other outrageously vile homophobic ads demonizing gays sponsored by Prop 8 supporters like: “Cherish Honor Love is an autonomous fundamental group, whose objective is to defeat the defeat of the anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendment on the November 4, 2008 California ballot through outreach by a YouTube campaign.”


    And you have not addressed the fact that as CEO, he is not just some ordinary employee, he is a figurehead who represents Mozilla and leads the way. But his tone-deaf un-empathic stonewalling response to all the people who had a problem with his disrespect for and destruction of their marriages proved he was anything but a leader.

  13. xardox says:

    I know Brendan personally, and I’ve known him for almost two decades, since the time he worked at Netscape, probably long before you ever browsed any web pages.

    I’ve discussed this matter with him, and I know many people who worked with him at Netscape years ago, and who worked with him at Mozilla recently, who know him very well, have discussed this matter with him in much more detail than I have, and have told me even more about his beliefs and actions than he would tell me or the public directly.

    So yes, I do have some insight into what kind of a person Brendan really is. And Mozilla has offered me several interesting employment opportunities that I have turned down because of my insight into Brendan’s character flaws. I simply refuse to work with an unrepentant bigot who insists on treating some people he hates as lesser human beings with fewer rights than he demands, and donates his money towards successfully demonizing them and destroying their marriages, while hypocritically enjoying the benefits of government sanctioned marriage himself.

    As proof that I’ve known Brendan Eich for a long time, and that I’m not just pulling fictitious facts out of my ass to support my opinion the way you are, I offer you this write-up of some problems I found from my experience developing software with the early Netscape version 2.0b4 Plugin API and LiveScript (as JavaScript was called at the time), that I wrote on December 28 1995:
    Problems Found with the NetScape Plug-in API.

    Brendan was certainly aware that many people, including me and many of his co-workers and Mozilla community members, have been insisting for years that he explain himself, which he has steadfastly refused to do. And he certainly knew it would be an issue that he could not sweep under the rug, and that would never go away until he addressed the issues instead of stonewalling. And he certainly decided of his own free will not to address the issue even after it predictably blew up in his face once he was appointed CEO, and he damaged the reputation of Mozilla.

    You can read the message he posted on his blog yourself, which danced around the issue with a non-apology apology, while verbally backflipping to avoid actually addressing the most important points about Proposition 8, what he did, and who his actions hurt, which made him look not like a leader, but like a spineless coward who could not acknowledge the elephant that everyone knew was in the room:

    Inclusiveness at Mozilla

    He actually had the insensitivity and nerve to say he would “show, not tell”, after all the years that I and other people repeatedly asked him to TELL us why he did what he did, and EXPLAIN himself, if not actually admit he was wrong and apologize. His awkward wording also echoes “don’t ask, don’t tell”, which makes his non-apology apology and failure of leadership even more insincere, insensitive, cowardly and un-empathic.

    He has already SHOWN that he does not consider gays deserving of the same rights as he enjoys, by his ACTIONS. Now, if he expects to be CEO of Mozilla, lead and represent the community, then he most certainly owes us the simple courtesy of TELLING us what the hell he was thinking when he DID what he DID, and if he still clings to those beliefs or if he’s changed his opinion in response to the HUGE amount of feedback and criticism he’s received.

    It’s not just a matter of belief or speech: he crossed the line into ACTING on his beliefs and HARMING his colleagues and the community by DESTROYING existing same sex marriages and DEMONIZING gays with lies.

    You are perfectly free to cling to your incorrect opinion that he was pressured into resigning, but YOUR opinion is nonsense and YOU know it. That absolutely contradicts what Mozilla published on their FAQ about his resignation, and what several of my friends who are Mozilla employees have told me:

    FAQ on CEO Resignation

    Since then, there has been a great deal of misinformation. Two facts have been most commonly misreported:

    1. Brendan was not fired and was not asked by the Board to resign. Brendan voluntarily submitted his resignation. The Board acted in response by inviting him to remain at Mozilla in another C-level position. Brendan declined that offer. The Board respects his decision.

    2. Around the time of Brendan’s appointment as CEO, three members of the Board of Directors resigned from the Mozilla Corporation Board. None of these board members resigned over any concerns about Brendan’s beliefs. Gary Kovacs and Ellen Siminoff had previously stated they had plans to leave, and John Lilly did not resign over any concerns about Brendan’s personal beliefs. Katharina Borchert was appointed to replace one of the empty Board seats after Brendan was appointed CEO.

    If you think that Mozilla is lying in their FAQ about Brendan Eich’s resignation, then say so, and tell us why you think you are right and the are liars. But you can’t just support your arguments by making up imaginary facts that contradict the known facts from the horse’s mouth, and expect people to not think you’re full of shit.


    Is there anything unambiguous or hard to understand about that? It totally contradicts your claim, so you’re going to have to provide some evidence if you expect anyone to take you seriously.

    Who do you know at Mozilla? Do you know Brendan personally? Have you discussed this situation with him? What did he say? Did he tell YOU that the FAQ published by Mozilla was a lie, and that they did NOT invite him to remain at Mozilla, and that he did not leave of his own free will?

    So put up or shut up, buddy. Either admit you’re wrong and your opinion is baseless, or give us some proof.

  14. xardox says:

    I know Brendan personally, and I’ve known him for years, since the time he worked at Netscape. I’ve discussed this matter with him, and I know people who work at Mozilla who have discussed it with him and have told me even more about his beliefs and actions than he would tell me directly. And Mozilla has offered me several interesting employment opportunities that I have turned down because of Brendan.

    Brendan was certainly aware that many people, including me and many of his co-workers, have been insisting for years that he explain himself, which he has steadfastly refused to do. And he certainly knew it would be an issue that he could not sweep under the rug, and that would never go away until he did. And he certainly decided of his own free will not to address the issue even after it blew up in his face once he was appointed CEO.

    You can read the message he posted on his blog yourself, which danced around the issue with a non-apology apology, while verbally backflipping to avoid actually addressing the most important points about Proposition 8, what he did, and who his actions hurt, which made him look not like a leader, but like a spineless coward who could not acknowledge the elephant that everyone knew was in the room:


    He actually had the insensitivity and nerve to say he would “show, not tell”, after all the years that I and other people repeatedly asked him to TELL us why he did what he did, and EXPLAIN himself, if not actually admit he was wrong and apologize. That awkward phrase also echoes “don’t as, don’t tell”, which makes his non-apology apology and failure of leadership even more awkward and cowardly.

    He has already shown that he does not consider gays deserving of the same rights as he enjoys. Now if he expects to be CEO of Mozilla, he most certainly owes the community the simple courtesy of TELLING us what he was thinking when he DID what he DID. It’s not just a matter of belief or speech: he crossed the line into ACTING on his beliefs and HARMING his colleagues and the community by DESTROYING existing same sex marriages and DEMONIZING gays with lies.

    You are perfectly free to cling to the incorrect opinion that he was pressured into resigning, but YOUR opinion is nonsense and YOU know it. That absolutely contradicts what Mozilla published on their blog, and what several of my friends who are Mozilla employees have told me:


    Since then, there has been a great deal of misinformation. Two facts have been most commonly misreported:

    1. Brendan was not fired and was not asked by the Board to resign. Brendan voluntarily submitted his resignation. The Board acted in response by inviting him to remain at Mozilla in another C-level position. Brendan declined that offer. The Board respects his decision.

    2. Around the time of Brendan’s appointment as CEO, three members of the Board of Directors resigned from the Mozilla Corporation Board. None of these board members resigned over any concerns about Brendan’s beliefs. Gary Kovacs and Ellen Siminoff had previously stated they had plans to leave, and John Lilly did not resign over any concerns about Brendan’s personal beliefs. Katharina Borchert was appointed to replace one of the empty Board seats after Brendan was appointed CEO.

    If you think that Mozilla is lying in their FAQ about Brendan Eich’s resignation, then say so, and tell us why you think you are right and the are liars. But you can’t just support your arguments by making up imaginary facts that contradict the known facts from the horse’s mouth, and expect people to not think you’re full of shit.


    Is there anything unambiguous or hard to understand about that? It totally contradicts your claim, so you’re going to have to provide some evidence if you expect anyone to take you seriously.

    Who do you know at Mozilla? Do you know Brendan personally? Have you discussed this situation with him? What did he say? Did he tell YOU that the FAQ published by Mozilla was a lie, and that they did NOT invite him to remain at Mozilla, and that he did not leave of his own free will?

    So put up or shut up, buddy. Either admit you’re wrong and your opinion is baseless, or give us some proof.

  15. xardox says:

    He was acting as CEO when he refused to apologize for, change, explain or justify his views. And he was NOT fired, he resigned.

    And no, I’m not insulting you, I’m pointing out the obvious fact: that you still don’t get that important point, no matter how many times people attempt to explain it to you.

    If you find it insulting that people point out that you don’t acknowledge and pretend not to hear or comprehend what people repeatedly have to explain to you, then you should stop doing that, and address the issues that people are raising and respond to them, instead of pretending you don’t understand well known undisputed facts like that.

    It’s not a debatable opinion whether or not he, as CEO, continued to support Proposition 8 and oppose gay marriage, and you should understand that by now.

    And it’s not debatable that the CEO represents and leads the company.

    And it’s not an unreasonable opinion that he failed to show leadership.

    And it’s simply not true that he was fired: he resigned of his own free will. In fact the board begged him NOT to leave the company, but he stomped off in a huff. Nobody forced him out. His wounds were entirely self-inflicted.

    And nobody is saying he doesn’t have a right to his opinion.

    But nobody has contradicted the fact that he crossed the line from personal belief into actions that had the INTENDED result of destroying existing same sex marriages in California.

    And we all agree, including Brendan himself, that he was damaging the company by remaining CEO, and that is why he left, not because anyone forced him out, but because he didn’t want to continue to damage the Mozilla project.

    Not just the gay community, but the much wider community of Mozilla supporters, gay supporters, religious people who understand and follow the teachings of Jesus, and and brave people who stand up for themselves instead of lay down and letting bullies kick them around like you’ve been advocating, like the way Mitt Romney pinned a gay kid to the floor and cut off his hair because he thought he was gay.

    Appeasing those bullies by trying not to hurt their feelings DOES NOT WORK. You are letting them manipulate you into behaving exactly like they want you to, imprisoning yourself in your own closet, and giving up your own right to free speech.

    You should be standing up for the future generations of kids who need you to fight for them, to make it widely known that it’s socially unacceptable to act that way. You can believe and say anything you want, but actions have consequences, and speech deserves to be responsed to, not silently left unchallenged.

    Brendan had the opportunity to listen to reason, consider other people’s opinions, attempt to justify his beliefs, make arguments to support them, or even change his own opinion, and apologize for how he harmed people, instead of making a cowardly non-apology apology, and backflipping around the real issues.

    But he refused to do that, and that is certainly his right. But in refusing to listen to what people were saying, and explain his own reasoning, and acknowledge that other people have a valid point, HE FAILED AS A LEADER. And that makes him unqualified for the job of CEO of Mozilla. And he actually agrees with that, which is why he finally resigned and stomped off in a huff.

    Now please pay attention and do not ignore the following extremely important point and pretend you didn’t notice it by failing to acknowledge it.

    Your tolerance of intolerance is WRONG.


    The tolerance paradox arises from a problem that a tolerant person might be antagonistic toward intolerance, hence intolerant of it. The tolerant individual would then be by definition intolerant of intolerance.

    Michael Walzer asks “Should we tolerate the intolerant?”. He notes that most minority religious groups who are the beneficiaries of tolerance are themselves intolerant, at least in some respects. In a tolerant regime, such people may learn to tolerate, or at least to behave “as if they possessed this virtue”. Philosopher Karl Popper asserted, in The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1, that we are warranted in refusing to tolerate intolerance. PhilosopherJohn Rawls concludes in A Theory of Justice that a just society must tolerate the intolerant, for otherwise, the society would then itself be intolerant, and thus unjust. However, Rawls also insists, like Popper, that society has a reasonable right of self-preservation that supersedes the principle of tolerance: “While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger.”

  16. xardox says:

    Nope. The board begged him to stay on as employee, but he stomped off in a huff. Of his own free will. Anyone who claims he was fired has no idea what they’re talking about, and is absolutely wrong.

  17. ribchwi says:

    And if those bigots start forcing pro LGBT people to resign from private companies and businesses in places like Kansas and Mississippi? What are you going to say then? Its wrong because…. why? Because our beliefs are right and theirs are wrong?

    And then, when they respectfully disagree, and continue to pressure people on religious liberty grounds? The kind of nonsense logic that Hobby Lobby is trying to use to ban contraceptive coverage for their employees? When they say they are a “Christian” business and they have the right to impose said values on employees, how can you complain when you’ve embraced the same logic in the Eich case? Just replaced “Christian” with progressive? Either people have the right to hold private beliefs separate from company policy, or they don’t. And it benefits the bigots just as much as it benefits us, if we decide that there can be no separation between the two.

  18. xardox says:

    You are correct. The board begged him to stay on as employee, but he stomped off in a huff.

  19. ribchwi says:

    ARe you suggesting that he was unaware of his inability to do the Job, prior to his being appointed CEO? THat he only realized he couldn’t do the Job after he accepted it?
    That is nonsense and you know it. He was pressured into resigning, stop pretending otherwise.

  20. ribchwi says:

    Eich was NOT acting as CEO when he chose to send money for Prop 8. He was a senior employee, who had contributed much to the company. He was chosen as CEO based on that record, and his record showed him to be a person capable of maintaining the standard of equal treatment for all employees, regardless of his or their personal or political beliefs. Thus there was no good reason to try to force his resignation.. If he had a record of discriminatory behavior towards his LGBT colleagues that would have been cause for alarm. But in the decades of work at Mozilla, no such complaints were made.

    And there is no need to try to insult me just because you don’t agree.

  21. xardox says:

    I have known Brendan Eich for years, since the time he worked at Netscape, and I know other people who worked with him until he resigned. And I have turned down multiple job opportunities from Mozilla because of him, clearly explaining my position to their recruiter.

    I have discussed his support of Proposition 8 with him, and he remains stubborn, unapologetic, and disrespectful.

    And as much as I love it and use JavaScript every day, it is a deeply and foolishly flawed language, and he had no fucking clue what he was doing at the time, but was just following the advice of much wiser people who would stop by his office and try to keep him on the right track. It’s not nearly as bad as PHP, whose author is willfully ignorant and flaunts his contempt for computer science and programming language design (instead of gays and equality), but the great things about JavaScript are NOT thanks to Brendan Eich, but in spite of him.

    The joke is that Brendan Eich doesn’t understand equality, and neither does JavaScript: http://dorey.github.io/JavaScript-Equality-Table/

  22. xardox says:

    And you’re just yet another self loathing closeted homosexual right wing extremist bigot, Princess. It’s extremely obvious to everyone but yourself.

  23. xardox says:

    While you always were the thing you say you hate.

  24. xardox says:

    Yes, his donation to Buchanan proves that gays aren’t the only people he hates.

    Interestingly enough, he said in an interview that he had no intention of resigning, only days before the Guardian published the story about his support for Buchanan and Paul, and then just as suddenly, he changed his mind and resigned!

  25. xardox says:

    I saw somebody somewhere calculate that Brendan’s $1000 destroyed about one half of a same sex marriage, which directly harmed one person too many.

  26. xardox says:

    The sweet thing about free speech is that you may have actually downloaded an app called Firefox, that told you to boycott its own developer, Brendan Eich! ;)

  27. xardox says:

    I applaud you for being around and evolving into standing up for your rights against bullies!

    The intolerance of intolerance is ethically correct.


  28. xardox says:

    Why don’t you prove to us how gay marriage affects your own life in any way at all? Because you can’t. The anti-gay bigots tried every argument they had in front of the Supreme Court, and they were laughed out of court because they were 100% totally full of shit, just like you are.

    You must have missed the memo: We won, you lost. You’re on the wrong side of history. Wake up, time to die.

  29. xardox says:

    So why are you so afraid of gays getting married, and calling their marriage a marriage? Is that going to somehow undermine your sham of a straight marriage? Are you yet another right wing self loathing closeted homosexual? You guys are so common, a dime a dozen. Why don’t you check yourself into a Pray Away the Gay clinic and find yourself a good man to leave your wife for? That’s the best place to meet other self loathing closeted homosexuals like yourself.

  30. xardox says:

    And marriage does not mean what you think it means. And Jesus is not mean like you are mean.

  31. xardox says:

    We all understand what “traditional marriage” means to you: that you OWN your wife as property, and she must be subservient to you, and that you have the mandate from God to stone her to death if she cheats on you. Yes, we all know where you’re coming from. You’re a bigoted religious fanatic, who says he doesn’t want to “impose his religious beliefs” on anyone, while imposing his religious beliefs on EVERYONE. I feel so sorry for your wife and family.

  32. xardox says:

    Well at least we can all agree that you’re sick. I hope you get better soon, so you’re mentally healthy enough to recognize that you’re a bigot, and change your ideology.

    As you very well know, Proposition 8 was NOT about getting the government out of marriage and providing civil unions for everyone. It was absolutely 100% about TAKING AWAY the existing right to marriage that gay couples had finally earned, the same right that straight couples have had for thousands of years. So Brendan Eich most certainly disagrees with you, and you’re absolutely wrong for sticking up for Proposition 8, which is at odds with your stated beliefs.

    But we all understand that it’s only a convenient excuse that you use in public, instead of the real reason that you don’t think gays deserve the same rights as you enjoy, to avoid being called a bigot, you poor little Princess.

    Because you know first hand how much it hurts your feelings to be called a bigot, but you have no idea how much it hurts to have your marriage destroyed by people who hate you.

  33. xardox says:

    Are you saying that your own marriage is in mortal danger if same sex marriage is legal? Perhaps that is because you’re a self loathing repressed homosexual yourself, and the only thing standing between your sham of a marriage and you leaving your wife to marry another man is the government enforcing laws that prohibit the gay marriage that you dream about but deny yourself and others.

    So what other valid rational arguments are there against gay marriage? Do you have anything better than that? Because the anti-gay-marriage bigots gave the Supreme Court all the best arguments they had, and they were ALL rejected as bullshit. If you have any better arguments than the ones the court rejected, then you missed your window of opportunity to speak up and change history, so now you’re on the wrong side of it! Enjoy the condemnation of your grandchildren!

  34. xardox says:

    You’re in denial, grasping at straws and spectacularly losing this argument, because you’re absolutely incapable of proving your point with logic, scientific evidence, objective truth, links and citations.

  35. xardox says:

    Thanks for demonstrating how people suffering from cognitive dissonance attempt to project their own personality defects onto other people who don’t share them.

  36. xardox says:

    You’re the one who isn’t marching in lockstep with Jesus’s ideology.

  37. xardox says:

    Speak for yourself — most people of faith who actually understand Jesus’s message aren’t haters like you. And you provided the red paint of hatred and intolerance and now you’re whining about being painted with your own words.

  38. xardox says:

    Rebelling from the Union and owning slaves wasn’t legal either.

  39. xardox says:

    Thanks for sharing how you’re a typical representative of the hateful spiteful right wing. It’s better that people like you not hide your bigotry and hatred, and air it out in the open, because it makes you look like a terrible person, and drives people away from your vengeful political ideology. So please, tell us more about how you will implement your revenge against gays couples for wanting to marry the people they love?

  40. xardox says:

    So you’re against consensual sex. Are you also against mixed race marriages?

  41. xardox says:

    His pathetic attempt to justify his bigotry by straightrichwhitemansplaining how it qualified him to be Mozilla’s ambassador to Indonesia because they also hate gays was the last straw. If that’s really the case, then Mozilla needs a CEO who also hates women and Jews, so he can earnestly evangelize to Mozilla supporters in Saudi Arabia.

  42. xardox says:

    I’ve met him, I know him, I’ve discussed it with him, and he remains stubborn, unapologetic, and disrespectful.

    When he intentionally donated his money to support Proposition 8, that paid for deceitful TV commercials that demonized gays and successfully passed a law that destroyed existing same sex marriages, he crossed the line from harmless personal beliefs to bigoted hateful conduct that damaging the lives of Mozilla employees and community members.

  43. xardox says:

    At least he didn’t try to apologize for his actions, like you’re trying to do by making up a ridiculous story about his non-existent granddaughter. I have known Brendan for many years, and he doesn’t have a granddaughter. His bigotry is based on his extreme right wing ideology, and that’s why he also gave money to the racist anti-Semitic homophobic bigot, Patrick J. Buchanan, and that’s also why he refuses to explain his motivations in public. Can you at least try to make up a better imaginative apology for his bigotry, which explains those facts?

  44. xardox says:

    WE ARE the backlash against bigots, and it’s about fucking time.

  45. xardox says:

    Brendan Eich DISAGREED with you that he could do his job. He was not fired: He decided of his own free will to resign his job as CEO that he was incapable of performing — precisely because he could not do his job, which required not damaging Mozilla, but actually serving as a leader and figurehead, and representing its deeply and sincerely held beliefs in inclusiveness, tolerance and equality.

  46. xardox says:

    The repeated attempts of many people to explain to you that Brendan Eich was acting as CEO, not janitor, seem to be falling on deaf ears. Would you please acknowledge that you understand that, and attempt to explain why it doesn’t matter to you, or at least apologize for having a reading comprehension problem?

  47. xardox says:

    Why don’t you convert to Islam and apply for a job at Mozilla, so you can go on strike yourself? That’s better than telling other people how they should live their lives.

  48. xardox says:

    This is an instance of it finally getting around to cutting both ways, since Chick Filet and Duck Dynasty and centuries of persecution against gays happened first, in case you weren’t aware of which direction time flows.

  49. xardox says:

    Then your opinion doesn’t matter, because you’re wrong, and you’re an apologist for bigots, and therefore most likely a bigot yourself. Anyone like you who wants to avenge the resignation of a bigot who was not fired,but actually freely decided for himself to resign his position as CEO because he was damaging his company, by actually FIRING your employees who you disagree with, is obviously motivated of hate and bigotry, not justice, so give it a rest pretending you’re the white knight leaping to the defense of the powerless.

  50. xardox says:

    I know you’re being sarcastic, and you have nothing to be sorry about: it’s ethically correct to be intolerant of intolerance.

    Plus, it’s delightful to see how butt-hurt bigots act when served up a big fat helping of the same intolerance they so love to dish out to people who don’t deserve it like they do. Absolutely delightful. Their shill whining, squeals of self pity and pathetic attempts to play the victim are music to my ears. And their obviously sanctimonious self-righteous hateful hypocrisy serves to further discredit their indefensible beliefs.


  51. ribchwi says:

    I agree with some of this, especially that quote from Rawls. The question is this: was this a case where they gay community and our allies had ” reason (to) believe that (our) own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger”? I think the honest answer is no. Eich was no threat to us. His opinion was not to our liking, and we didn’t like it. But he was not actively engaged in a campaign to demonize us. In effect, he had already been neutralized as a credible threat by the state and federal Judicial system. So why should he have been pressured to recant or resign? I believe it should have been enough for him to treat every employee equally, even if he continued to personally be against gay marriage for religious or philosophical reasons. And from his record as an employee at Mozilla, as well as his Public statements, he was already doing that and seemed prepared to continue to do so as CEO.

  52. xardox says:

    Get it through your thick bigot apologizing skull: Brendan Eich WAS NOT FIRED. He agreed with me and others that his beliefs, which he refused to reconsider, and his actions, which he refused to apologize for, were harming Mozilla. So he decided with his own free will to resign. And he was right to resign, for the good of Mozilla. Would you rather he stay on and continue to drag down and destroy the Mozilla project?

  53. xardox says:

    Ribchwi, you are on the wrong side of an old philosophical question that has been resolved. A just society has the right to protect itself from hateful bigots like Brendan Eich who threaten its institutions of fairness and equality.

    There is absolutely no obligation to tolerate intolerance. It is ethically correct to be intolerance of intolerance.


    The tolerance paradox arises from a problem that a tolerant person might be antagonistic toward intolerance, hence intolerant of it. The tolerant individual would then be by definition intolerant of intolerance.

    Michael Walzer asks “Should we tolerate the intolerant?”. He notes that most minority religious groups who are the beneficiaries of tolerance are themselves intolerant, at least in some respects. In a tolerant regime, such people may learn to tolerate, or at least to behave “as if they possessed this virtue”. Philosopher Karl Popper asserted, in The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1, that we are warranted in refusing to tolerate intolerance. PhilosopherJohn Rawls concludes in A Theory of Justice that a just society must tolerate the intolerant, for otherwise, the society would then itself be intolerant, and thus unjust. However, Rawls also insists, like Popper, that society has a reasonable right of self-preservation that supersedes the principle of tolerance: “While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger.”

  54. Steven Leahy says:

    I commented on what you wrote in your post. Your comments on Eich were but part of that post.

    BTW it’s pretty clear to anyone that right-wing Christianity in the US, where U live, is far and away the #1 barrier between LGBT people and equal treatment under the law. I didn’t specifically say you were Christian or not Christian and I don’t really care. Whether you’re Christian or not you certainly have biases against LGBT people and if you are not religious, then those biases make even less sense (not that it’s “OK” in my mind for xtians but at least I understand where it comes from).

    Religious BS whether in the form of Islam, orthodox Jewry or Christianity is driving most of the rancid anti-equality fervor around this issue and you know it. In this country it is, without debate, Christianity.

    You implying that somehow the anti-gay-marriage crowd is being “persecuted” is completely laughable. Gay marriage does not strip rights from anyone, it just allows more people access to the legal “club” you as a (presumed) heterosexual now enjoy.

    Eich resigned – under what terms we may never know – and as I have stated in multiple posts, he just wasn’t a good fit for that position in that company and shit like this happens all the time with CEO’s for a thousand reasons. And Eich had more than an “opinion” he donated money to strip people of rights, was called on it as being inconsistent with Mozilla’s philosophies, and he refused to denounce it. Touch cheese and good riddance.

    Just like the bigot Dan Cathy stays in his position at Chick-Fil-A because his company’s culture supports him. Whine about Eich’s firing to the hundreds of LGBT people who are let go every day as schoolteachers and administrative officials in Catholic schools over “doctrinal” opposition by the church which has absolutely no impact on those individuals’ ability to perform their jobs….not to mention other positions in most states due to a lack of ENDA.

    So while you lecture LGBT people about what we should do about inequality in other countries – firstly as an American I am much more concerned about what happens here which is what most rational people would conclude, nit that gay people don’t care or have not expressed outrage (probably far more than you have) about the plight of LGBT people int he countries you mentioned. If you think it’s a more serious issue, why don’t YOU protest not only LGBT inequality in much of the non-western world but also treatment of women? Or is that only my obligation as a gay man?

    Again, you can think what you want and I don’t care if you like/accept me or not. When rights under the law are part of the game, we have a whole other issue.

  55. Davidechecchi says:

    I never said I’m christian, ’cause I’m against same-sex marriage for reasons that have nothing to do with religion (so, yours it’s just a prejudice). And I almost didn’t discuss them at all (so you’re right, what I said about relationships between man/man, woman/woman are irrelelevant on this topic), Is not that the case: we are not talking about gay marriage, but about a man forced to resign because he is against gay marriage.

    I’d rather conclude with the same thing you told me: “You don’t have to think what I think – just don’t use your biases to determine laws which don’t treat us (us, the people who are against same-sex marriage, such Brendan Eich) the same.”

    Who is the real persecuter and the real persecuted? Who was forced to leave his job?
    I repeat, you should learn what TOLERANCE really is. Or just the way you think is allowed?

  56. Queerist says:

    Sam Yagan, CEO of OkCupid, boycotts Firefox and gains goodwill from the
    LGBT community, which one presumes he’ll try to turn into increased
    market share. All the while he, and OkCupid, fails to mention his own
    nearly identical act of donating to a candidate who supported Prop
    8-like legislation in Utah? (

  57. Steven Leahy says:

    Your statements as to whether a man/man or woman/woman relationship is “like” a man/woman relationship is irrelevant. This is about equality under civil law, no more, no less, no “separate but equal”, and Christians don’t get to inject their morality into legal code and determine the rules we all have to live by and how the law applies. Marriage as a “sacred institution” has been treated as a joke by countless heterosexuals so please do not use that tired argument which is irrelevant in this day and age. This is about legal recognition and benefits. You don’t have to think what I think – just don’t use your biases to determine laws which don’t treat us the same. Quite simple really.

  58. Me45 says:

    He is NOT against Hate Crimes for gays. He’s against Hate Crimes itself as a designation. This is an unequal law. Anyone with half a brain knows that. A crime is a crime is a crime. Every victim deserves the same treatment.

    Quite a few people are against this designation & you prove the point as to why. You picked just what you wanted out of it to claim as fact.

  59. Steven Leahy says:

    I read your comments the first time and am aware of what you wrote. I’m a 50 year old gay man myself who has lived through a lot of BS himself and been around the block in terms of life, military service, traveled a lot, and have been a business professional for a long time in mostly conservative areas. Not sure what your point is in how SA culture “deals” with homosexuality. At least the laws have stayed inclusive and other than that, I don’t care whether you or anyone accepts me or not.

    I’m not clearly rooted in anything other than the fact that I want equal rights and treatment under the law in EVERY imaginable way with no compromises. Do not read anything into my comments as indicating I need some sort of validation from you or that I care what you think of homosexuals (it’s clearly evident from the overall hostile context of your various “comments” that you don’t approve – and so what).

    The Holocaust comment you made was one of MANY comments in your posts and I am addressing your post at large. If we want to be “outraged” over Holocaust comments there have been dozens by the right wing referring to “gay Gestapo” and “Gay Nazis” so really it’s irrelevant, inflammatory verbiage on both sides and does’t impact the issue at large.

    You’re anecdotal “experiences” about “gay people” are meaningless without data to support them. Could say the same about Jews, blacks or Asians. Would also venture to say that these gay individuals really aren’t your friends (or I should say you’re not their friend) since without respect and acceptance there can be no real friendship.

    Regarding Eich – he was a poor fit in the progressive Mozilla environment and his own employees were the first to express lack of confidence in his ability to lead. I for one am not so concerned about his donation in the past as to his lack of changed stance on the issue and willingness verbally acknowledge the need and his intent to show respect for his LGBT employees’ rights and dignity. He was given an opportunity to state his intent to so so and he failed.

    CEO’s are displaced all the time in companies for being a bad fit – culturally, directionally or otherwise. If you’re in the business world I am sure you’re keenly aware of this. This is no different. Note that Dan Cathy at Chick-Fil-A did not initially budge on his position and no one called for his head or asked that he resign or step down from his position (yes I am aware it is a family business but it still has a board), because his company’s values and culture supported his stance even though I vehemently disagreed with it. That’s free market capitalism.

    Regarding Hillary and Barack – Times change – and I don’t really care why they changed their minds but that they did – and not so much did I care what their personal opinions were but that they advocated for equal rights and treatment under the law. You keep speaking as if yours is somehow a majority position when in fact all legitimate polling on issues related to gay rights indicate that just the opposite is true, you’re in the minority in your opinion and a shrinking one at that. That said, I don’t care that you hold that opinion, just don’t stand in the way of my rights. Somehow if put to a vote I doubt you’d support same-sex marriage despite all your claims to not caring what others do in the bedroom.

    The “movement” is by no means showing “decreasing results” and other than some outrage from right-wing extremists like yourself who take the time to come to a liberal blog and vent your frustration (some of my lib friends as I am sure you will assert do the same on RW blogs), NOBODY REALLY CARES about Eich, Robertson, etc. in fact, you might also remember that after an initial surge of support from extremists, Phil Robertson’s “show” is way down in ratings and flopped on its season premier. So much for that. We do have court case after court case, however, lined up to overturn unfair laws so there is no loss in momentum there.

    Good for the gay community for finally growing a backbone. There have been no riots, no violence, yet somehow you interpret assertiveness as bullying when in reality we’ve made more progress this past 5 years than we did the previous 45 combined. Have a feeling you’d rather just have us keep the status quo, we shut up, you make the rules, and nothing changes. Not gonna happen.

  60. Me45 says:

    There is NO mention of Obama above. Your bigotry goes the same why because you refuse to mention Obama’s own bigotry towards gay.

  61. Joeg says:

    As usual with a liberal leaner, you’ve completely missed the main point of my comment and instead decided to focus on little things to try to drive your point. The fact is that the writer of this article, on national TV, equated being a holocaust denier with being against gay marriage. He was asked, with incredulity, to clarify if that was the comparison he was making and he carried right on and made it again. Clearly you are Ok with this analogy. Kind of sick really.

    As for my personal experience with how gay people have presented themselves to me, I speak as someone who has been employed by gay people, I have employed gay people in my own company, and I’ve had the distinct pleasure of working with lots of people, gay, straight, or unidentified. I absolutely find that it comes out extremely quickly, in one instance I offered a person a job within minutes of sitting down with them and the response was “You know I’m gay right?”

    Not to sound overly cliche, but I can assure you that some of my best friends are gay and would tell you that I’ve never taken offense at who they are. Admittedly, at least one of them was a business associate of mine for over two years before I learned he was gay.

    You are clearly rooted in the idea that you have to change the feelings of the world to make them accept homosexuality. That’s where you are wrong and that’s where your movement, and liberalism in general, tend to fail. I may not believe that homosexuality is right but I also believe that it is not my place to judge and I would challenge you to read back over my comments and tell me where I’ve condemned gay people at all. Quite to the contrary, the point that I made is that if we want to point to the democratic process and we believe that anything beyond a 50% vote is a win then there is an issue when a public referendum gets knocked down. I’d love to see a public referendum on things like term limits, and balanced budgets but I guess that’s just a dream and is surely off topic for our discussion.

    While I’m really sorry that, as a gay person, you are offended if I talk about my kids and grandkids what I am truly sorry about is that you just don’t see the holocaust / gay comparison as being a problem. I lived for 6 years in South Africa so I learned quickly what it means to be a minority and I also witnessed how that culture deals with homosexuality. You could learn alot from models like Ghandi and Mandela who chose not to try to beat others into submission but rather lead by example of their tolerance and perseverance.

    And again, back to the root of the article and my comments, Eich contributed to the support of trying to ban Gay Marriage in CA. Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton both took the exact same stance and only changed their stance when it meant votes. Are you so willing to accept their change as indication that their hearts have changed yet Eich became the focus of your frustration? Personally I’d rather deal with someone who is straightforward in their beliefs than someone who will say whatever they have to in an effort to get what they want.

    Good luck in your fight.

  62. Davidechecchi says:

    You should learn what “TOLERANCE” really is. Brendan Eich declared that he is against gay discrimination, but he has the right to be against “same-sex marriage”, ’cause marriages have such a big relevance for the entire society, and is it fair to discuss what is marriage and what is not. When muslims (and others so-called progressist) will try in the future to approve poligamy, we will have the right to oppose this idea of marriage, as we do now for same-sex marriage.

    Not all the people must think what you think, and, please, don’t compare being against “gay marriage” to being racist or anthisemitic… I have many gay friends, I’m perfectly fine with their relationship together, but I think that their union can’t have an implication for society such as “marriage”. A man with a woman is not like a woman with a woman, or a man with a man: that is the reality!And I’m not (as Brendan Eich isn’t) an “anti-gay activist”! Instead of concentrating on firing people, why don’t you protest against what happens to gay in Africa, in China, in Russia and in Muslim countries?

    “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” (Evelyn Beatrice Hall)

  63. Steven Leahy says:

    I don’t think it’s turning off allies. It’s turning off people who already hate us. Should also be mentioned that most of the firestorm surrounding this initiated from straight allies in the tech world – not the LGBT community itself.

    Who is “outraged and offended” about this? The bigoted right, not fence-sitters or allies. Who exactly is even talking about this short of LGBT people & allies or the radical, xtian right? No one, that’s who. No one else cares.

  64. Steven Leahy says:

    You comments are living proof how far we have yet to come. So you personally tabulated and you did a study to show that 2/3 of gay people lead off with their orientation? Or is it maybe that your bigoted predisposition to seeing anything associated with the concept of LGBT as “negative” makes you incapable of evaluating gay people objectively?

    Not sure if you have any proof that LGBT people are 3% of the pop. versus 5% or 8% – but in terms of sexuality and orientation – short of climbing into people’s minds and discovering the truth, an accurate numbers requires admission which many closet cases and self-haters are incapable of doing. Tell that to the thousands of married men with kids slithering around picking up men on the down-low due to self-shame and lying about who they are, not to mention those who just quietly suffer through it.

    LGBT people are subjected to and immersed in heterosexuality 24/7. It happens when you talk about your kids, your wife, your grandkids, at work, it’s on TV, it’s all around us, every day. Why is it that is an LGBT person acknowledges openly who he/she is and speaks about his relationship you cannot bring you accept this at face value as part of the world around you, but rather you have to complain about people inundating you with their homosexuality?

    Hate to tell you, but you have probably encountered lots of gay men and women that you didn’t know were gay – so you extrapolate that all gay people behave as a certain small subset might. Regarding the marriage think, heterosexuals have been doing a great job of making a mockery of that for decades, centuries. Not sure is it is the Las Vegas drive-through weddings or the 50%+ divorce rate, fathers running out on their children, or rampant child abuse that makes me doubt heterosexuals’ sincerity in proclaiming marriage to be a sacred institution.

    Just please acknowledge that you have a general aversion to homosexuality and anything it entails – and don’t try to cloak it in some disingenuous disgust at certain homosexuals’ behavior”. Nothing a gay person does will satisfy you, short of disappearing from view. At least don’t try to pretend it’s about anything else.

    There are straight and gay people who carry themselves with dignity and respect and some of both groups who don’t, but I am sure that point is lost on you. But if you think in order to not offend your biased sensibilities we should just retreat into the closet and not allow any affirmation of who we are as people and out relationships slip, not on your life – those days are gone forever. Get used to it – or move to the Middle East or Uganda.

  65. stan8211 says:

    You are right – you did not see it and are wrong.

  66. your worst nightmare says:

    What a bunch of self involved, self serving jerks gays are. They cant even sustain a population naturally, being gay is a choice driven by sex….how stupid……in your face anytime we need to be, drop the intolerance.

  67. approveds says:

    He looks very gay, probably repressed, hiding behind the church as most repressed gays do.

  68. BSORaiderErie says:

    These are people that have Mommy and Daddy issues what would you expect? Very few do it for love just for their 15 minutes of fame! Look how many old timers came back to Hollywood after the Stock crash? All had a Political Correct Social issue to open up about before receiving a new job in Hollywood which in itself is becoming IRRELEVANT!
    16 MAY 2014
    And yes there will ba many Americans that have just awoken to the fight now knowing they can no longer stand on the side line or straddle the fence! Should I purchase a Jewish Food Box or will I lose my job or entitlements 6 years from now because THEN that President is antiJewish? Wake Up America and don’t worry about those that will say, ” I told you so!”, remember just one thing? If it wasn’t for the IRS nobody would even know but the IRS BROKE THE LAW!

  69. BSORaiderErie says:

    Obama is on his way out and with a Legacy which is more like an Anchor than anything else! Nice try but as you claim victory we’ll be electing Governor’s!
    Gay marriage is an Oxymoron you do know this? Since a is for the start of a Family with a Man and A Woman which the government can say whatever they want so their lawyer’s can collect their PAYOFFS!
    Gay Civil Unions would be Okay which would still allow lawyer’s to collect their Soul Fees.

  70. BSORaiderErie says:

    Thanks Mozilla! Mozilla has done more to prove a point than any man or woman could have and shows just how Radical, NAZI RADICAL, the gay movement has become especially after defeat after defeat only wins come by Radical Courts and Judges along with a Crooked Political Party doing anything for Votes….Survival! America has arisen first it was the Obama lie that fired everyone up but today since they all switched Media Networks and realize how deeply they have been sleeping or working instead of taking notice! My Mother always said, ” Better Late Than Never!”, and if that is true then we should have a great first impression come 16 MAY 2014! OperationAmericanSpring.org will be a first impression and uniting get together between so many different groups, I Hope, so please try and visit and bring a full car or truck but we need to be counted!
    16 MAY 2014
    We the People have witnessed the attack on America by one man, Obama , but he never could do this without the aid of those in the Democratic Party and because they don’t have to worry about their REELECTION THEY LIE, CHEAT, AND STEAL FROM US!
    Not just for Veterans and while Rand Paul is touting adapt and change which means to say or do whatever it takes to win? Is this what the Republican Party has turned to? Get in office and then change into who you really are or swallow your own personal morals and sellout like Obama! Yeah how is that working America?
    Be honest and truthful and God will guide everything just look no further than Australia’s last election?
    16 MAY 2014

  71. AnthonyLook says:

    This man wasn’t unfairly treated. He expressed his opinion by donating one thousand dollars for Prop 8 and he also donated to Pat Buchanan’s presidential campaign ( who is emphatically a known racist); the rest of America decided by the hundreds of thousands to express their opinion by choosing other online engines and deleting / leaving Mozilla. Both sides have freedom of speech, both sides expressed their opinions. Companies need to be aware that the choices of those that they put in leadership positions does have consequences. Freedom of speech is a double edge sword. No one’s rights were violated. What transpired was perfectly American not fascist.

  72. Matthew says:

    Way to rationalize fascism, John.
    Juxtaposing those who oppose gay marriage with holocaust deniers and racists is the morally repugnant, intellectually untenable, childish, pitiful hallmark of someone bereft of an actual argument.

  73. ATrober says:

    The man donated to a political cause he believes in, THAT is as American as it gets.

    fwiw, the Founding Fathers and their generations ***deliberately**** put sodomy laws on the books for a reason: history shows h0m0sexuality is, indeed, part of the decline of an empire.

    Even so, where’s the record of Eich behaving inappropriately at work per his own beliefs?

    The other comments in this thread show you how deranged this nation has become, and is indeed going to fall, not avoiding world history’s patterns, e.g.

    – someone claiming its their Constitutional right to gay marriarage
    – someone else claiming the courts have ordered it

    and more.

    All of it is —on the books— lawlessness in full motion. There is no Constitutional protection of h0m0sexuality, the courts don’t make the laws. And, the list could go on.

    The problem with a falling empire is no one believes it’s falling until it does. Same will happen here. And, the gay community, by no means, made this nation a free country, built nothing, but inherits it, couldn’t defend it to save their lives, and thinks someone votes to be free. The real world will set ’em straight. In time.

  74. Joeg says:

    Sorry but the misconception is all yours Marjie. I was surely not indicating that only 3% of of the population had a problem with prop 8 rather I was stating the fact that Prop 8 impacted less than 3 % of the population.

    While you may be correct about “activists invading the state”, any invading activists would not have been able to legally cast a vote in the state of CA. (Well unless they did so without having to show valid photo ID, which the news coverage of yesterdays Afghanistan election clearly showed every voter there had. Strange that goat herders in Afghanistan can produce ID but I’m a racist if I expect residents of our first world country to do the same. Perhaps I should digress.)

    So back on point, exactly what lies and insinuations stirred a majority of people to vote for Prop 8? Surely you can’t legislate for, or against, someones personal beliefs. But apparently it is perfectly OK for “activists” to mission to get someone terminated from their professional position when they disagree with your beliefs. By far the most intolerant people in our country are those who proclaim themselves to be “progressive”.

    As for people who have felt the need to proclaim their sexuality to me during job interviews, etc, I’ve got no need to make it up and would easily name the individuals who have done so. I don’t believe it is my place to judge, in the end we all meet our maker and atone for what we have and have not done. This is how I was raised, how I raised my kids, and how I live. I can pretty well infer from your tone that you don’t have anywhere near the same level of compassion and acceptance for those that may be different.

    More than anything, I am surprised that you are OK with the author of the article going on national TV and equating being against gay marriage with being a holocaust denier? Really? Perhaps you can enlighten me as to what planet you come from where the two things are anywhere near equal.

    Sad and sorry for you.

  75. Julien Pierre says:

    Yes, with the Boy Scouts, there was no grey area. Some of the boy scout anti-gay policies still continue today.

    The Mozilla was different though. There is no evidence that Mozilla Corp/Foundation discriminated about its LGBT employees.

  76. Julien Pierre says:

    Well, I hadn’t even seen your post until the day after. It’s OK. My blog is very low traffic. It’s mostly about music and tech stuff, much more rarely about LGBT rights. The only posts that ever get replies are those about technical stuff.

  77. Moderator4 says:

    Disagree all you want, but when you start to fling mud, you are out of here.
    Learn to disagree without insults.

  78. Rodney Robertson says:

    If we have the power to destroy. Wow.

  79. Tom Bradford says:

    John looked bad today on TV on Fox was he hyped up on something. Was acting totally different than a normal homo. Made the whole gay community look bad. Of course people have the right to say what they want to. That is why he has the right to be out of the closet and not persecuted like he would be in another country. You give a faggot a little power just like a woman they will turn it on you to try to control every issue and they are never wrong in their mind. This guy is a problem and needs to go back in the closet and stay there. Let others talk without butting in when others are talking. HOW RUDE!! But what do you expect from a guy that is in a relationship with who he is. Poor gay boy.

  80. News Nag says:

    The number is fewer, but women are still losing pay and jobs because of pregnancy. That is on top of being paid less for comparable work than a male. The fight continues on all fronts because of intransigent patriarchy, which lays low and is always looking for ways to roll back non-straight-male rights.

  81. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    Rent a copy of “Bridegroom”. It demonstrates why a caring person should regret such a thing. Prop 8 ruined the lives of many people.

  82. News Nag says:

    I like what Josh Marshall wrote today about this. He agrees with you and described the situation very well, as did you. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/a-few-thoughts-on-brendan-eich

  83. News Nag says:

    Is this an essay question? I suggest you do your own research into your own bigotry and hypocrisy. Nobody should have to do your elementary mental work for you, though I suspect you may be incapable.

  84. News Nag says:

    I think the community did confront the Obama administration in many ways, some more vocal and public than others, and at the same time I think it was a measured response. You can respond and confront without baiting your opponents into not wanting to remedy a situation. I think this is what John is talking about when pointing out the counterproductive elements in a movement.

  85. News Nag says:

    Your point was specifically addressed in the article, making you either stupid or not caring whether you’re a bigot.

  86. News Nag says:

    I didn’t see the video you’re talking about and could be wrong, but having seen John in many appearances through the years I’d say he wouldn’t have done so without there having been a true need for the truth to be heard over the opinions of blowhard dissemblers and liars.

  87. News Nag says:

    If you post videos, like you used to do, the intent of which were to laugh at animals accidentally subjected to physical discomfort and pain, then your ‘love’ of animals (who are not your pets) is suspect. If the videos showed a person instead of an animal jumping off a wall, as in one video, and failing to reach the other side and falling down to the ground and incurring pain and perhaps bone breakage, then the maybe mild but still actual sadism inherent in laughing at the person couldn’t as easily be denied as with posting animals in similar situations for the purpose of laughing at them. You may not ‘hate’ animals, but then you really couldn’t be said to ‘love’ them either. They are there for your amusement, perhaps?

  88. annoyed says:

    I saw you defend your opinion on the ouster of Mozilla CEO on Fox News, and was disappointed that you seemed to not feel you could make your point without talking over everyone and essentially yelling your position. Being the loudest in the room does not make a point correct, and makes it look weak compared to others who relate their position in a more professional, calm manner.

  89. MerryMarjie says:

    I believe your first misconception is in thinking that only 3% of the population was “shrill” about Prop 8. I’m a grandmother who happens to think that everyone should have the same rights, and that we all share in this country’s moral fiber whether we are Christian or Muslim or Blue or whatever, and though I didn’t protest in CA, I was very against Prop 8. Every person in this country deserves to be SEEN as a person, not a number, not a statistic, not a symbol, but as a human individual. There are many people concerned about human rights, and yet activists from other states invaded California and protested the state’s laws. A majority of people supported the repeal of gay marriage? A majority of those voters were stirred by lies and insinuations.

    I have met a lot of people, none of whom declared their sexual status to me upon first meeting, but gay people are still PEOPLE, and should be treated equally in this country. Please don’t separate and label humans.

  90. UncleBucky says:

    Here’s the lesson. One has to fight. Fight hard enough so that one with others shows the force of solidarity. But not so hard that one turns off allies.

  91. Luigi Proud DemoCat! says:

    Stolen from Becca Morn at ThinkProgress:

    According to FEC records, from 2008 to 2010, Eich donated $2100 to Congressman Tom McClintock (CA-4, R). The amounts are typically a few hundred bucks each.

    McClintock is staunchly, vehemently anti-gay rights. He believes there should be no hate crimes laws to protect gay people, and obviously he’s against marriage equality. In fact, when DOMA was overturned (mostly), McClintock was up there with a bunch of Republican Congressmen saying he wanted a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage forever.

    McClintock has received 100% ratings from the American Conservative Union and is considered to be one of the most right wing members of Congress. He even voted against renewing the Violence Against Women Act.

    It’s not just $1000 to support Prop 8 from Eich.

  92. Luigi Proud DemoCat! says:

    The screams of pain and anguish from outraged & terrified homophobes, racists, and sexists defending Eich are music to my ears. They’ve been hurling their invective without consequences for years. Now, that they’ve been slapped down, they actually claim that those of us who support equal rights for all are intolerant anti-diversity bigots.

    George Orwell must be laughing in his grave.

    By the way, I’ll bet Brendan Eich is already receiving job offers from organizations like:

    The Family Research Council – which supports Russian & Uganda anti-gay laws.

    WorldVision – Which allows LGBTI people to work for them as long as they sign a pledge to remain abstinent.

    Westboro Baptist Church – well, maybe not them because they believe Papists will burn in Hell right along side the homos.

    I wish Brendan Eich well, but I will fight him and all other homophobes, racists, and sexists every step of the way when they work to deny equal rights to anyone they hate.

  93. UncleBucky says:

    Eich got his comeuppance.

  94. Joeg says:

    You should be embarrassed and ashamed. I just heard you equating gay marriage to the Holocaust. Really? How many gay people have been exterminated by the fact that a MAJORITY of CA residents supported the repeal of gay marriage? When did our country decide that we have to bow to the shrill insistence of less than 3% of the population? While the last 6 years have convinced me that we are less of a Democracy than ever, I still take issue with the idea that my beliefs need to change because of your “feelings”. You would think that after the embarrassment that GLAAD suffered when they went after Phil Robertson there would be a bit more desire for them to appear to be at least a little tolerant. Unfortunately, Eich does not have the connection with the public that Phil had or, once again, whiners like you would be slapped down again. You, and by that I mean your “movement”, have reached a point of decreasing results and you should stop to realize that while most people (me included) believe that everyone has the right to live their lives it has now become such a shrill cacophony from an extremely intolerant minority that is now hurting you. Why is it that, and I speak from 50 years of experience, at least 2/3 of gay people that I meet lead off with their sexual orientation. Why? Why not start out as Americans (which all minorities should strive to do) and then move onto the second step of simply being decent people. I don’t give a rats backside what your orientation is, likewise you should stay out of my bedroom.

    Get over yourselves and make an effort not to overdramatize.

  95. Cass says:

    Kinda funny how everyone is upset at Eich for a donation made in 2008 but elected a president in 2008 that felt the same way as Eich , civil unions instead of marriage. Just like Obama opposed gay marriage at the time but. Pure hypocrisy.

  96. scottdedalus says:

    I also notice that John has the less than charming habit of labelling people who act on their convictions as crazies. Very establishment of him, I’m sure that All The Right People Who Go To The Right Parties will appreciate it.

  97. scottdedalus says:

    John draws the wrong lessons. The gay community didn’t get anything out of this administration by being measured, it got something by being confrontational. Playing nice with people who have the power and the money is a recipe for being permanent second-class citizens.

  98. robintyler says:

    Thanks for explaining John!

  99. Papa says:

    If Mozilla was a publicly company you would expect them to put the best man in the position to maximize their profits and advance their market position. Mozilla did that, and they were pounded for it. Eich was and is the best man for the job, period. If the shoe was on the other foot and he was released for being gay and giving $1000 to defeat Prop 8 you’d be defending him. Don’t you see the logical disconnect? It’s not about rught and wrong with you, it’s about vindication, about payback. And don’t give me the argument the anti-gay-marriage folks would do the same thing – true or not, two wrongs don’t make a right.

  100. Shit, I forgot to put your URL – you should have told me! I’m adding it now :)

  101. Bam says:

    No other class of American citizens is as apologetic about defending themselves as the LGBT community. If it were found out that he had donated to a group working to outlaw all marriages between Jewish couples, it would be a no brainer. Why are we so timid about expecting to be treated equally. We always fall right into their hands and become intimidated by the right who make us think we are intolerant simply for expecting to be treated as every other human. Isn’t it obvious that we should vigorously and consistently condemn every single attempt to weaken our status as citizens? Why should we make exceptions in some cases and not in others. That gives the appearance of ambiguity. Only when we make it clear that we won’t tolerate any attempt to make us less deserving of equal treatment. That is how we arrive at a place where discrimination against us is not socially acceptable. Is that being intolerant? Yes and rightly so. Who else in this country would think it proper social behavior to campaign in favor of legalized discrimination against themselves? If we can’t even get to the point where we say that’s unacceptable then how do we expect the rest of society to believe it is. This has nothing to do with free speech. You could be shouting on the street for a return to slavery if chose, but nobody is required to employ you or keep employing you if your speech is causing an issue. This shouldn’t be a subjective issue at all. We need to be clear about what we expect from others or this is going to constant battle and the religious freaks will use our inconsistencies to find way to create loopholes.

  102. Bam says:

    In the end, it is a decision of the employers, so why would anyone bash gay activists? They’re not a governmental unit capable of taking away anyone’s job. This is just another attempt by the conservative right to try to manufacture a backlash for their political gain. If he had donated to a campaign to deny civil right to African-Americans or Jews there would be no uproar, but some people think it’s okay when civil rights of gay people are denied. I would not want to employ, be employed by or do business with a person who is actively contributing to a cause which thinks that I should be excluded from the same constitutional rights as other Americans. I don’t care if they are friendly and have 100 gay friends, and dance on a float in drag at pride, they’re still contributing to a cause that intends to hurt me and my community. I don’t understand the logic of we should stifle our own speech so not to stifle his speech. Why not let everyone speak and let the company make the decision. And personally I have no problem with a society in which one might be held accountable for working to take others freedom away. No one is stopping people anyone from any freedom of expression. But that doesn’t mean you are guaranteed immunity from your actions.

  103. Julien Pierre says:

    Here is my full blog post, which was partially quoted by John in the article , from http://blog.madbrain.com/2014/04/about-mozilla-ceo-resignation.html :

    Prop 8. was passed after an extremely deceitful campaign. The “Yes on 8”
    TV ads were blatant lies, and just horrible. Even some of my
    low-information, non-voting, gay friends who say them thought they
    should vote for prop 8 after seeing them.
    Prop 8 was unlike all other
    state constitutional amendments against same-sex marriage, because it
    revoked rights that were already legally recognized.

    I was
    deprived of the rights to marry my partner in California for many years,
    as many other LGBT couples were. Brendan Eich contributed $1000 towards
    that campaign. Unlike the 52% of the California electorate who voted
    for Prop 8 in 2008, this contribution was not the mere expression of an
    opinion, but something he actively did to influence the result of the
    referendum that stripped me and others of rights. While the Supreme
    Court declared in “Citizens United” that money is speech, I don’t accept
    I cannot simply ignore that he made that this contribution.
    Neither do I think the rest of the world can. I think some backlash
    against Brendan Eich is entirely warranted.

    Whether backlash
    against him should translate to a Firefox boycott is much more
    debatable. For better or worse, a CEO represents the corporation, and
    his political opinions cannot be merely considered private matters. I
    believe CEOs should be held to a higher standard than lower-level,
    non-management positions. In this particular case, Brendan Eich was
    already in a high-level position, as a co-founder of Mozilla, and
    previously CTO. He was not recently hired, but merely internally
    promoted to CEO. His “Yes on prop 8 “donation was uncovered years ago,
    and did not make headlines as big then as now. The Mozilla board
    probably underestimated how big of an issue this would become after his

    There is no evidence that he has taken discriminatory
    actions against Mozilla LGBT employees in the past. He has promised that
    he would not do so either as CEO in the future.
    However, he has
    never publicly discussed his reasons for funding Prop 8 in the past, and
    there is no evidence that he has changed his mind on the subject. If he
    did, I believe he would have told the world already, and ended the
    controversy already.
    In my mind, it is difficult to reconcile having
    funded Prop 8 and not being an anti-gay bigot. While many were deceived
    by their churches and very strongly encouraged to fund Prop 8, we don’t
    know if that was the case here. I believe he would have said so as well
    if this was the case. That leaves with him having been and still being
    an anti-gay bigot as the sole explanation for the funding Prop 8. He is
    certainly entitled to his bigoted beliefs. But free speech under the
    First amendment only means it is free of repercussions from the
    government, not from individual citizens. A boycott certainly falls
    under free speech as well. Several Mozilla employees have called for him
    to step down from his CEO role last week.

    I’m a long-time
    contributor to the Mozilla project, including 9 years working on the NSS
    security library – but never as a Mozilla employee. I certainly don’t
    want to see the Mozilla project disappear into oblivion. I am glad the
    controversy ended, before the damage to Mozilla and Firefox became
    irreparable. Having Brendan step down from the CEO role was the best

    Of course, Brendan’s $1000 contribution towards Prop 8
    was relatively small, considering the $40 million+ spent on each side. I
    incidentally also donated $1000 to “No on Prop 8” – the same amount he
    gave to “Yes on 8”. But I’m proud of having done so.
    Other CEOs have
    contributed to anti-gay causes, even in tech . When AOL acquired
    Netscape, Steve Case donated millions to anti-gay organizations, all the
    while paying Netscape/AOL employees to contribute to the Mozilla
    project .
    And obviously, companies like Chik-Fil-A, Barilla, Wal-Mart, Exxon, and their CEOs have done much worse.
    In that light, the recent reaction to the new Mozilla CEO may be overblown.
    it comes down to how much intolerance we can tolerate. I think it’s a
    good thing that the bigots are being pushed into the closet, for a
    change. I worry that many will still continue to promote their bigotry
    anonymously, however.

    As someone who is in an interracial,
    same-sex marriage, I would certainly be just as upset if he had donated
    to a group that opposed interracial marriage. I suspect the rest of the
    world would be more upset about it than about his donation to “Yes on
    prop 8”.

    There is a line between political opinions and human
    rights. Most people nowadays recognize that racism affects human rights
    and is not just a mere political opinion.
    Many people, but not as many, also recognize that LGBT rights, including same-sex marriage, are human rights as well.
    Hopefully In 50 years, there will be as few homophobes as there are racists today, but that will still be too many.

  104. chris10858 says:

    I look at this issue in a very simple manner. I don’t care that this was a wealthy conservative guy or if it were a 90 year-old widow lady down the street from me… if someone donates or otherwise works to harm or deny my family and I from equality, then it is all out war. I take no prisoners. Neither should the rest of the gay community. Otherwise, we become the ineffectual Democrats who are allowing Republicans to dictate the various political conversations in the media today.

  105. ATrober says:

    Why should Eich apologize or regret his donation?

  106. AnthonyLook says:

    Boy Scout organizations remove adult gay males, discrimination against hiring gay individuals continues, ongoing efforts to legislate discrimination and to take away civil rights continue; was it fair—-Heck Yea.

  107. BeccaM says:

    I thought I’d add a persona anecdote as well, explaining why I hold such a grudge against people like Brendan Eich. Especially those like Eich who has expressed no regret — nor offered any explanations — for his positions or political donations.

    In late October of 2008, my wife and I (married in a private but not legally-recognized ceremony in 1998) returned to America for a visit and to begin planning for our eventual permanent return from India in a five months hence. We stayed with friends in Sunnyvale, California, as we often do when we’re in the area, especially since we no longer owned a house in the Santa Cruz mountains. (Sold that in ’06 to begin our international adventure.)

    For the first time in a very long time, we had an opportunity to watch U.S. broadcast and cable TV. There were, of course, lots of political ads for various causes and candidates — some we liked, some we didn’t. No surprise there.

    But the airwaves in California were all but blanketed with “Yes on Prop 8” advertisements. To say they were ‘homophobic’ was an understatement. Most of them featured children in some role. All of them implied that simply learning about homosexuality and about same-sex marriages would irreparably damage these kids. Or turn them gay. Or worse. A lot of ’em featured frightened looking (actor) parents.

    Want to see a sampling of the ads? Here you go: http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/04/04/brendan_eich_supported_prop_8_which_was_worse_than_you_remember.html

    When I say ‘blanketed’, I mean we’d see at least one of these Yes on Prop 8 ads every single frickin’ commercial break.

    Y’see, in another wrinkle to this tale, besides planning to be in the States so my wife and I could cast our ballots for the ’08 election, the other thing we wanted to do was to get married in California, which was legal then. (Up until the election anyway.) Finally ditch our California ‘Domestic Partnership’ for the real deal.

    Seeing all those horrible, sickening ads on TV, more ads in the newspapers, and signs on the lawns of even people in Silicon Valley was beyond discouraging. They were degrading, depressing, and traumatizing. I remember a couple days before the election, when it was pretty clear Prop 8 would pass — narrowly, but pass — and turning to my wife. I said to her, “Even if we get married, they won’t stop until they annul it. It’ll be just like San Francisco all over again.”

    We’d been among the roughly 3000 couples who married in 2004 when Mayor Gavin Newsom was issuing licenses to same-sex couples…and among those heartbroken when the same forces of hate sued to have them declared null-and-void. And won.

    My wife agreed with me, but with the proviso that since we were planning to hang around until mid-November, we might as well just put the marriage plans on hold. We would wait and see.

    Lo-and-behold, Prop 8 did pass, so that made any California marriage plans moot. And immediately the pro-Prop 8 forces filed suit not only to stop any further marriages from happening, but to try to overturn and annul the 18,000 marriages that had taken place in the previous six months. Now, it is true they lost that particular challenge — but it wasn’t for lack of trying. They took it all the way again to the California Supreme Court.

    Those 18,000 couples were in legal limbo until more than six months later when the California Supreme Court ruled that their marriages were actually still legal.

    For those who want to say, “Eich only gave $1000,” my response is, “That’s $1000 more than someone who merely put a sign on their lawn or cast their one vote to take away my civil rights.”

    Eich wasn’t content just to have his own opinion. He donated money so that others could be persuaded to agree with his anti-equality position.

    Eich’s donation might not have been as large as, say, from the Catholic Church or the Latter Day Saints, or all those anti-gay groups who tried to keep their donors lists secret. Nevertheless, Eich’s money helped, along with the money of other would-be homophobic bigots, to pay for the slander, lies and propaganda that caused so many fence-sitting Californians to vote against the civil rights of a minority. Until the advertising barrage started up in late September, Prop 8 had been trailing in the polls by 14-17%. It passed by a margin of 52% to 48%.

    I am, however, a forgiving woman. I’m willing to let bygones be bygones, provided the person who wronged me and those I care about actually apologizes and expresses regret for their actions. Someone whose heart actually has changed.

    Brendan Eich did none of these. He has not apologized for contributing materially to a campaign to deprive my wife and me of civil legal marriage rights. He has not explained why he’s given generously — in a single citizen donor way — to Congressman Tom McClintock, Ron Paul, Linda Smith, and Pat Buchanan, all of whom campaigned on platforms of discriminating against LGBT Americans.

    Besides which, there’s no point in forgiving someone who never asked to be forgiven and who thinks he’s done no wrong. Who just the other day was suggesting that being anti-gay was okay and should be tolerated, because that’s how people feel about gays in Indonesia. That is, when he wasn’t puffing up his messianic ego and bragging about he and he alone was best suited to lead Mozilla as CEO in the 21st century. Sure, he said he’d uphold Mozilla’s current policies of tolerance, respect, and inclusion — but not once did he say he shared those ideals. And his political donations record suggest he never has.

    So I say fine, Eich is entitled to his opinions. If the Mozilla board decided to keep him on as CEO, that’d be within their rights, too. Just as I’m within my rights to stand with the Mozilla employees, partners, and board members who objected to Eich’s being hired to lead the company.

    But clearly a decision was made, a business decision based on bad publicity and a rather significant insurrection of outrage both within Mozilla and among their many open-source partners, that hate, homophobia, and bigotry are not acceptable values anymore. They’re bad for business.

    And that’s a good thing.

  108. 4th Turning says:

    Robert Green Jr.: I think of the four of us kids of Bob Green and Anita Bryant, I am probably the most sympathetic towards gay and lesbian rights and probably in a lot of ways more socially, politically, religiously left of certainly where my parents were at that time. All of us are more moderate than our parents.

  109. intoxination says:

    This is really a unique situation because Mozilla isn’t like the typical companies we’re used to. You’re talking about a company that relies heavily upon the tech advocates and open source community, that basically do work for them without any compensation. To a lot of them, regardless of their stance on Prop 8 or equality in general, it does seem as though Mozilla broke their promise of “supporting equality” by promoting Eich. On the same note, that also can translate into current news of NSA spying. Sure Mozilla says they work to protect your privacy, but they also said they are for equality then came Eich. This kind of PR backlash can really hurt Mozilla in a time that they are losing browser shares. Add to that the fact that Google basically funds about 90% of Mozilla through their deal to have Google as the default search engine in Firefox (almost $300 million a year and a deal that is up this fall), I’m sure Google will be watching close to make sure they are going to get the ROI they expect for that money.

  110. And, as I’ve, I’m still on the side of doing this. But sometimes it does give me pause. And I think anyone wielding power ought to think from time to time about whether they’re doing the right thing. It doesn’t mean you necessarily end up changing course. It does, however, mean that you’re (hopefully) less likely to take the wrong course.

  111. stranded says:

    John, I really appreciate that you are trying to start a dialog about this and I agree with everything you’ve stated. It was foolish of Mozilla not to vet this guy’s past. Now they’re getting hit from all sides. I run a website and when OKCupid took their stand to boycott Firefox I had to make a determination about whether to do the same. Ultimately I decided to let users make their own choice. I don’t agree with Eich’s support but I’m increasingly uneasy about the tribalist tone of both sides. I worry where it’s taking us when everyone is accusatory but nobody is teaching. Tomorrow is the wedding of my best friend, in L.A. It wouldn’t be happening if Eich and many others had their way. But I want to spend the occasion proving the value of love and human decency. The path that some of these discussions are taking is entirely too purist for me. People can be decent to each other and still maintain their values. I feel like we’re on the verge of something very dark, when we have the upper hand as a movement. There are many more hurdles to cross and we need allies and advocates who aren’t just in it to win the argument, but to prove that equality is the way of justice. Those hardliners on the right should make us all question our tactics. In short, I disagree with Eich and he should never have been CEO of such a company. I enjoy healthy robust debate but the LGBT community can gain even more power by questioning our personal vindictiveness toward people with whom we disagree. Now I have a pre wedding dinner to attend and won’t be around for the follow-up. A toast to love and faith in the triumph of humanity over discrimination.

  112. Probably not enough, it’s a big list

  113. Robin, I had the twinge at the time, and I think I explained pretty clearly in the piece what that twing was and wasn’t :) As for wanting corporate people running the movement, Im pretty sure Dan Savage and Pam Spaulding, who I mention by name, aren’t corporate :) Again, I’m pretty sure I made clear in the piece that I was talking about activists and groups both being far saner than what we’re seeing today. ACTUP knew what they were doing, and who they were targeting. These folks, not so much. And finally, as for crazy, you ain’t got nothing on Suey Park. You’re good crazy. She’s just nuts. Again, I thought I was clear in the piece that I was talking about our activists being far saner than some of the activists I’m seeing out there right now.

  114. Swami_Binkinanda says:

    Rubber, glue, mirror, right.

  115. Swami_Binkinanda says:

    Who’s invading your little club and making you be nice to people you hate? Nobody. The Muslim dig is a cute bit of Breitbarty butthurt as well. They can get in the line to kiss my ass with everyone else because this is America and we have a higher standard and the right to tell small minded bigots and tiny tyrants to bugger off, because the dream here is freedom. The price of freedom is living with the choices you make and the consequences of what you do.

  116. Swami_Binkinanda says:

    http://www.uua.org/lgbtq/witness/marriage/ It’s policy with civilized religions, not something that has to be brought up with every bigotry outbreak.

  117. Swami_Binkinanda says:

    Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone.

  118. Swami_Binkinanda says:

    Narcissism. You don’t see unitarians or buddhists getting all authoritarian on peoples’ lives. If you said nosey jerk authoritarian religions like scientology, fundy xtians, catholics et al you could say that.
    Gladys Kravitz religions, well, yeah, they usually are violating their own rules to maintain a commitment to their tribal values. Jesus hated bankers but you don’t see a lot of poor Evangelists giving all their stuff away, do you? There’s a reason, whited sepulchres.

  119. Swami_Binkinanda says:

    How is this a change from your current practice?

  120. Swami_Binkinanda says:

    His professional duties include representing Mozilla Foundation and as such an endorsement of inequality is not consistent with HR and not consistent with the desired public image of the foundation. He chose to resign rather than face up to his choices. Not like the Dixie Chicks, Don Imus, Larry Summers, et al.
    Conservatives seem to have a big case of victim envy.

  121. Swami_Binkinanda says:

    http://www.crmvet.org/tim/timhis60.htm#1960nosmb White flight meant that white owned businesses left minority neighborhoods, obviating the notion that continued boycotts were problematic. You can’t boycott what isn’t there.

    Nice piece that describes how the real argument is who is a citizen? This is simply a negotiation and in this case Eich chose to withdraw rather than apologize, renounce his support for inequality, or stick it out and try to weather the PR issues.

    http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2014/04/03/glenn-mcconnell-began-selling-segregationists-products-in-wake-of-boycott/ Just because some folks think it’s over doesn’t mean it is over. The wolves are always lurking on the edge of the herd.

  122. emjayay says:

    The key is damaging to their brand, plus the unworkable dynamic his actions set up with employees and volunteers. It’s not about anyone forcing anyone to do anything or anyone bullying or all the other irrelevant nonexistent issues anyone might invent.

  123. emjayay says:

    Wow you must be really smart. I guess you are right about everything then.
    On the other hand, if my grand daughter worked at the Prop 8 office I would invite her to lunch and have a serious discussion with her, not send a check for a thousand bucks.

  124. Stev84 says:

    He wasn’t fired. He resigned. Sometimes people are asked to resign to save face, but that wasn’t the case here.

  125. Swami_Binkinanda says:

    Funny how to start it’s not about civil rights and then two sentences later it is clearly about civil rights.
    The consequences of a boycott to Mozilla would be what? Work camps? Show trials?
    Simply consumers being informed about who backs a free product and making a choice whether to use that free product or not in response to that information.

  126. BizarroOJSimpson says:

    I remember the DR. Laura campaign, that was epic.

  127. ChitownKev says:

    If those financial donations to “anti-Semitic” causes are known by the company AND by the general public, then yes, Mozilla would be within their rights more than likely if it relects badly on Mozilla.

  128. ChitownKev says:

    John, this is excellent work.

  129. Swami_Binkinanda says:

    How is this any different than what happens every single day at every business everywhere in America and the world?

  130. Swami_Binkinanda says:

    Did he go straight to the FEMA camp for re-education?

  131. Swami_Binkinanda says:

    Oh the neverending butthurt of those who may dish it out but refuse to take it.

    Dixie Chicks
    Despite numerous clarifications and apologies from Natalie Maines and the Dixie Chicks, a full on boycott of their music was called for by pro-Bush, pro-war, and pro-American groups. Their single “Landslide” went from #10 on the Billboard charts, to #44 in 1 week, and the next week fell off the charts completely. Radio stations who played any Dixie Chicks songs were immediately bombarded with phone calls and emails blasting the station and threats of boycotts if they continued. Even radio DJ’s and programmers who sympathized with the Dixie Chicks were forced to stop playing them from the simple logistics nightmare the boycott created. Some DJ’s who played the Dixie Chicks were fired.

    Larry Summers

    Don Imus

  132. lynchie says:

    Well companies have been firing people for being gay, for being black, for being old, hell for just being. If however you fire people and that breaks the law you will have to pay for your action. To me this protest was akin to the protests about the oppression of the gay community by the Russian government. i boycotted companies that were providing financial support to the government so they could continue to attack gays. That is my right, just as it is my right to express outrage that this bigot was put in a position to potentially force his opinion on those people who work for him.

  133. goulo says:

    For a leader, “doing the job” is not just carrying out functional tasks. It also includes inspiring and encouraging the rest of the people, and not leaving gay workers wondering if he’s going to start treating them like crap because of his religious prejudices against gay people and not leaving non-gay workers wondering if he’s going to start treating their gay co-workers like crap. He obviously did not inspire confidence in that regard; he regards gay relationships as second class and not even deserving of legal recognition and benefits. And the CEO is the top policy-maker in a company.

  134. goulo says:

    Huh? Why? What does this have to do with Muslim employees? Am I missing something?

    And why would you hope that there are no Muslim employees there?

  135. robintyler says:

    John, as one of your co-founders of stopdr.larua, and the original plaintiff in the decision that brought marriage equality to California, I was surprised to hear you might have a twinge of guilt regarding ‘Dr. Laura.’ That victory campaign of ours influenced so many successful campaigns that followed. To correct something, they did not actually ‘go after the 18,000 legal marriages, not because they didn’t want to, but because it wasn’t in their original filing. (They tried to in court). If Brendon Eich contributed money to a case to stop interracial marriage, he would be considered a bigot and a racist. (Remember, they used ‘religious beliefs’ in court as the argument against interracial marriage,
    and used almost the exact same argument when we went to court here in California. Eich would never have been hired if he were viewed as a racist in a high profile case. We are a civil rights movement. Why should he run the company if he is a homophobe? Bigotry is Bad for Business. Also, on a last note, John, about ‘crazies’, I was considered one when I went to work for marriage equality in 1974, when I produced the first marriage ceremony at the 1987 March on Washington, when I fought the 1993 March by wanting to do (and did) a right to ‘serve’ segment, and was called crazy by the gay legal groups for daring to file in California, a state in which Republican appointees were the majority of the CA Supreme Court. You seem to like the fact that corporate and ‘acceptable’ people are in charge of the movement as opposed to those ‘crazy lunatics’ who were so passionate about gaining our civil rights that we did not stop to be polite or acceptable. We did not make the hundreds of thousands of dollars that so many ‘leaders’ in our movement make today. Our passion was not sustained by salaries, or even the desire to be accepted or admired. Our absolute need for equal rights drove us and sustained us.

  136. goulo says:

    MLindaMartin: how would you personally feel about working for a boss who gave $1000 to make it illegal for you to be married to the person you love?

    It’s not just “intolerance of someone’s personal views”. He intentionally and actively tangibly hurt many people, including some of his coworkers.

  137. BeccaM says:

    Yeah… or when they insist ‘equal rights’ are actually ‘special rights’.

    I noticed in one comment, she remarked about supporting civil unions for all — and oddly enough, I was very nearly in agreement with her.

    But you and I and most everybody else knows the likelihood of convincing all those straights to give up their ‘special right’ to the word and term ‘marriage’ is way, way less likely a proposal we’d ever win than simply to fight for access to what already exists — legally, socially, and culturally.

  138. pappyvet says:

    Conn Carroll stated that there is “no room for dissent in progressive America You must hold PC views on everything or be annihilated from the public sphere.”

    Here is the rightwing at it’s basest level and a good example of how they use language to distort reality.

    To use the word dissent to disguise an attack is truly bottom of the barrel. It fools none but those whose own hatred gives them a sense of carte blanche to parrot the distortion .

  139. Naja pallida says:

    Has anyone gone through that database and found other people in influential positions that should have their bigoted views shared?

  140. Naja pallida says:

    That’s really the saddest part of it all. So many people don’t even understand that their actions are bigoted. They just can’t seem to grasp equal means equal.

    “I hurt my hand punching you in the face, I demand you apologize!”

  141. Silver_Witch says:

    No they are not the CEO, they don’t set rules and regulations. It would be nice if they were more accepting and OF COURSE they can not express their distaste in public.

    See I believe that you can think ANYTHING you like in the privacy of your own home (or church), however once you venture into the Public World you should really try to keep your hatred to yourself. Okay to have it…sure – just keep in your back pocket with your condom or your smokes.

  142. BeccaM says:

    Because being the boss of the company gives them power over others. The higher up the corporate ladder, the less acceptable it becomes.

  143. BeccaM says:

    We have past actions — and decades of evidence — that indicate Eich is no friend to gay people. When given ample opportunity to say he’d changed his mind about his prior opposition to gay rights, he declined to do so and passed the buck over to Mozilla’s existing anti-discrimination policies.

    I’m not accusing Eich of doing things ‘in the present’. I’m accusing him of contributing actively to anti-progressive causes in both the distant and recent past. I’m further accusing him of giving us no evidence his attitudes have changed.

    You’re right: Eich can be as anti-gay as he likes at home. But knowing he’s not a friend to gay people, I feel I have every right to an opinion of opposing his hiring as CEO of a company with thousands of employees, because I have never met a homophobe, racist, misogynist, xenophobe or other form of bigot who could flip a switch in their head and become an entirely different person in the workplace.

    Especially not when they are the friggin’ boss of the place.

  144. BeccaM says:

    In this, I actually agree with you. I only point to the pro-Prop 8 donation as clear proof that Eich not only feels gays and lesbians don’t deserve equal rights, but was willing to make a material commitment to the position.

    Personally? I found his repeated donations to McClintock, as well as his donations in the past to Paul and Buchanan, to be even more troubling. With those guys, we don’t just have anti-gay animus — they’re anti-EVERYTHING even remotely progressive.

  145. BeccaM says:

    I saw. Thanks. I noticed she mentioned several times about having employees…in a way, I feel sorry for them.

  146. And that’s part of the problem – we’d simply unilaterally disarm.

  147. dcinsider says:

    You do understand that deliberately choosing to use your money to target a minority population’s constitutional rights is not an activity that shields you from all criticism, right?

    I mean you can see how people might be upset about this, I’m sure.

    And you understand that people have a right to express their displeasure, and to voice their concern, and to ppint out to a company why a particular choice for CEO insults that same minority community.

    And of course you recognize that the company can choose to listen to that criticism, and make a decision based upon what it perceives will be the impact on the company if it stands by its selection.

    I know you understand this because this is precisely what your friends did when Disney decided not to prohibit gay days at Disney. The people who were offended by that action were very upset. They voiced their anger online and demanded that Disney change its policy. They instituted a boycott of Disney theme parks. You might even say they were intolerant of Disney’s policy.

    Disney did not decide to change its policy as the result of those actions. However, those who led that opposition had every bit as much right to do so as they did as did the many people who actively opposed Eich’s appointment.

    Tolerance, in the end, has little to do with this, and you know that, right?

  148. wriver4 says:

    Thank you for demonstrating my point. I have a BS, and an MS and a mensa level IQ. I am creating a company to make a profit. Erich created a company that gives a way their product and helped create the technology that you have just used to apply your own bigotry and the ability to hide from the rest of the world. At least he did not try to apologize for his actions. For all we know his grand daughter worked at the prop 8 office and asked grand dad to donate and who can say no to your grandchild.

  149. John Masters says:

    I think what they are saying is that it’s fine, in Mozilla world, for you to be for or against equality, or LGBT, or atheist, kinky or Methodist or whatever, but if you’re going to be the grand pubah of said world, you have to be unequivocally supportive of all those positions. Eich had demonstrated he could not.

  150. dcinsider says:

    The answer to your question is maybe. The company can do whatever it pleases. So long as the termination does not offend state or federal law, the company will do what the company deems is in the company’s best interest.

    The attack on Eich will not make this more likely nor less likely. Thus, your premise is faulty to the extent it suggests that this is somehow precedent that companies will fire employees for their private political action.

    And finally, Eich was not an employee, so to speak, he was the company’s public face. As explained by Naja pallida, the company decides that Eich is a liability. Our advocacy only pointed out to the company why Eich was a liability.

  151. ribchwi says:

    Prance around the meaning? I thought I was pretty direct.

  152. John Masters says:

    The problem with that is, I’m not prepared to “require” him to change his mind, and if he hasn’t changed his mind, I don’t want a fake apology. If he had honestly evolved in his thinking, then great. But clearly he has not. So I’d rather not have a statement that included an insincere apology just to keep his job.

  153. dcinsider says:

    Thanks. That needed to be said.

  154. PeteWa says:

    go on, enjoy your tolerance of neo-nazis and the KKK – have a great time with that buddy, while you prance around the meaning of words.

  155. dcinsider says:

    And just to take this one step further.

    How would Eich respond to the allegations against a manager whose “sincerely held religious beliefs” led to him to violate the inclusiveness of Mozilla’s policies?

    How welcome would Eich be to a SCOTUS ruling on this issue that recognizes some limitations on pressing anti-discrimination statutes against religious people?

    How quickly would he embrace any legal basis that would allow himself and others at Mozilla to “reinterpret” those inclusive policies in light of Supreme Court rulings, and the sincerely held religious beliefs of himself and other Mozilla personnel?

    When we go after those in positions of power in the private sector, and hold them accountable for such vile behavior, we do so because they are in positions of power, and have the opportunity to bend policy, interpret allegations, and undermine equality in many hurtful ways.

  156. ribchwi says:

    Tolerance doesn’t mean embrace. It means tolerate. And when you are a permanent minority in a society that is just barely on your side, you have to be smart about getting and keeping what you want.

    One of those ways is tolerating bigots as long as they tolerate you. It’s transactional. You can be christian about it, but you don’t need to be. I tolerate KKK members, anti-semites, whomever. As long as they keep that at home and treat me and mine with respect and fairness in the workplace. They don’t have to like it, they just have to do it. And I don’t have to like them either.

    But perhaps such a way of doing things is stupid……..

  157. giantslor says:


  158. John Masters says:

    I agree with you Jon that it’s a tough call. I don’t really know the answer, but I do know that, while it won’t shut them up, the anti-equality crowd are worse. Not that long ago, any time a company or its executives came out in support of equality, they’d issue calls for that company to remain “neutral” in the culture war…”that’s all we asking of company XYZ.” But take the Dan Cathy example. He comes out against equality, and he’s their hero. Then he does exactly what they say they want all companies and executives to do, just remain neutral (at least in what he says publicly), and they’re calling for his head and denouncing him. That’s not better or worse than what has happened to Eich.

    The thing is, no one’s speech has been abridged here. Never mind that the whole free speech thing applies only to the government, Eich is still free to say what he wants, donate money to whatever causes he wants, we are all free to say what we want to about what he says with his free speech, and the Mozilla Board was and is free to do what they want with the best interests of the organization at heart.

    I’m not sure it was wrong to bring it up, and let people make their own decisions. He did make the contribution. I think the problem here is, he talked way too much in his response to the controversy, and in all those words, never apologized. Now, I don’t think he owes me an apology. If you’re a bigot, you’re a bigot…I owe you nothing, and you owe me nothing, but all his statement did was call people who thought him to be a bigot wrong. Well, sorry Dan, there’s a public record that says you financially supported a bigoted proposition. You lay down with dogs, you get up with the fleas. I don’t want him to apologize and say he’s had a change of heart, if he hasn’t, and he’s entitled to his position. I don’t have to like, and I don’t have to tolerate it without some response, but it’s his life.

    However, he could have offered a statement that just said he would support the policies and spirit of Mozilla…blah, blah, blah, and shut up, and this might have blown over. Instead, he decides to effectively defend his position, and try to say it doesn’t matter. Maybe it doesn’t to him, but since him I grant him to the right to his positions, he shouldn’t try to take away the legitimacy of my position (i.e., that he’s a bigot). So, once that statement came out, all bets are off.

  159. No, just the haters. You can disagree about communion and actually most of it. But on the bigotry thing, not so much.

    And because, you know, religion is otherwise so tolerant of dissent. I’m just following what I was taught :)

  160. PeteWa says:

    really, are you stupid?
    yes, you are.
    come back to me when you have a non-idiotic comment, tia.

  161. Yup – I googled, it’s a ‘thing’

  162. ribchwi says:

    If they can do the job, why not?

  163. ribchwi says:

    Let me be clear. Eich can be as anti-gay or racist in his own home as he wants to be. But you can’t accuse him of doing something in the present if he HASN’T DONE ANYTHING YET. Which is my point. It’s true that he might. But so might any CEO regardless of what they said in public. If Eich made those kind of changes the BOARD could have him let go. And we could yell at him. But as long as his actions are kept in the past, and his beliefs at home, they should stay there.

  164. Steven Leahy says:

    John was phenomenal. I heard the interview. You all have to check it out!

  165. PeteWa says:

    lol are you really that simple?
    no, sorry, people who chose to act on their intolerance do not get shown tolerance for that intolerance, they get called on it.
    if they wither like sad little un-watered flowers, well, that’s entirely too bad, isn’t it?

    shorter you: “how can your tolerance and inclusive words have meaning if you don’t embrace the KKK and neo-nazis too? huh, how?”
    yeah, your point actually is that stupid.

  166. BeccaM says:

    Sweet jumpin’ Jeebus…

    They gonna blame the IRS for ‘leaking’ the publicly available information on the FEC website, too?

  167. perljammer says:

    My commentary about the amount was in response to John’s statement, “Townhall wasn’t nearly as concerned about the freedom of millions of gay
    couples in California who lost their right to wed in 2008 thanks to
    now-former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich.” As hyperbole goes, that one is off the charts.

    I also believe that, for a lot of people, no expression of regret would make up for having made the donation – in any amount – in the first place. I have seen many, many comments here and in other places, saying that there is a huge difference between stating a position (e.g., Obama saying he believed that marriage should be between a man and a woman, because, you know, God’s in the mix) and donating money to support that position. Personally, I think that a statement from the bully pulpit of the Presidency carries a lot more weight than a $1,000 donation, but that’s just me, and Obama’s position has “evolved”.

  168. BeccaM says:

    No they shouldn’t be fired, but they shouldn’t be appointed CEO of the company either.

  169. Steven Leahy says:

    Gosh you are obnoxious. Why so angry? Why come to a progressive site to troll people who INSIST on equality? Guess what, right now there is no equality under the law and until there is, we will keep speaking up. Get it?

  170. DonewithDems says:

    Was it right to point out Eich’s bigotry? You bet. Mozilla had other candidates that would not have embarrassed them, they went with Eich. If he had been an anti-semite, the Jewish community would not be navel-gazing and wondering if they were being mean for targeting him.

  171. So your point is that I shouldn’t bring up the argument that I’ve even dated dogs in the past? ;-)

  172. My latest article, regarding a rather bizarre BBC interview I just did about Brendan Eich loses his job as CEO of Mozilla. I was on with arch-conservative Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro, who proceeded to defend the employment prospects of Holocaust-deniers, and then charged the IRS with leaking the fact of Eich’s Prop 8 donation (which they didn’t do).


  173. wriver4 says:

    Really, Is there a lawsuit against him for his mistreatment of employees or the mozilla community based on established facts or are we deriving our fact from the reliable public media.

  174. ribchwi says:

    If they were advocating against us 6 years ago,but not now, I’d call it INACTIVE.

  175. DonewithDems says:

    “Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism
    and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to
    dehumanize a large group of people, to deny
    their humanity, their dignity and personhood.” – Corretta Scott King

    Yes, when people seek to dehumanize others, when basic civil rights are violated, when your beliefs nullify another’s dignity, then you’d better be able to live up to the consequences. Tolerance is not about letting others hide behind the word itself and not allow anyone to question their opinions/beliefs. You and Eich can spew all the nastiness you want, that’s free speech. You don’t get to spew and then hide behind the straw-man argument.

  176. ribchwi says:

    So what about people who aren’t pro marriage equality? Are they included in that inclusive?
    And could they be CEO as long as they were willing to be fair to everyone, including those who ARE pro marriage equality?
    If so, Eich shouldn’t have been pressured to resign. If not, then I would challenge words like tolerance or inclusive having any meaning.

  177. ribchwi says:

    But like minded about what? Marriage Equality? Immigration reform? Religion? Dating? Diet?
    None of those things have to do with Mozilla’s stated reason for existence.

    Eich mentioned that many Mozilla employees in places like Indonesia are against marriage equality. Should they too be forced to leave unless they become like minded?

  178. ribchwi says:

    But many of the Mozilla contributors are not for marriage equality. Eich for instance.
    Are you suggesting that all Mozilla employees must be Kinky, LGBT atheists? Or pro-kink, pro LGBT or pro-atheist? If so, when do the firings begin for those who aren’t?

  179. PeteWa says:


  180. PeteWa says:

    there’s also this: he was acting, for all intents and purposes, as the face of the company… and he was damaging their brand, one that they had built for years as being inclusive and tolerant, not as a collection of regressive bigots.

  181. BeccaM says:

    “…in the past.”

    That’s the distinction right there. Brendan Eich has given no indication he’s actually given up his support for anti-gay discrimination, only that he would adhere to an external set of policies which he himself as newly hired CEO would have the power to ignore, alter, or rescind.

  182. SkippyFlipjack says:

    This whole incident has nothing whatsoever to do with free speech. Anyone who thinks it does needs a remedial course in civics and the U.S. Constitution. It has as much to do with speeding laws as free speech.

  183. NCMan says:

    what do you call advocating to have people’s rights taken away from them if not “actively working against us”?

  184. BeccaM says:

    Perhaps. Maybe if one day someone she knows and cares about comes out as gay and wants to marry the person they love, she’ll realize this isn’t an ‘ideology’ but real people’s lives we’re talking about here.

  185. ribchwi says:

    Most of those civil rights leaders were against firing people or punishing people for having supported segregation in the past.

  186. ribchwi says:

    But we aren’t talking about Civil RIghts. We’re talking about changing attitudes, so that those RIghts can be kept. CHanging attitudes takes patience education and time. Things we won’t be able to use if they think we’re out to get them.
    Which we are if we say that support for prop 8 six years ago is going to cost people their jobs.

  187. Naja pallida says:

    The patience meme has been trotted out many times in the past. Most of the great civil rights leaders we laud today were repeatedly told to just go home, be patient, equality will come in time. If you just wait, and not rile people up or risk offending anyone.

  188. MyrddinWilt says:

    I don’t think they ever set out to punish. But they did set out to make sure that people donating to the Klan didn’t get put in any position of authority over them unless they repudiated their racist views.

    Mozilla is a NOT-FOR-PROFIT. It is a public interest trust like an NPR station. It depends on contributions from a large community of coders many of whom are LGBT or Kinky or atheist. So this wasn’t so much a CEO appointment, it was like appointing a judge or the head of an NPR station or a University. The test is not merely ‘would he discriminate’, the test is ‘does he share our values as a community’.

    To return to John’s original question, I think is is very important that we ask where we draw the line. What about university professors. Alan Dershowitz mounts attack campaigns to stop professors getting tenure for being critical of Israel. I don’t think we want to copy that model for LGBT issues. But on the other hand I would heartily support any campaign Gaius might want to mount to stop a University taking a ‘donation’ from the Koch brothers to create a named chair in climate change denial. That’s not a gift, its a purchase of influence.

  189. BeccaM says:

    And let’s not forget the primacy and importance of the CEO position.

    It’s one thing to be a member of a company who has to answer to a boss who says, “Don’t discriminate.” It’s another to BE the boss who theoretically can, with a single memo, tell every employee, “Feel free to discriminate, I don’t care, just don’t break any obvious laws.”

  190. Moderator4 says:

    Her bigotry has gone on long enough, BeccaM. She is out of here.

  191. Silver_Witch says:

    That is sad….maybe she will evolve.

  192. BeccaM says:

    Ms. Martin has made it clear she has nothing but disdain for gay people and thinks there’s nothing wrong with discriminating against us. She doesn’t want Eich to explain himself or to evolve from his anti-gay positions or express regret at all.

    She wants him to stand firm in his beliefs that gay people should be second class citizens, because to demand equality and freedom from discrimination is a ‘special’ right that infringes on the right of the fundamentalists to oppress us.

  193. giantslor says:

    “that I apparently hate all animals, especially cats (which was news to me, and to my dog who I incessantly tweet about).”

    Ah, the old “I don’t hate dogs, my best friend is a dog” chestnut. How long are you going to keep denying your anti-animal phobia, Aravosis? ;-)

  194. Silver_Witch says:

    There are many brothers and sisters who have lost jobs because they are gay or LGBT or Pagan or a pregnant woman (okay that was the 70’s), so this poor CEO lost his position because of his beliefs (behaviors)…well lot’s of us have lost our jobs for just being who we are. Guess the Pendulum swings both ways and sadly for the bigoted it seems to be swinging this way – for at least a time.

  195. PeteWa says:

    he didn’t lose his job and his career, he is just no longer in the same position within the company – by his own choosing.

  196. Dan Tappan says:

    Someone should point out to the right-wingers that this is a a direct consequence of the Hobby Lobby vs Sebelius case. If corporations can have religions, and since CEOs in general seem to regard themselves as personifications and ultimate policy-setters of corporations, then if you (as an employee, a member of the board, or a stakeholder in a corporation) do not want a corporate culture which uses religion to excuse bigotry then you are required to make sure that the CEO personally does not promote such. Free speech doesn’t enter into it.

  197. Silver_Witch says:

    Hi ribchwi, I think he are missing one small piece that this particular CEO works for a company that relies on volunteer workers that live in a diverse and open community, additionally THIS CEO did not explain his stance or whether he had changed his view.

    Since we only have our voices with people that are like minded we will not actually impact the Koch brothers and have them effectively removed as the CEO of their companies…but where we dwell together, work together for a common goal – there we should have officers that are like minded.

  198. PeteWa says:

    some people, you for example, have their heads so far up their own asses it’s a wonder they don’t asphyxiate.
    John, the writer of this article, is Greek Orthodox.
    you know, dear heart, a person of faith.
    did I mention that you’re an idiot?

  199. BeccaM says:

    No one cares? No, my wife loves and cares about me very much.

    In fact, I hope you are lucky enough to have someone in your life who loves you even half as much as my wife loves me.

  200. PeteWa says:

    calling someone on their actions (in this case bigotry) is not bullying, no matter how much you might wish that were the case.

  201. Silver_Witch says:

    Well said Naja, there is also a missing piece in MLindaMartin’s premise…that Mr. CEO could have explained himself, opened a dialog about changing stances in society and evolution of ideas (like we saw the President experience – he “evolved”). However, Mr. CEO did not want to open a dialog, did not express why he donated to these causes and frankly, I suspect he is still the CEO (or at least founder/big cheese) behind the scenes. Just a theory though.

  202. Moderator4 says:

    MLindaMartin, you have gone on long enough. You are banned.

  203. oikos says:

    “I don’t support gay “marriage”. If gay people want to set up house together and obtain a civil union and thereby enjoy the benefits afforded by the state to those living in such arrangements, fine. I couldn’t care less”

    Yeah about that. Who the f*ck are you to decide if I have the right to get married? Oh and you’re a muslim hating bigot too. How nice. I bet you have a nice Klan hood to wear.

    Yes, by opposing my right to marry the person I love you are imposing your 12th century religious values on others. And as for trampling others freedoms, when gay people are beaten and killed and not allowed to be themselves then they are having their rights trampled. Last I knew no christian had been forced to get gay married or been killed for attending church.

  204. John Masters says:

    And the State calls it marriage, so that’s what it has to be. A civil institution.

  205. MLindaMartin says:

    You don’t bother me in the least. People like you are a dime a dozen where I live and no one cares about you anymore.

    It’s called equality and being treated like everyone else.

    But that’s not what you _really_ wanted. What you’ve always wanted is special treatement.

    Guess what? You’re not a special snowflake. You’re just another lesbian. Big freakin’ deal. No one cares.

  206. MLindaMartin says:

    You are looking at his years-old donation through the lens of 2014.

    I don’t support gay “marriage”. If gay people want to set up house together and obtain a civil union and thereby enjoy the benefits afforded by the state to those living in such arrangements, fine. I couldn’t care less. However. marriage means something different to me (and to many people of faith) than it does to you. That’s a philosophically and theologically based difference of opinion and having people fired for not sharing your philosophy and/or theology is true bigotry and discrimination, not mention a huge, huge trampling of the freedoms afforded each and every citizen of this country. Churches perform sacramental marriages. The state doesn’t perform sacramental anything.

    Interestingly, I have not tried to “impose my religious beliefs” on anyone. The state can do what the state likes, and if the state does it for one group of citizens, it must do it for all citizens. Period. We agree. But you cannot stand the thought that I believe something, philosophically and theologically, about marriage that you do not believe. And that was all this was ever about — silencing those who believe differently.

    Funny how you big talkers go on and on about the intolerance of Catholics and Mormons, but not a peep out of you about Muslims. Such big, brave boys y’all are. Sure.

  207. BeccaM says:

    Justice delayed is justice denied. No civil right was ever won or kept by being timid or patient.

  208. BeccaM says:

    I didn’t donate $1000 to try to take away Eich’s civil rights. He, on the other hand, did, to try to take away mine.

    He helped pay for the unceasing barrage of TV commercials that implied my wife and I were a danger to children.

    It is not hate to stand up to bigots and liars. And if Brendan Eich has a belief that gays and lesbians have no right to marry, then fuck yeah, I’m going to object.

    And if that bothers you, then good. It’s intended to.

  209. ribchwi says:

    But better patience and progress then impatience and backlash.

  210. oikos says:

    I’m not witchhunting anyone. Eich donated to prop 8 to take away the rights of people. If you don’t support gay people having rights-don’t hide your own bigotry, just come and say it. I frankly don’t care what your definition of marriage is. Your have no right to impose your religious beliefs me or on others in a secular society. My rights don’t get to be voted on. Marriage is a civil institution. Churches perform weddings.

  211. MLindaMartin says:

    I don’t believe in the same definition of marriage as you do. I think the state should provide civil unions to everyone — gay, straight, whatever. I think marriage is something else entirely and has nothing to do with the state. But this kind of witch hunt makes me sick, whether it’s the fundie loons of the religious right OR y’all who are doing it.

  212. oikos says:

    Yes, if you oppose my having the same rights that you have because I’m gay then you are indeed a bigot. Nice whitewash Linda.

  213. MLindaMartin says:

    Right back atcha.

  214. BeccaM says:

    I am too old for patience anymore.

  215. MLindaMartin says:

    People can do what they like. Works both ways. Difference between you and me is I don’t force people to agree with me. I’m not intolerant and bigoted. You are.

  216. Naja pallida says:

    Sorry for being intolerant of your intolerance.

  217. Naja pallida says:

    You’re going to find that the real adults will pass you by, and be happy to treat others equally, without trying to equivocate on what ‘equal’ means.

  218. MLindaMartin says:

    Same difference. He was targeted and he lost his job as the result of bigoted, intolerant targeting. You have become the thing you say you hate. Sorry, but you ARE Pat Robertson now.

  219. MLindaMartin says:

    Nope. Not at all. It’s exactly that sort of response that proves my point.

  220. MLindaMartin says:

    What bigotry? See, it’s just a word you throw out there and then force people to prove a negative in order not to be considered bigoted. That’s childish tantrum throwing and it’s dreary and tedious and boring. Have a great life. Just don’t start whinging and whining about how unfaiiirrr it all is when someone doesn’t want you around because of what you believe.

  221. Naja pallida says:

    Well, there is a fundamental problem with your premise… and that is that he wasn’t fired, and many of us weren’t calling for his firing. We were simply pointing out his bigotry, and making it a matter of public record. It was between him and the company, and they decided that his bigotry was a liability. If your bigotry became a liability to me as an employer, I’d probably ask you to resign or fire you too. I wouldn’t want to subject other employees to such a hostile workplace.

  222. BeccaM says:

    There’s that projection again…

  223. MLindaMartin says:

    Why should he have to “regret” a belief? You’re doing to him what you claim was done to you. You have become the thing you say you hate.

  224. BeccaM says:

    Well, pardon us for failing to tolerate your bigotry.


  225. BeccaM says:

    It’s not the amount. It’s the lack of expressed regret for making the donation in the first place.

  226. MLindaMartin says:

    Not to me it doesn’t. I’m now going to do some investigating and fire the employees whose beliefs don’t line up with mine. But that’s okay, right? Because that’s what you just supported. Hell, plenty of other people who can use the jobs, why not give them to people who better reflect my company’s identity.

  227. Steven Leahy says:

    Actually it does. CEO’s have a level of influence and control that average employees do not.

  228. bbock says:

    I was also concerned that we had gone a bit overboard. His “crime” was spending a thousand dollars and holding an unpopular opinion. (Well, more than a thousand if you go back to Pat Buchanan and other candidates he supported.) But should a man lose his job and career because he is a bigot. But you’re right that no tech company would have an avowed racist as CEO these days. And you’re right that he didn’t care how his money affected MY life. My marriage was one of the 18,000 that Eich’s tried to overturn with his donation. But Eich didn’t do it alone. His impact was minimal. Right? Well, the thing is _I_ didn’t get him fired/forced out. I sent several tweets. That’s what MOST people did on the issue. Others wrote blog posts or spoke to the press. Individually, our impacts were as minimal as his. Only the real hot heads quit Mozilla. But his side of Prop 8 also had its heavy hitters. So I guess it was a proportional response. He got nibbled to death by ducks. But he COULD have rebuffed the nibbling with a real, heart-felt apology. But that’s apparently not how he felt. He really does (apparently) still believe that his donations were correct and that gays should be stripped of their rights. Bottom line: Screw him. He got what was coming.

  229. MLindaMartin says:

    Marriage is not a right. “Equal rights” does not mean what you think it means. You’re just another intolerant, hate-filled reactionary. Have a great life throwing tantrums. You’re gonna find out real fast that the adults will get along just fine without you.

  230. Naja pallida says:

    Equal rights is serious, and not believing in equal rights makes one a bigot. Whether they think it does or not.

  231. ribchwi says:

    Like I said, that is how things are NOW. But in the 1960’s and 70’s?
    WIlliam F. Buckley comes to mind as an example of how segregationists were allowed to persist without being forced out of their jobs for past racist sentiments.
    There were thousands like him in all spheres of society up until the 80’s and 90’s.
    Black people and their supporters didn’t punish the segregationists for past actions and it was a smart strategy.

  232. MLindaMartin says:

    Yeah, well they skid down the street on my dog’s shit every day for the rest of their lives. Meh. I could care less about anyone who works for either company now. They’re dead to me.

  233. Naja pallida says:

    When money equals free speech, and corporations are people, the only real way to hurt them is to go for the money. It’s not a pretty way to accomplish things, but I don’t really see another option. You can’t appeal to the better nature of an inanimate entity.

  234. MLindaMartin says:

    It doesn’t matter.

  235. MLindaMartin says:

    So you’re good with me firing people whose personal beliefs and whose worldviews and whose expenditures I find fault with? Okay. Good to know.

  236. ribchwi says:

    Yes. We wait until we get an overwhelming majority. A long as they aren’t actively working against us, we let them believe what they want at home and church, and we leave their past sins in the past, and let living to see society change be their punishment.

  237. MLindaMartin says:

    What bigotry? Mr. Eichs is not a bigot. He just doesn’t agree with you about something very serious.

  238. Naja pallida says:

    Trust me, if their actions reflected badly upon the company, any company, they’d be fired in an instant. The simple fact is, most employees aren’t important enough for it to matter to the company. The same cannot be said for a top executive.

  239. MLindaMartin says:

    Not that you’re a bigot or anything…

  240. MLindaMartin says:

    And “bigots” means anyone who doesn’t march in lockstep with your ideology. Right.

  241. MLindaMartin says:

    OKCupid doesn’t have an ideological leg to stand on. Sorry. But anyone who works for OKCupid is either a pimp, a whore, a john or all three. That the likes of OKCupid was a huge motivating factor behind all this is the most telling thing about it. Kaching, kaching, sex and money, who cares about principles like freedom and free speech and fair play, eh? Mozilla was stupid enough to open offices a few blocks from my apartment. Guess I know where I’ll be walking my dog from now on.

  242. BeccaM says:

    What amazes me is anybody takes her seriously.

  243. Steven Leahy says:

    Were they CEO’s?

  244. MLindaMartin says:

    And yet there are Mozilla employees who DO donate to anti-semitic causes. So now what? Is every company everywhere going to have the right to fire you because you’ve donated to a cause or organization they don’t feel fits their corporate identity? Are you willing to be fired because the company you work for doesn’t like where you spend your money? Or will you then cry persecution and unfair because now someone held YOU to the same standard you’re insisting those who don’t agree with you be held to.

  245. Steven Leahy says:

    well said

  246. Steven Leahy says:

    Agree and yes he deserved what he got. I too am tired of the double-standard where too many are saying in a not-so-thinly veiled way that our rights are not as valid as other demographics’ and our dignity and respect not as important.

    Sent you an email. BTW John I heard you on BBC on Sirius driving home from work around 12:30 today and you were amazing. Sat in the car to listen to the rest of the show. Great job and well done trashing those idiots!

  247. Naja pallida says:

    Seems to me that as long as the Supreme Court is going to declare that money equals free speech, the only thing those of us without money have is our voices. Calling out those people who spend their money on bigoted causes is the best means we have of pointing out those people who would see us oppressed.

    Mozilla could have very easily ignored the outrage and went on with business as usual, but they obviously felt their brand was going to be unduly damaged by this. It should be apparent by now that we’re not going to take being thrown under the bus any longer. So many people have seen gay bigotry as an easy out. A position they could hold to show their “conservative” credentials without any cost. Well, we’re finally starting to see that it is no longer a viewpoint that comes for free.

    Simple fact is, if he had donated to an anti-Jewish group, or to the KKK, or to the campaign coffers of David Duke, his feet would have been held to the fire. There’s absolutely no reason why we shouldn’t be doing the same. If you want to be a bigot, you can’t expect the group whose rights you’re trying to curtail to just lay down and take it.

  248. It hasn’t expired in a number of years. And the larger Suey Park problem still infects much of the far left on far too many issues we all care about.

  249. I’m a person of faith. I’m only painting the bigoted ones as bigots.

  250. BeccaM says:

    What is the proper amount of time to wait before we object to a person’s bigotry? Do we have to wait until they’re no longer in a position of being able to enforce it? Or is that still bullying?

    Should we wait until after they’re dead, then it’s okay to criticize?

  251. Suey, is that you?

  252. BeccaM says:

    I can when that person has NEVER supported a progressive cause and by all appearances is giving only lip-service to anti-discrimination policies.

  253. I don’t know. Good luck becoming a corporate CEO if you’re an avowed racist or anti-semite. I don’t think some racists and anti-semites slipped through over the years because blacks and Jews were being nice :)

  254. ribchwi says:

    Like I said, we are a permanent minority in this country. We have to convince the majority that we aren’t going to be going after their parents and grandparents in our quest for rights, or punishing them for giving material support to our enemies in years past.
    If we don’t get that total majority first, the polls will switch, and sooner or later, the same process that is protecting our rights will go right back to denying us our rights.

  255. There aren’t really any gay ones with power. LGBT ones, yeah. I’ve written about them before :)

  256. AnitaMann says:

    John, who are the “gay crazies” and what do they stand for and what do that do? Just curious.

  257. Bookbinder says:

    Exactly right. Unconstitutional persecution is no mere political position. It is of an entirely different magnitude. IT is not, for instance the same as having a differnce of opinion on religion.

  258. Steven Leahy says:

    It’s not about settling scores. Mozilla’s own employees were the first to indicate a lack of confidence in him for not supporting their values. The public chimed in soon afterwards. Dan Cathy at Chik-Fil-A stuck to his views and he had a company and culture that supported him and though he ultimately lost the war, he won the initial battles.

    So how long do you suggest we sit here complacent and reticent about situations like this?

    Should be said that the guy resigned, he WASN’T fired, and whether or not the board threatened him with a termination remains to be determined. As a reminder, Catholic schools fire LGBT teachers who violate the religion’s “teachings” and who cross cultural boundaries the school has set forth. Mozilla is a private company.

    We have a right to express our disdain with him and he gets to suffer the consequences. he is not Joe Average Employee, he is the CEO – who maintains enormous power over employees, direction, cultural influence, benefits, and the general sense of the place being an inclusive place to work.

    I am sick and tired of LGBT people defending our enemies and assigning us second-class citizenship when it comes to expectations of being treated with dignity and respect. Just because past civil rights struggles took time and went through stages doesn’t mean we can’t learn from those. There’s no reason we have to repeat the whole charade all over again.

    Had this knucklehead shown the slightest bit of remorse for his DONATION (remember it wasn’t just an OPINION but an active donation to pass laws restricting our rights), I have a feeling things would have been very different. Instead, he took a cavalier, condescending stance totally devoid of regret, respect, and intent to have shown he’s changed. He got what he deserved.

  259. wriver4 says:

    So, what you are saying that you can determine whether a person can not separate their business conduct from their personal conduct in a person you don’t know and never have met . hmmmm

  260. Bookbinder says:

    There are a couple of things going on here. One is clearly revenge on anyone who has persecuted us over the last 70 years, and given the venomous nature of the persecution, richly deserved. Two is the rise of the internet and blogs, thus providing the means. But it’s bigger than that. It is in effect crowd sourcing policy and decision making on a larger scale than has been possible before and not just in the public policy arena but in ALL of life. Of course it will eventually get around to cutting both ways…look at Duck Dynasty, for instance. On the upside, it is beginning to make businesses extremely wary of partisan involvement, eg Chick Filet.

  261. SkippyFlipjack says:

    ah ok, thanks.

  262. BeccaM says:


    Well, any moment up until his other political donations began to see the light of day…

  263. Steven Leahy says:

    Thank you. This concept is obvious to anyone with a brain out there, though unfortunately many don’t seem to have them. Don’t understand why they don’t see that.

  264. Lopezgerry says:

    Wow I hope there are no Muslim employees at Mozilla. If there are, they should go on strike.

  265. rerutled says:

    At any moment, in all that, Eich could have said the following words, would have ended the uproar: “I regret that donation to pass Prop 8. My position on marriage equality has changed, especially now that I lead a large organiziation, full of individuals of diverse backgrounds.” He refused.

    If Mozilla didn’t depend, as it does, on values-aligned contributors of volunteer labor, then perhaps a capitalist can justify the “wages for work” transactional nature of his relationship to the employees. But it’s not. Mozilla has always been about standing for the greater good of the broadest community, and that cannot be said of Eich who actively worked against my — and everyone’s, in fact — civil rights, and does not regret a dollar or a moment spent doing it.

  266. ribchwi says:

    The thing about racism and antisemitism is that when Jews and African-Americans got full legal rights in this country, they didn’t IMMEDIATELY set about trying to punish every CEO or other public figure in this country who had supported segregation and anti-semitism. Its only 40 years after the fact, when the vast majority are in favor of full equality for Black and Jewish people, that we shun those who think otherwise.
    We’ve only had a majority in support of full equality for gay people for 2 years. ANd a bare majority at that.

    As a permanent minority, we can’t afford to try to settle scores with every person or CEO who ever supported the point of view that we don’t deserve full rights. Because we depend on them and their children, family and friends to gain and keep our rights in this country under the law.

  267. BeccaM says:

    Actually, OKCupid didn’t block the traffic. What happened was people using Firefox would see a notification screen asking them not to use that browser — but the notification could be bypassed with a mouse-click.

    However, the bad publicity was beginning to mount and the new cycles were just beginning to get their arms around Eich’s other political donations over the years.

  268. SkippyFlipjack says:

    Mozilla made a business decision. OKCupid did make an ideological one, and part of me shares your concern about that, but as I’m sure you realize being intolerant and being activist against intolerance are very different things.

  269. John Ruff says:

    Wow. Perfect response to a sound argument in our favor.

  270. SkippyFlipjack says:

    I think the biggest factor in the decision to force Eich out was when sites like OK Cupid started blocking traffic from Firefox.

  271. BrandySpears says:

    Translation: those that donated to take legally won rights away from LGBT Californians are the true victims of bullying.

  272. BeccaM says:

    Bigotry deserves consequences.

  273. oikos says:

    “In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.

  274. wriver4 says:

    I see this as just another example of the public not being able to separate professional conduct, thoughts and actions, from personal conduct, thoughts, and actions. This is the essence of free speech. It a sad statement of public intelligence that we still cannot separate the two. We as the public worry about children bullying other children and we set the example by bullying the co-founder of company. And then we wonder why our children act this way.

  275. 2karmanot says:


  276. pappyvet says:

    Separation from England wasn’t legal either.

  277. pappyvet says:

    We have an absolute right to defend ourselves from bigotry wherever it rears it’s ugly head.

  278. GarySFBCN says:

    Again, when it is revealed that the personal actions of a CEO are contrary to the company’s values and that is damaging their brand, and when that company is facing a massive boycott because of that CEO’s personal actions, and when the CEO’s actions are supporting prejudice or discrimination directed against a widely-discriminated-against group of people, this should ALWAYS happen.

  279. Ricky says:

    Having the courts in California grant gays and lesbians the right to same sex marriage – as courts had done in more than 10 other states — and having thousands of those marriages take place – only to have Eich and others work to stop all same-sex marriages – and what is often lost – is their hope that Prop 8 would also nullify those same sex marriages that had taken place – only a later court ruling determined that the Proposition could not do that – is now a simply a matter of ideology?
    So taking away a right granted by the court – and working to nullify marriages – is just about ideology?

  280. cole3244 says:

    i am not a member of the lgbt community but i prefer their crazies to the crazies on the right, too me they are not really that crazy but maybe i am and my viewpoint is tainted.

  281. BeccaM says:

    I suspect her 15 minutes will expire sooner rather than later… She’s a total whackjob.

  282. BeccaM says:

    That seems to be a rather common conceit, doesn’t it? How someone who uses their religion as a crutch and rationale for discrimination and bigotry presumes such bigotry is a core belief common to all religions.

    It’s the exact same thing when they claim opposition to marriage equality is a religious thing and thus should be respected — always completely ignoring all the religions that feel otherwise.

  283. goulo says:

    You misunderstood what I meant. Let me try to say it again differently to clarify:

    I’m certainly not defending the guy and I agree that his financial support of Buchanan is ALSO damaging, not just his financial support to repeal same-sex marriage rights. And I’m not saying that WE who follow sites like americablog think that his being ousted was only about his anti-gay-marriage stance.

    I’m saying that the people who DO defend the guy see it only as “PC gay activists” persecuting him for his “personal beliefs” about gay marriage and THEY don’t seem to be aware of, or at least consider significant, his contributions to Buchanan etc. At least in all the comments at mainstream sites which I’ve noticed. It’s comment after comment about how “gay marriage activists are intolerant” yada yada. Not much talk about other issues. (Not even much acknowledgment that he concretely gave a lot of money so that it went beyond his mere “personal beliefs”.)

  284. Sami Hawkins says:

    “And I trust my community – the gay one, at least. We’ve been pretty good at keeping our crazies at bay. (The larger “LGBT” community, less so.) ”
    Why the failed attempt at subtlety? Why not just come out and say ‘Those trannies are abunch of crazies’? It’s not like you’ve ever been shy about being a transbashing ****head.
    PS: Love the scare quotes around LGBT.

  285. BeccaM says:

    Yeah, well, if it’s Sullivan, he’s always more than glad to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with bigots and argue for their right not only to be a bigot, but also to be free of any consequences for it.

  286. BeccaM says:

    ‘Every person of faith’? No. Just the Mormons and Catholic faithful who opened their wallets and dug deep in the name of their faith, often donating across state lines to interfere with the civil rights of gay and lesbian Californians.

    I’d like to know where ‘this article’ makes any reference to everybody who is religious. Go ahead, find the line or reference, we’ll wait.

    By the way, opposition to gay rights is not at all a universal tenet of religion. Only among the bigoted ones still stuck in the Middle Ages and clinging to bronze-age beliefs.

  287. LiberalXaltotun says:

    If Andrew Sullivan is on Eich’s side then that pretty much establishes that it was right to do this.

  288. LiberalXaltotun says:

    ” this was only about his anti-gay-marriage stance, not the contribution to Buchanan or other far right politicians.”

    Nope, it was also about his donations to far-right politicians in California who have said all kinds of horrible, horrible, horrible things about Mozilla’s employees and Mozilla’s customers in the course of trying to nullify their marriage to their loved one.


  289. LiberalXaltotun says:

    This article only impugns anti-gay bigots. It does not impugn people of faith for even one second, many of whom are either in same-sex marriages or performed them.

  290. BeccaM says:

    Buchanan’s rabid homophobia is also very, very well established.

  291. LiberalXaltotun says:

    The type of harassment you’re describing is actually discrimination and is illegal.

    Half your customers boycotting you isn’t legal harassment.
    A third of your employees threatening to quit isn’t legal harassment.

    Stop saying stupid things.

  292. LiberalXaltotun says:

    Just replace ‘gay marriage’ with ‘inter-racial marriage’ and ‘gay activists’ with ‘black activists’ and you immediately see that your logic is 100% wrong.

    You cannot ask a black person to work with someone who contributes money to David Duke and is trying to repeal the marriages of inter-racial couples.
    You cannot ask black customers to patronize a business who’s CEO does the same.
    You cannot ask a company looking at losing 1/3 of its staff and half its customer base because of a bad decision not to reverse that decision.

    So no, you’re just wrong.

  293. BeccaM says:

    I’ll take a page from your mom’s book, John and try to summarize as succinctly why I think Eich needed to be opposed, and do it through a simple question:

    Given ample evidence of support for far-right anti-gay politicians going back at least 20-30 years, and given Eich’s refusal to disavow or apologize for his support of anti-gay causes, just how seriously does anybody think he’d support and enforce Mozilla’s current anti-discrimination and inclusiveness policies?

    Or would Eich first turn a blind eye towards evidence of anti-gay discrimination in the company, and then eventually do away with the policies altogether?

    Suppose a report shows up on his desk as CEO, alleging systematic anti-gay discrimination on the part of a senior manager. Would Eich pursue the matter and investigate, or just ignore it?

    Sure, he said he’d support Mozilla’s current inclusiveness policies, but glosses completely over the fact that as CEO, it’d be within his power to water down, modify, or do away with those policies altogether. And nothing he’s said or supported in the past lends to confidence he wouldn’t do such a thing.

    As far as I was concerned, learning of his donations to Pat Buchanan was the proverbial straw, in terms of breaking the back of any remaining uncertainty. That, and Eich’s refusal to say he’d changed his mind about what he’d supported before.

    Even more to the point, there was a significant uprising of Mozilla employees — all the way from the rank & file workers to those board members who resigned. I stand in solidarity with them.

  294. BrandySpears says:

    If rightwinger Andwer Quisling Sullivan was against, you did the right thing. Good job. Carry on.

  295. oikos says:

    I have yet to hear any religious organization speak out against Mr. Eich’s bigotry. Please provide us with a citation.

  296. MLindaMartin says:

    And yet this article paints every person of faith with a broad brush. Guess that was okay.

  297. MLindaMartin says:

    Oh, come on — this entire campaign had more to do with OKCupid, the slutty, sleazy fuck-buddy website/app, ginning up the situation for their own personal gain. I have ZERO respect for anyone who engages in ideological witch hunts, regardless of who is doing it. Mozilla and OKCupid and their supporters in this are no better than Pat Robertson himself, IMO.

  298. BeccaM says:

    Spend a lot of time listening to Limbaugh and Hannity on the way to and from work, do ya?

  299. oikos says:

    and that will prove what? that you paint every progressive with a broad brush and that you’re a dick?

  300. SouthOhioGipper says:

    Thats okay. I know a couple of progressives in my company that are going to start seeing harrassing random drug tests and other legal harrasments.

  301. I’m sorrry, what was that? I got distracted – there was a bird outside my window.

  302. The_Fixer says:

    I think that there was more than one set of forces at work here.

    Yes, you had the gay community and their allies at work. But you also saw the “Mozilla Community” speak up. People associated with the project, whether users, donors or just plain vocal “fanboy” supporters, did not want to be associated with someone who holds those opinions.

    Mozilla dodged a bullet in more ways than one. First off, they were facing a serious backlash that threatened to derail the whole project. Second, a guy like Eich would not have made a very good CEO and likely would have endangered the project, regardless of his views on LGBT issues.

    Just because you’re a good coder (and there may be some folks who take issue with that characterization because he was the creator of javascript) does not mean you’ll be a good CEO. Maybe a good CTO. Eich showed his inflexibility and unwillingness to admit a mistake, or even pretend to do so. He was unwilling to make a sacrifice to save the ship – he would not have been a good captain. Additionally, he is an idealogical bird-of-a-feather with some pretty head-casey Republicans. Anyone who aligns himself with that ideology would not make a good CEO.

    So I think that the gay community and its allies were only part of the reason we saw Eich resign. The rest was the Mozilla community. Regarding the “crazies” – you’ll always have them. And I worry, too that the better message may not be taken seriously when you have so many people crying wolf over marginal side-issues or imagined slights.

    Case in point is Suey Park. As some of us would say, “You’re a hot mess, Girl.” Seriously, I am glad that she is seeing another therapist. I read a good portion of the Salon interview that John linked to, and it’s a circular, illogical diatribe that should only be read fully under duress (it’s that maddening).

  303. MichaelS says:

    I was also on the fence regarding what (at that time in the news) was a single $1,000 contribution. What sets Eich apart, however, was 1) he refused to repudiate his former anti-gay stand, and 2) the recent Supreme Court rulings that “corporations are people too” and that they anyone (I presume that includes corporations) can donate unlimited funds to political campaigns. When the Supremes finish their gutting of the Constitution and rule later this year that corporations can discriminate based on their “religious beliefs” then the third leg of that stool will be complete. Hence it DOES matter who the CEO of any major corporation is, and the general public has the right – no, the obligation – to tear down any bigot who is granted that kind of power.

  304. Jonas Grumby says:

    I’ve been around a VERY long time. Not longer than I like to admit as I’ll admit it, but longer than I realize sometimes. So I have lived through different eras, i.e. Kennedy, Civil Rights, etc. But the time we live in is like no other. We have tried the tolerance route. What has it gotten us? It has gotten us the nightmare in which we live. There is indeed something to be said for appeasement … and none of it is anything good.

    The enemy (and make no mistake they are the enemy( means to conquer and destroy and will do whatever is necessary to do so. The thing is, they are not well armed but think they are. It’s like a child who thinks his imaginary gun is real because you duck every time he points his finger at you. But if you stop ducking, and walk up to that child, he will realize he has no power. That is the Tea Party. ALL it would take to end this is exercising our adult power and vote, etc.

    But there should be no tolerance or quarter given to these people. I was not always like this but ever since GWB I have changed … a lot. You will not change their mind. Ever. And while changing hearts and minds is important and should never be discarded, it is folly and a losing proposition to make that our primary goal. It is a folly that ends in the destruction of our society.

    So. No. There should be no tolerance. In fact, there should be intolerance. Because there is just one thing you get when you tolerate assholes. More assholes.

  305. goulo says:

    Perhaps, although all of the angry blowback comments I’ve seen only talk about him being ousted for his “non-PC” “personal beliefs about gay marriage”, rather than anything like his giving money to Pat Buchanan. As far as I can tell, in the general public consciousness, this was only about his anti-gay-marriage stance, not the contribution to Buchanan or other far right politicians.

  306. JB20005 says:

    You hit on the key question in weighing the ethics of a boycott.

    Would the target of said boycott have changed their ways if left to their own devices? Or would they have felt bad for the oppressed group that organized against them, if the shoe was on the other foot?

    Given his 20+ year history of donating to bigoted causes and candidates, the answer for Mr. Eich is an emphatic hell no.

  307. Hue-Man says:

    “We’ve been pretty good at keeping our crazies at bay”

    As a highly-appreciated but spiritually-broken Moderator, you’ve seen the “gay crazies” up-close and personal. Coddled in my innocence, I have a hard time imagining what they would be proposing that even faintly resembles the daily torrent of abuse that the gay-haters are spewing. Here are some propositions I HAVEN’T seen:
    1. Straight people’s marriages should be illegal.
    2. Children of straight marriages should be taken away and made wards of the state.
    3. Straights cannot serve in the military.
    4. Straights can be fired without cause for being straight.
    5. Straight people can’t be blood donors if they had heterosex after 1977.
    You can figure out the rest of them.

    I have no personal animosity toward Mr. Eich and would have accepted his refutation of his anti-gay history. Like former smokers, he was in a position to be an active supporter of LGBT rights particularly among his own work-force. Apparently he was unable to do so; the Mozilla Board of Directors’ business decision resulted from Eich’s decisions.

  308. Indigo says:

    The Andrew Quizling Sullivans of this culture are mere contrarians for profit. It works for them because the conservative culture empowers them. The thou-shalt-not-boycott mantra of the far right is merely another ploy calculated to enhance the Kochians and disable the “communitarians” the Kochians imagine us to be. Boycott? Hell yes!

  309. mikeyDe says:

    I am proud to join the rank of crazies who demand equal rights. I’m also proud there was no loss of life, no injuries, no property losses. Only dignity restored to an organization. And I didn’t have to leave the comfort of my home, I didn’t even have to download an app that tells me what products not to buy. What’s so bad about that?

  310. perljammer says:

    Was the gay community wrong to target him? There certainly is nothing wrong with expressing an opinion when it comes to something like this. On the other hand, I don’t think it’s fair to say that “millions of gay couples in California … lost their right to wed in 2008 thanks to now-former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich.”

    The guy contributed $1,000 to the campaign to ban gay marriage in California. That says a lot about his personal beliefs; there’s no arguing that, and people are justified in being angry about it. But that amount gets lost in the noise when you look at the total amount of money raised on both sides of the campaign, and no reasonable person could argue that Eich’s contribution tipped the scales of the election.

    According to the LA Times, $39 million was raised in support of Prop8, and $44 million in opposition (out-of-state contributions were $11 million in support and $13 million against). Eich’s contribution was a quarter of one one hundredth of a percent of the total raised in support of the proposition. Contribution breakdowns are available at http://projects.latimes.com/prop8/.

  311. matt227 says:

    Homophobia is the only tolerated prejudice. It’s time to end that right now.

  312. NCMan says:

    An article on Huffpost by Signorile seems to be making the claim that the last straw for Eich was the revelation that he donated to the presidential campaign of Pat Buchanan, a known racist and anti-semite. Up until that info came out, Eich was planning to ride out this controversy.

    So, possibly, once again, racism and antisemitism are deemed more objectionable than anti-gay bigotry.

  313. Randy Riddle says:

    I’d compare this to the recent controversy over the Collge of Charleston’s board of trustees hiring the lieutenant governor of the state – who has strong and ongoing associations with neo-Confederate hate groups. People are really getting to the point where they’re saying that if you are racist or homophobic and seem to show no self-awareness that those views are wrong, that you shouldn’t be in charge of anything.

  314. heimaey says:

    I hope you attack Andrew Sullivan for his support for Mozilla’s CEO.

  315. bkmn says:

    The blind corporate support of the Sochi Olympics showed us some of the companies that need to be educated that LGBT is no different than race, religion, etc.

  316. MyrddinWilt says:

    I was just getting worried about the same thing. Calling a boycott is easy when you know you are going to lose. If the demand is out of proportion, well no biggie. But if you start winning you have to worry about the consequences. We could make a mistake. Or people might get set up the way that Fox News and Breitbart set up people.

    I haven’t met Eich but I do know his work from the people who spent decades cleaning up after him. I do not rate him as the visionary Netscape did.

    People do need to distinguish Eich and Mozilla better. I know a lot of folk there and they are the ones who forced him out. They didn’t get any choice in the decision to make him CEO in the first place.

    At the end of the day, a guy who gives money to hate groups can’t be the leader of a community based open source development effort. Its like the CEO of a cancer research charity investing in tobacco companies. Mozilla is a not-for-profit. And that has consequences for who can lead it.

    There are plenty of companies where a bigot can be in charge. But companies that depend on community volunteer efforts to ship a product aren’t among them.

  317. NCMan says:

    Absolutely. The time for thinking that “other” minority groups are more deserving of their rights than the LGBT community needs to be over.

  318. Sean says:

    I think Eich’s being fired as CEO is something to celebrate, so at first I was a bit peeved this post was using it as a chance to do some soul searching. But dealing with Crazies is a big and legitimate question. Even before twitter and the Internet I saw what can happen when angry, damaged people use a quest for social justice as a weapon and means of revenge. I came out in the early 1980’s, with essential help from the wonderful Gay Student Union at the University of Michigan. Several years after I left town I was still friends with a gentle man with very feminist ideals, who still worked at the Union; until he was banned from it in a Stalinist purge for being a male chauvinist pig. A group of women pretty much seized power, and kicked a slew of people out of the organization. They used the horrific historical record of sexism against women as a shield, so anyone who opposed them was a reactionary who supported the patriarchy. On the Right, “good Christians” use God as a shield against any criticism or opposition. On the Left we can’t let people use membership in a minority in the same manner.

  319. Yalma Cuder-Zicci says:

    If Eich’s stepping down as CEO was a result of an uprising from Mozilla’s own employees, other members of the board of directors quitting, and boycottage from non-gay companies like Okcupid, why is the gay community at large taking the rap for Eich bowing out? It was not just “the gays” who saw that this was the wrong man to be leading a company that serves a diverse public.

  320. S1AMER says:

    Change the noun. Always change the noun, and see how it sounds.

    By “it,” I mean things like contributing $1,000 to enshrine anti-gay discrimination in a state’s constitution. What if the noun encompassed by Prop 8 had been “Black” or “Jewish” or “Handicapped” or anything other than what it was? Would that be something that should be overlooked later by the customers of a business that picked as its leader someone who gave to that cause?

  321. bkmn says:

    As I noted in Becca’s piece on Eich and Mozilla it is not about Eich, it is about Mozilla – a company that supposedly takes pride in its diversity. Why would such a company put someone who has a long history of anti-LGBT donations and actions (not just Prop 8, but supporting strongly anti-LGBT republicans) in the CEO office?

  322. NCMan says:

    Correct me if I’m wrong here, but the man is not unemployed. He is just no longer the CEO. But, he is still employed by Mozilla, right?

    And, let’s remember, how can a person who holds the exact opposite world view of the organization in question possibly be the best qualified to lead that organization?

    Brendan Eich could be a fine CEO at Chik-Fil-A or Hobby Lobby, those companies share his beliefs, but certainly never at Mozilla.

© 2019 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS