LGBT News Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich resigns in wake of backlash to Prop 8 support

And here come conservatives saying that liberals are "discriminating against religious freedom"...

 

I feel it's a pretty rash and stupid decision, there's probably plenty of CEO's with beliefs or ideas we don't agree with but know how to separate them from their personal and professional life.

Don't get me wrong I don't think what he did was okay, it was wrong but instead of letting him prove his statement was true that he keeps his personal stuff separate and letting Mozilla potentially educate him on LGBT+ he could've changed. But now who knows what will happen, all I know is actions like these can make more enemies than allies.

Also know that there are conservative members on this board and some don't even have beliefs, so be more specific when calling out conservatives.

 

I could have forgiven him Ron Paul and even Prop. 8, but Buchanan? Sorry, anyone taking Buchanan seriously isn't just having ideas that I disagree with, he's subscribing to a black-helicopter worldview with gay Mexican communists under every bed, and I don't see how anyone with that worldview won't let it affect his professional decisions.

 

I understand why people protested, can't say I think he should've lost his job over it though

 

Ultimately I don't think it was the LGBT community at fault here. the news drudged this out of his personal life, coupled with that one dating site exacerbating things & Mozilla's mission statement.
If anyone is to blame it would be that dating site here for making it so viral, the board members were in talks with said dating site, and this was the agreement they came to.
However I do know (as I have read on many news sites with this story) that many a person was ready to point the blame on the "Gay Agenda"

 

Believe me, he doesn't need to work a single second in his life, he has enough money ...

I'm actually glad he left, it shows turns of tides in the world toward the LGTB community.

 

Guys, come on...

The complaints about his free speech and freedom of conscience ignore a very important fact about free markets (something that many conservatives and libertarians profess to care about but usually aren't consistent about).

Two things people have an ABSOLUTE and UNASSAILABLE right to do in a free market are (1) decide what products they want to consume and (2) decide who they want to employ. For any reason whatsoever. To the degree we compromise either of those two things, we have departed from free market advocacy and entered the realm of politicized intervention by the state (or we are tacitly requesting it by saying he "shouldn't" have been "hounded out.")

When we're saying Eich had a right to contribute as he wanted to anti-gay campaigns AND to work as CEO of Mozilla, we're saying that the board DIDN'T have a right to protect their corporate image from a public backlash. At the risk of losing market share, Mozilla HAD to keep him?

Is that seriously what we're saying?

Since when do democratic ideals require businesses to operate this way?

Mozilla realized Eich was bad for business. Period.

 

And there is another little detail here...

He didn't "lose his job." CEOs are elected, not hired, at least in theory. If the board and/or shareholders don't want you as CEO you are more like politician voted out of office than an employee getting a pink slip.

 

I was just talking about a homophobe just now who said gays are too sensitive:rolle:

 

He also was not "fired" nor did he "lose his job", the company did not let him go, he resigned under his own power. here is a huge difference between the two.

Also, a bunch of people claim to love the free market until it goes against their beliefs.

 

Another dinosaur bites the dust.

 

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

I'm sick and tired of hearing defenses of this guy. There was even a horrible article in The New Republic, written by a heterosexual of course, spewing the same bullshit about how the fact that this guy contributed money to deny CIVIL RIGHTS to a group of human beings was just an exercise of free speech and that his critics are against freedom of conscience. That's just bullshit.

This was not a political disagreement. There was no widespread criticism of him or any CEO because they support tax cuts for the rich or some other policy. This was a civil rights issue. Eich was on the wrong side of history, and that made him unacceptable as the face of Mozilla.

 

I find it ridiculous that people say he shouldn't have been dismissed. Do you really believe that Mozilla should have deliberately gone out of their way to keep the man?

If free speech and free actions allow him to declare me unworthy of certain rights, then freedom of speech and action encompass him being fired without a pension from his company and public humiliation.

 

I believe that someone should only be fired if any name, and any political cause can be inserted into this sentence and it be true.

I believe [insert name] should be fired because he donated money to [insert political cause].

So you could say Bill Gates donated to HRC
Joe Snuffy donated to NRA
or Brendan Eich donated to proposition 8

If you agree with any of these, then the argument can be made that you should be fired for donating to HRC, Wyoming United for Marriage, even the democratic or republican parties. You don't have to agree with someone politically for them to do a good job running a company, or for that matter flipping burgers, or delivering newspapers.

 

Problem is neither of the causes Snuffy and Gates donated to are dedicated to returning a minority to second class citizen status.

The question I would ask of Mozilla is why wasn't this and other questionable donations - Mozilla CEO donated to rightwing candidates, records show | Technology | theguardian.com - not looked at or, if they were looked at, why were they not considered a problem?

EDIT: If he opposes equal marriage then fine that's between him and conscience. But if you're a company that's dedicated to equality, like Mozilla say they are, why was someone like Eich even considered for CEO? I know he's got decent credentials, but surely they must have known there was going to be backlash as soon as his political donations came to light?

 

GeeLee, it is a political cause. It is one I don't believe in, but punishing someone that severely for supporting a political cause is the wrong road to take, it will backfire on someone on the right side of history, on this or another cause in the future. That being said I am actively working with an organization to bring marriage equality to my state.

That may have been a lapse in judgement at Mozilla, but he was a talented software engineer, and was already CTO of Mozilla. His political stand had nothing to do with his job at Mozilla.

 

Being wary of where this logic can take people is necessary, but I think there is an important distinction here you overlook. That's a difference between having a job and holding an office of power.


He wasn't a poor burger-flipper fired for an indiscreet remark. He is someone who resigned from the office he held he was elected to after his constituency (the board, for all practical purposes) decided his policies are a liability.

If, say, a US presidential candidate loses an election because most people believe his foreign policy would antagonize, say, Canada, is he a poor victim of oppression by Canadians? Or, to put it even blunter, was Nixon's resignation an instance of poor little Dick succumbing to mob justice?

Sure, corporate power and offices aren't exactly the same as political power and offices, but keeping people that gave you that power reasonably happy, including by projecting the right image to the outside world is how you acquire either, and failing to do so should have consequences.

 

But shouldn't employers be allowed to enter voluntary contracts with whoever they want?
And break those contracts at any time? Why not?