whats the deal with this boycott firefox over the CEO gay rights stance

[Angilion]

[..]
Has he? as far as i know he hasn't but that's why i started this thread to find out. can you provide proof?

I can't prove that Cnet weren't lying when they published what they say is a transcript of an interview with Brendan Eich, but it seems unlikely.

http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/mozilla-ceo-gay-marriage-firestorm-could-hurt-firefox-cause-q-a/

when people learned of the donation, they felt pain. I saw that in friends' eyes, [friends] who are LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered]. I saw that in 2012. I am sorry for causing that pain.

You could interpret "that pain" as referring only to the friends he mentions, but I think that would be a less likely interpretation than "that" and "that pain" referring to the pain he mentions, i.e. not just his friends.

It wouldn't have mattered if he painted an apology on his body and abased himself in public. That was never the issue.

can you also provide proof obama was against gay marriage? i would be interested to see this, as from what i remember in obama's first term it was something he always planned to do but it was kept fairly quiet because of many political reasons. i think it's fairly safe to save obama has always been on the side of the LGBT community having equal rights, he just did it in baby steps and it seemed to have worked out eventually.

It's a matter of public record - he was a senator at the time and stated his position clearly and publically, citing religion as the reason for his opposition to gay marriage. He did so in televised interviews. It wasn't a secret or a smear campaign from some opponents - he was open about it on camera with full knowledge that the camera was there. He said it more than once. For example, in an interview with MTV Barack Obama stated

I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage.

Barack Obama, November 1st, 2008 (during the Prop 8 campaign)

Here's MTV's own page referring to the interview:

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1598407/did-barack-obama-answer-your-question.jhtml

He made his reason for his belief clearer in a public debate with Alan Keyes in August 2004 during their campaigning for election to the US Senate:

I'm a Christian, and so although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.

The fact that you've never heard of any of it (and think it didn't happen) is good evidence of how selective and political the campaign was against Brendan Eich. Who, incidentally, has also spoken publically in favour of "the LGBT community having equal rights".

 

[Castiel]

Have you purposefully ignored that he donated towards prop 8 and the suffering that happened as a result or just unaware?

No. I am aware. Although exactly what suffering it caused it somewhat overstated, it was simply opposing gay marriage, it wasn't sending people to internment camps. Besides it was found unconstitutional. Given the suffering experienced by supporters of prop 8, it seems there was plenty of it to go around.

i'm lost with your point. since when were those who use firefox castigated? also surely if anyone has been castigated unfairly here it would be the LGBT community because of prop8, which he donated to and supported. is that ok (hurting families) but the reaction (changing browser) 6 years later not?

Its a simple point...if you disagree with the CEO that strongly that his personal views on marriage are wrong then don't use Firefox, but don't expect others to do the same simply because you say they should...

the sentence you just said above could be said about gay marriage. "get married or don't, but don't castigate those who do (just because they are gay). it's a choice for the individuals to make." which this guy did.

So you are saying that because the CEO discriminates, that it's ok to discriminate. Hmmm, that seems somewhat ironic.

and then you say it's a big lot of fuss that people don't wish for him to be ceo whilst he still has those views. your views are so odd.

What I said is that a lot of people (given the polls) opposed gay marriage. To single out one individual is odd. My views are not odd, they are objective. I don't support or oppose gay marriage, people should be able to do as they wish in my opinion. If that is odd so be it.

does this mean that if it did have something to do with you then it would influence your decision? if not then what was your point of the above?

As I said, people are free to do what they want regarding their browser choice, if they feel that the CEO's personal opinion is important enough to influence that decision then that's is their choice. How difficult is that to understand?

does that then also mean you understand that those who it did have something to do with have been influenced to change browser? again if not what was your point?

You are repeating yourself, as I said above and initially, people can make their own decisions based on their own reasons. What they shouldn't be doing is telling others that they should do the same.

 

[AGD]

Seems like a big lot of fuss over nothing..so what, he opposes gay marriage, so do lots of people.

In my opinion, opposing gay marriage is no different from opposing inter-racial marriage.

If the CEO of a big company you used opposed inter-racial marriage wouldn't you be dismayed? If you were a black employee of that company, how would you feel knowing that the person who decides the vision for your company has those views about black people?

People were right to complain and it wasn't a fuss over nothing. I think that Firefox have made the correct decision not only for their business interests but also morally, and for their employees.

 

[Castiel]

In my opinion, opposing gay marriage is no different from opposing inter-racial marriage.

If the CEO of a big company you used opposed inter-racial marriage wouldn't you be dismayed? If you were a black employee of that company, how would you feel knowing that the person who decides the vision for your company has those views about black people?

People were right to complain and it wasn't a fuss over nothing. I think that Firefox have made the correct decision not only for their business interests but also morally, and for their employees.

Aside from the logical fallacy inherent in your post...as I said the personal opinions of the CEO wouldn't influence whether I use a product or not. His views are not those of the company after all. As far as I am aware the CEO did not discriminate within his business nor did he oppose interracial relationships, so your example is just nonsense, might as well say that supporting gay marriage is like supporting underage sex. (its not btw, but then opposing a change in the definition of marriage isnt like opposing interracial relationships either)...as for what I think about anything, I make my own choices based on my own opinons and ideas, If the company I worked for did or supported something I was strongly opposed to I would take stock and resign if necessary (I have done this btw) but I wouldn't expect or demand others do it also, nor would I resort to some of the tactics employed to force others to my way of thinking either.

It was a fuss over nothing, as the support or opposition to gay marriage is an ongoing political issue that will be settled by legislation. Forcing people to resign, death threats, violence against the person etc simply because they have a different point of view on the definition of marriage seems rather daft to me, in fact that is more offensive to me than the peaceful opposition of what is an equality in law issue through the democratic legal system, where both sides can make their case.

I'll continue to use firefox, the personal and political opinons of its employees are of no concern of mine.

 

[Nitefly]

I don't support or oppose gay marriage, people should be able to do as they wish in my opinion.

Sounds like you support it from that sentence

I think gay marriage is one of the easiest 'controversies' to pick a side for, so I'm surprised you are fence sitting on it.

 

[Castiel]

Sounds like you support it from that sentence

I think gay marriage is one of the easiest 'controversies' to pick a side for, so I'm surprised you are fence sitting on it.

The problem isnt the issue itself for me, but the way it is instituted. I am all for equality, so everyone, no matter their gender, sexual orientation or preference should have access to the legal rights inherent in society...so any legislation should mean that a couple can choose a civil partnership or marriage and their orientation should not have any bearing on it whatsoever. Unfortunately the legislation in the UK doesn't do that and is discriminatory, either one way or the other.

I also support the right of someone to disagree with me peacefully without fear of retribution or discrimination, even if their stance is discriminatory in itself. I will disagree with them and point out why, but I will not ask for their metaphorical head. Then I would become as they.

 

[AGD]

As far as I am aware the CEO did not discriminate within his business nor did he oppose interracial relationships, so your example is just nonsense, might as well say that supporting gay marriage is like supporting underage sex. (its not btw, but then opposing a change in the definition of marriage isnt like opposing interracial relationships either)

Can you explain why the example of inter-racial marriages is not appropriate? (Underage sex is clearly not comparable as it not between two adults and refers to sex rather than marriage.)

 

[Castiel]

Can you explain why the example of inter-racial marriages is not appropriate? (Underage sex is clearly not comparable as it not between two adults and refers to sex rather than marriage.)

Because that is not what the CEO or anyone who opposed changing the legal definition of Marriage is supporting.

And it is comparable because in both cases you are asking for a change in the moral and legal status of the position in question, the only difference is whether you agree with morality or not.

But as I said, neither is relevant to the actual position of Gay Marriage Rights. However if such a comparison helps you to make a decision on your own position then that is up to you, personally I need no such fallacy on order to know whether equality is a right thing to support or not..in all things, not just those things I happen to agree with.

 

[Nitefly]

Ah, that makes your position clearer.

I also support the right of someone to disagree with me peacefully without fear of retribution or discrimination, even if their stance is discriminatory in itself. I will disagree with them and point out why, but I will not ask for their metaphorical head. Then I would become as they.

But I don't think this quite follows, or at least I think the purported hypocrisy is overstated.

You are entitled to judge someone on their opinion and treat them accordingly. Likewise, you can judge people on their actions and treat them accordingly. There's little difference that because opinions and actions are intrinsically linked. There is nothing wrong with criticizing those who you disagree with. So if you support the rights of gay people, not using Mozilla is just an expression of disdain for the opposing view. It's not disproportionate or excessively disproportionate - starting a riot outside of their offices would be though

 

[AGD]

I also support the right of someone to disagree with me peacefully without fear of retribution or discrimination, even if their stance is discriminatory in itself. I will disagree with them and point out why, but I will not ask for their metaphorical head. Then I would become as they.

I just want to be clear I am understanding you correctly: if your company appointed a CEO and it turned out a few weeks later that he was a Nazi, you woudn't protest and call for his resignation? Because it sounds like that is what you are saying.

 

[AGD]

Because that is not what the CEO or anyone who opposed changing the legal definition of Marriage is supporting.

It was an analogy. They are often used to point of the inconsistencies of someone else's viewpoint, as I was doing to you in this case.

However if such a comparison helps you to make a decision on your own position then that is up to you, personally I need no such fallacy on order to know whether equality is a right thing to support or not..in all things, not just those things I happen to agree with.

Come now. Surely you must see that that was the very point I was making against you. I believe in equality for all. It doesn't appear that you share that view, hence I used a specific example to point out the inconsistency in your own view point (that of the black employees complaining about their racist CEO). You have failed to say why you believe that is not comparable to gay employees complaining about their homophobic CEO.

 

[Castiel]

Ah, that makes your position clearer.



But I don't think this quite follows, or at least I think the purported hypocrisy is overstated.

You are entitled to judge someone on their opinion and treat them accordingly. Likewise, you can judge people on their actions and treat them accordingly. There's little difference that because opinions and actions are intrinsically linked. There is nothing wrong with criticizing those who you disagree with. So if you support the rights of gay people, not using Mozilla is just an expression of disdain for the opposing view. It's not disproportionate or excessively disproportionate - starting a riot outside of their offices would be though

The question is not one of my own actions in supporting or opposing a given position...but of whether we should expect and demand others do the same. For me what the CEO did by supporting a bill opposing Gay marriage is his right and should be protected, criticised and opposed within the same legislature by all means, but using some of the tactics employed by the supporters of LGBT rights should also be criticised, particularly when they break the law or castigate others simply because they do not agree with their point of view. So boycotting firefox personally or supporting a boycott is not the issue for me, the expectation that you should boycott or face retribution of some kind is the issue.

As far as the CEO is concerned, criticise his position by all means, but asking his employer to fire him simply because he has a view of the legal definition of marriage is wrong...it mean that people will be afraid to speak their mind if they think that they may lose their position, what if the roles where reversed and he was sacked because he supported Gay Marriage?

The rights we enjoy regarding supporting or opposing issues in a peaceful way should not be set aside for the issue itself, that fundamental undermines our rights, just as any inequality does.

 

[Castiel]

It was an analogy. They are often used to point of the inconsistencies of someone else's viewpoint, as I was doing to you in this case.

I understand that, which is why I offered one that illustrated the inconsistancy in your own, while showing that your assumptions on my position are incorrectly arrived at.

Come now. Surely you must see that that was the very point I was making against you. I believe in equality for all. It doesn't appear that you share that view, hence I used a specific example to point out the inconsistency in your own view point (that of the black employees complaining about their racist CEO). You have failed to say why you believe that is not comparable to gay employees complaining about their homophobic CEO.

You do not think I support legal equality for all? Including the rights to disagree with me.

Have you read the posts I have made?

I have explained why...you have now made an assumption that the CEO is homophobic...have you any evidence that Gay Employees at Mozilla have been discriminated against?

From what I can see he has supported a bill that doesn't want the legal definition of marriage altered, nothing more..he has a protected right to do this, why should exercising his legally protected right mean he should be treated any differently from someone else doing the same?

That is the sort of equality you want? Where one point of view has precedence over another simply because you say it does? You and I obviously have different ideas about what constitutes equality under the law....in your analogy, the black employee has the right to criticise and/or resign if he disagrees with the stance of the company he works for, and also has the right to use the legislation available to him to ensure his rights are protected as specified under the law equally so does the homosexual employee...however from what I can see neither Mozilla or the CEO has expressed any discrimination against any employee of Mozilla,nor have they broken any laws...all that has happened is an individual has supported a legal representation in opposition to another legal representation...does he not have the legal right to do this and be free from fear of persecution and punishment? Just as those who oppose his support?

 

[Nitefly]

The question is not one of my own actions in supporting or opposing a given position...but of whether we should expect and demand others do the same. For me what the CEO did by supporting a bill opposing Gay marriage is his right and should be protected, criticised and opposed within the same legislature by all means, but using some of the tactics employed by the supporters of LGBT rights should also be criticised, particularly when they break the law or castigate others simply because they do not agree with their point of view. So boycotting firefox personally or supporting a boycott is not the issue for me, the expectation that you should boycott or face retribution of some kind is the issue.

As far as the CEO is concerned, criticise his position by all means, but asking his employer to fire him simply because he has a view of the legal definition of marriage is wrong...it mean that people will be afraid to speak their mind if they think that they may lose their position, what if the roles where reversed and he was sacked because he supported Gay Marriage?

Ok, I see what you are getting at now, I didn't know you were referring the the situation highlighted in bold. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[AGD]

I have explained why...you have made an assumption that the CEO is homophobic...have you any evidence that Gay Employees at Mozilla have been discriminated against? From what I can see he has supported a bill that doesnt want the legal definition of marriage altered, nothing more..he has a protected right to do this, why should exercising his legally protected right mean he should be treated any differently from someone else doing the same? That is the sort of equality you want?

People are entitled to their opinions but that doesn't mean those opinions should not have professional consequences. If you walk around your company saying you do not believe women are equal should the company not take action against you? (Even if you had done nothing discriminatory except state the fact?). Firing someone does not interfere with their freedom of expression and if your values fundamentally conflict with those of your company, it will be unsurprising if they act on that.

As far as the CEO is concerned, criticise his position by all means, but asking his employer to fire him simply because he has a view of the legal definition of marriage is wrong...it mean that people will be afraid to speak their mind if they think that they may lose their position, what if the roles where reversed and he was sacked because he supported Gay Marriage?

There are some moral viewpoints which the majority of people do not tolerate professionally. E.g. if the CEO came out as a Nazi would you say he should still be in the job because otherwise people might not speak their mind??? Clearly not.

That is the sort of equality you want? You and I obviously have different ideas about what constitutes equality under the law.

I have never brought up anything to do with the law. I am not referring to anything legalistic, only what I think it is right of the employees and customers of firefox to do. Protest is a fundamental part of freedom of speech and equality - no one is trying to force Eich to have different beliefs.

 

[Glaucus]

.but of whether we should expect and demand others do the same. For me what the CEO did by supporting a bill opposing Gay marriage is his right and should be protected, s.

This is where you are wrong.
It is his right, but not his right without conciquences.
I know people who have been sacked for far less, because there issues where printed in the press with the company name.
The higher up the company you are the mire careful you have to be, as the chance you'll make it into the media is higher.

They certainly have a right and a legal right to get rid of him for bringing the companies name into disrepute.

 

[unwashed potato!]

but using some of the tactics employed by the supporters of LGBT rights should also be criticised, particularly when they break the law or castigate others simply because they do not agree with their point of view. So boycotting firefox personally or supporting a boycott is not the issue for me, the expectation that you should boycott or face retribution of some kind is the issue.

Maybe I don't know the full situation, but please feel free to enlighten me. when did the LGBT community break the law in this situation, and when did they castigate those who continue to use firefox, and what was the retribution people faced if they didn't?

seems like you're on the side of equality, but are complaining about something that didn't happen, or was okcupid's suggestion of using another browser the castigation you felt was uncalled for?

 

[[TW]Fox]

why is it people constantly ignore he didn't just have an opinion but actively gave money to a law that made people's lives worse?

As strongly as I disagree with that law are you suggesting that this guy shouldn't have a job because he made a donation in the past to a law we all think is abhorrent? He did nothing illegal, after all.

 

[unwashed potato!]

As strongly as I disagree with that law are you suggesting that this guy shouldn't have a job because he made a donation in the past to a law we all think is abhorrent? He did nothing illegal, after all.

no not at all. he shouldn't be the CEO of mozilla, mozilla now agree it would seem. he can continue as he has done for the last 6 years to work for or be the ceo of any other company that doesn't conflict with his views, the companies views and the users views.

Would you say that is fair?

as you say he didn't do anything illegal which is why no one is calling for him to be charged. the target has always been mozilla and who it hires as a CEO, not what job eich does. i very much doubt people will pay any attention to his next job as they didn't care for the last 6 years, unless of course he becomes CEO of some LGBT group.

at the end of this all brand interaction is what mozilla wants and has built up. it was fair to say the users of firefox felt he didn't match the brand and mozilla have now seen how important that is to it's users. they've messed up but now know they are respected and are held highly in respect to how they operate. not a bad position to be in imo, one i imagine chrome and ie don't directly have.

 

[PMKeates]

Bring back hanging