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

[Castiel]

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.

What he did was neither illegal or immoral. He opposed a change in the law regarding the definition of marriage, he should..as we all should be allowed to voice his preference without fear or retribution.

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.

So now we are equating this with Nazism? Sorry, but I fundamentally disagree with you and that a basic tenet of an equal system is that people are unafraid and able to voice their legally protected position without prejudice. If he was breaking the law or advocating breaking the law you may have a point, he wasn't however, he was merely, as thousands of others, objecting to a change in the legal definition of marriage.

If that position is prejudiced then we are free to criticise that view with arguments of our own, or as in the case of the CEO in question we can oppose him in the legal arena. That doesn't give anyone the right to threaten and punish someone simply because they disagree with you, which is pretty much what is happening here.

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.

The issue is one of a legal definition and the legal rights of others. Of course you bought up the law, it is fundamental to the argument.

You have a right to choose for yourself whether you use Firefox or not, you do not have a right to demand it of others.

 

[Castiel]

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?

The protests against prop8 included vandalism against those you were publicly known to have either spoken out or contributed to the bill, also received death threats and were harassed. LGBT groups published the names of those who promoted and/or donated to Proposition 8 and this also led to retaliation against the LGBT community themselves from other groups.

Proposition 8 was a legal constitutional amendment and whether you supported it or opposed it, the correct place to voice your position and fight for or against it was in the Constitutional Courts. Punishing people for their position is and was wrong...no matter what side of the argument you were on.

 

[Castiel]

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.

You are wrong here, he did nothing illegal, his opinions were his own and not his companies and he did not publicly make statements or bring his company into disrepute. He simply, as did many prominent business people make a contribution to a Constitutional Bill in the Supreme Court, just like many others did the same for the opposing argument.

People should not have to fear losing their job for doing what is their legally protected right simply because the issue is controversial or you disagree with it. He did not advocate violence or breaking the law of any kind, he as did many others who either opposed or supported the amendment defining marriage support what he thought was the correct position. It was a constitutional legal argument that was ultimately settled by the courts and that is where the argument should have remained...it is not up to the victors to then punish those who disagreed with them further or personally. If the shoe was on the other foot and it was a CEO who donated to the group against Prop8 and the proposition was passed and then supporters began asking for the resignation of those who disagreed with them, would you still say that "opinions have consequences" so it serve them right?

 

[Westyfield2]

Agree 100% with Castiel.

 

[Castiel]

no not at all. he shouldn't be the CEO of mozilla, mozilla now agree it would seem. .

In fact Mozilla did not make the choice, Brendan Eich stood down simply because of public pressure, something that ironically the Carlos Roberto Moreno stated could and should not be considered as it ruled that the minority was subject to the will of the majority.

All this will accomplish is that people will simply not speak out against or for anything in fear of what the majority might think or do...and that is inherently bad for society and equality.

 

[Glaucus]

You are wrong here, he did nothing illegal, his opinions were his own and not his companies and he did not publicly make statements or bring his company into disrepute. He simply, as did many prominent business people make a contribution to a Constitutional Bill in the Supreme Court, just like many others did the same for the opposing argument.

People should not have to fear losing their job for doing what is their legally protected right simply because the issue is controversial or you disagree with it. He did not advocate violence or breaking the law of any kind, he as did many others who either opposed or supported the amendment defining marriage support what he thought was the correct position. It was a constitutional legal argument that was ultimately settled by the courts and that is where the argument should have remained...it is not up to the victors to then punish those who disagreed with them further or personally. If the shoe was on the other foot and it was a CEO who donated to the group against Prop8 and the proposition was passed and then supporters began asking for the resignation of those who disagreed with them, would you still say that "opinions have consequences" so it serve them right?

I didn't say illegal.
He did break what is a pretty standard employment contract.
To bring a companies name into disrepute in no way needs to be illegal and never has.

Off course they should. If you work for a company and get into the media, you have to be careful what you do and say. Companies hold certain values and if you go against certain values and you get into the media, you are screwed.
You should know this, you are high up, and probably dealt with such disciplinary hearings before.

If I owned a company, I certainly wouldn't tolerate the negative press.

 

[[TW]Fox]

I didn't say illegal.
He did break what is a pretty standard employment contract.

Did he make his donation after becoming CEO?

 

[badcompany]

Jebus, what fascist state do you live in?

Surely not a Liberal Party member?

uk?

 

[Glaucus]

Did he make his donation after becoming CEO?

Does it matter? I'm no expert in employment law.
It's getting negative press in the media that is the problem.
Know someone who got a job after a crime and when the court case finally came around he got sacked as the company name was splashed all over the article.

It's one of many reason hy I don't display location, try not to talk about work or anything else on public places. Don't even have my job listed on FB. Different to how it was years ago. when I would freely give such info out. But been so many cases of people getting sacked as well as so many new social media guidelines.

 

[Castiel]

He did break what is a pretty standard employment contract.

He was not an employee of Mozilla at the time of the Donation, Mozilla were aware of the donation when they appointed him. He did not break anything, legal or contractual..all he did was donate $1000 to a proposition for an amendment in the Supreme Court that was subsequently overturned. Mozilla did not sack him either, he stood down. He did not brink Mozilla into disrepute, either legally or illegally. He simply donated a sum of money to a political amendment, that some disagree with that position doesn't mean they can or should demand he is punished for it.

And it is the negative attitudes toward people and the calls for their sacking etc that I am arguing against, not whether a Company should or should not fire an employee for supporting a political viewpoint in their personal life. Just because you disagree with someone's politics doesn't mean you have the right to demand they are removed from their employment or that it is right to do so.

 

[Glaucus]

He was not an employee of Mozilla at the time of the Donation, Mozilla were aware of the donation when they appointed him. He did not break anything, legal or contractual..all he did was donate $1000 to a proposition for an amendment in the Supreme Court that was subsequently overturned.

This is not the issue.
The issue is getting the company named splashed about everywhere in a negative light.And have they really come out and said he declared it ore employment, or is that just something to support your view and not factual?

 

[Castiel]

This is not the issue.

Yes it is the issue. It is the fundamental issue.

An article on this by a member of the LGBT community may help you understand the position somewhat.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...-neither-of-us-deserves-to-lose-our-jobs.html

Building awareness of LGBTQ issues is always great but, so far, all that’s happened from this is that one man lost his job and OKCupid got worldwide attention again. But their publicity came at the price of one man’s personal and political choices. It isn’t right that Brendan Eich lost his job because of his personal beliefs, anymore than I should lose my job because I’m a lesbian. I may not agree with him and how he feels about gay marriage, but that’s how the world works - we’re allowed to have different viewpoints and publicly punishing each other for them isn’t right. That's not equality.

The issue is getting the company named splashed about everywhere in a negative light.And have they really come out and said he declared it ore employment, or is that just something to support your view and not factual?

Please rewrite this as it doesn't make sense so I cant answer it objectively.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Does it matter?

Of course it matters otherwise technically he could never work again?!

 

[AGD]

What he did was neither illegal or immoral. He opposed a change in the law regarding the definition of marriage, he should..as we all should be allowed to voice his preference without fear or retribution.

Well many people believe it was immoral hence the issue. He should be allowed to voice his preference of course, but why does that mean it shouldn't affect his professional life? And by 'without fear of retribution' you seem to mean, without other people protesting against him. Which frankly is bizarre.

So now we are equating this with Nazism? Sorry, but I fundamentally disagree with you

So you now accept that there are some circumstances where someone's viewpoint can validly affect their professional life even without direct evidence of workplace discrimination? It is surely no great logical leap for you to see that other people do view this situation in that light. This is a situation where many people believe he holds discriminatory views and that he should have professional consequences for those views.

a basic tenet of an equal system is that people are unafraid and able to voice their legally protected position without prejudice. If he was breaking the law or advocating breaking the law you may have a point, he wasn't however, he was merely, as thousands of others, objecting to a change in the legal definition of marriage.

Why are you so cagey and defensive with your language? You sound like a lawyer defending the man in court! No one is claiming he did anything illegal or that he had no right to do it. We are talking about whether or not those actions should have professional consequences. Eich himself obviously accepted that his views did have professional consequences when he resigned.

The issue is one of a legal definition and the legal rights of others. Of course you bought up the law, it is fundamental to the argument.

This issue is not one of a legal definition, the issue is whether or not people and employees were right to protest at his appointment as CEO. Short of illegal protest, there is no legal issue here. It is a moral debate. Furthermore, he himself resigned, so there is no legal argument about dismissal. Defending his actions legally, is not what this debate is about.

You have a right to choose for yourself whether you use Firefox or not, you do not have a right to demand it of others.

I agree. I never said otherwise.

 

[Glaucus]

Of course it matters otherwise technically he could never work again?!

Off course it doesn't mean that. If it doesn't come up in the media it's not an issue and depending on company it wouldn't be an issue.

The end of the day the issue is, he has negatively impacted the company.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Off course it doesn't mean that. If it doesn't come up in the media it's not an issue

Oh thats ok then, so as long as somebody doesn't decide to rile the media up again he won't be fired from his future jobs either?

The whole thing is ridiculous. I strongly disagree with his views on gay marriage but last time I checked holding a view that everyone else didn't like wasn't a crime and therefore shouldn't cost you a job in the way this has.

 

[Glaucus]

Again who said anything about a crime.
Bring the companies name in to disrepute is not a crime, but is a standard part of a contract.
There really isn't much you can say about that, as he certainly did do that.
Now as I said I'm no employment expert, but he doesn't seem to be protected against it.

 

[Castiel]

Well many people believe it was immoral hence the issue. He should be allowed to voice his preference of course, but why does that mean it shouldn't affect his professional life? And by 'without fear of retribution' you seem to mean, without other people protesting against him. Which frankly is bizarre.

It is bizarre that we should protect everyone's freedom of expression within the law equally? Really!!!

So you now accept that there are some circumstances where someone's viewpoint can validly affect their professional life even without direct evidence of workplace discrimination? It is surely no great logical leap for you to see that other people do view this situation in that light. This is a situation where many people believe he hold's discriminatory views and that he should have professional consequences for those views.

How did you come to this by my questioning your use of Nazism and earlier racism in what Brendan Eich did by donating to Proposition 8?

You seem to be struggling and so keep referring to strawmen in support of your position..whatever that is.

Why are you so cagey and defensive with your language? You sound like a lawyer defending the man in court! No one is claiming he did anything illegal or that he had no right to do it. We are talking about whether or not those actions should have professional consequences. Eich himself obviously accepted that his views did have professional consequences when he resigned.

I am being very open and straightforward. Cagey and defensive???

I think you are making assumptions on peoples decisions and opinions that are not supported by facts.

This issue is not one of a legal definition, the issue is whether or not people and employees were right to protest at his appointment as CEO. Short of illegal protest, there is no legal issue here. It is a moral debate. Furthermore, he himself resigned, so there is no legal argument about dismissal. Defending his actions legally, is not what this debate is about.

The issue is whether a man or woman has the right to have a legal political view without cause to fear for their person or profession. You seem to think it is ok that a man has lost his job because of his beliefs, I say that is wrong and that if the position was reversed, as Emily Moulder pointed out in her article, it would still be wrong. That is not equality.

I agree. I never said otherwise.

Others, including this cupid dating site have however.

 

[Castiel]

Again who said anything about a crime.
Bring the companies name in to disrepute is not a crime, but is a standard part of a contract.
There really isn't much you can say about that, as he certainly did do that.
Now as I said I'm no employment expert, but he doesn't seem to be protected against it.

He did not bring his company into disrepute. A media campaign led by a dating website forced his resignation over something that he donated to in 2008 and has been public knowledge for the entire time even when he was an employee of Mozilla in other positions. This is more about publicising a dating site than equality. In fact it goes against equality in the name of publicity.

 

[AGD]

The issue is whether a man or woman has the right to have a legal political view without cause to fear for their person or profession. You seem to think it is ok that a man has lost his job because of his beliefs, I say that is wrong and that if the position was reversed, as Emily Moulder pointed out in her article, it would still be wrong. That is not equality.

So we come back to my previous question which you seemed to miss the point of. Naziism can be a personal belief, is it right for employees and customers to protest against a CEO if it turned out he was a Nazi? It seems you would say no, I would say yes. That seems to be where we profoundly disagree.

Someone's beliefs can have a profound effect on their professional life - from how well they can interact and gain the support of others, to whether or not they might discriminate (either consciously or subconsciously).

He did not bring his company into disrepute. A media campaign led by a dating website forced his resignation over something that he donated to in 2008 and has been public knowledge for the entire time even when he was an employee of Mozilla in other positions. This is more about publicising a dating site than equality. In fact it goes against equality in the name of publicity.

It's funny that Eich himself (who presumably knows more about their PR than you) obviously disagrees with you on this. Hence the resignation.