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

[Glaucus]

Lola, so Mozilla has had negative publicity. How can you say that with a straight face. They've had massive negative publicity. Hence this thread.

 

[Castiel]

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.

A Nazi is specific member of a far right political group whose views and positions are largely illegal. The CEO of Mozilla did not expound such views or any views that are illegal. If Eich had broken the law or advocated breaking the law then the argument would be different, however he did not and all he is guilty of is exercising a protected right in a democratic society that opposed a legal redefining of Marriage. Godwins Law aside, what you are trying to do is redefine what Eich actually did or redefine what I am stating (to which you ignore any reply when it is clear that you have done so) in order to support your view that equality is only for those whose views comply with your own perspective. That is where we fundamentally disagree. I beleive equality is for everyone, not just those whose views I agree with.

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).

So it is ok then for a homosexual (or a Jew or anyone for that matter) to be forced to resign because their beliefs do not conform to what the public think it the correct morality?

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

He did not resign because he suddenly saw the presumed error of his ways..he resigned because he was forced to by a public campaign by an online group...that is wrong. Or is it correct that because you disagree with a person that you should be able to force their resignation by what is effectively a metaphorical lynching?

That is not right. It is not equality. It is simply replacing one set of prejudices with another.

 

[Castiel]

Lola, so Mozilla has had negative publicity. How can you say that with a straight face. They've had massive negative publicity. Hence this thread.

Who said they did not receive negative publicity?

 

[Castiel]

Because this is clearly going to continue in an ever decreasing circle of others trying to redefine or reword my position, I will leave this thread with the full quote of the aforementioned article by Emily Moulder, LGBT campaigner and Community Manager at Dattch, (another Gay Dating Site)...

If your boss found out that you enjoyed hunting on the weekend, do they have the right to fire you because they disagree with it? Likewise do you have the right to call for your boss’ resignation because you find out that they’re cheating on their spouse? Both potentially questionable activities but they’re private and, quite frankly, none of your business. So why is it acceptable for the CEO of Mozilla, Brendan Eich, to lose his job over a $1,000 donation to block gay marriage in California? Even OKCupid recently released a statement urging users of Mozilla Firefox to use another browser over the gift to help Prop 8 block gay marriage in California in 2008.

I’ve no doubt that Brendan Eich will be just fine and he won’t be on benefits anytime soon, but his personal wealth and comfortable lifestyle shouldn’t mean he’s a special case. He was forced out of his job because his personal beliefs and actions six years ago have been highlighted in a negative way - despite the fact that they were made public years ago. Nothing happened then and it shouldn’t happen now. Is it a nice thing to do to donate to a campaign that prevented the rights of millions of people from marrying? No, of course not. Is it his right to donate to a campaign he believed in? Absolutely. If we support people’s rights and freedoms, that needs to be everybody, not just the people you agree with.

It’s no surprise that this publicity stunt by OKCupid comes on the heels of Eich being promoted to CEO - apparently they were fine with his actions while he was just the CTO of Mozilla. While it’s a helpful thing to do to highlight homophobia and let the public know the kind of people they’re supporting, let’s not pretend that this was in the public’s best interests; Eich donated in 2008 and it’s been widely known for a long time. They could have dropped this ‘bombshell’ at any time but instead waited for maximum impact.

The tech world could always use more diversity as CEOs typically come in only one model: rich, white, heterosexual and male. Thankfully, this whole situation gives Mozilla an opportunity to re-examine who takes Eich’s place and with the whole tech community’s eyes on them, they’ll choose more carefully this time.

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.

This pretty much sums up what I have been saying, agree or disagree as is your right....but I have nothing more to say in support than I have already said I'm afraid, read and make your choices as you see fit.

 

[Tefal]

The tech world could always use more diversity as CEOs typically come in only one model: rich, white, heterosexual and male. Thankfully, this whole situation gives Mozilla an opportunity to re-examine who takes Eich’s place and with the whole tech community’s eyes on them, they’ll choose more carefully this time.

why on earth should they make their decision for CEO based on a persons race, wealth, sexuality or gender?

 

[unwashed potato!]

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

she's simplifying it too much and once again ignoring that he donated to prop8, which damaged families for no reason. if she was a lesbian donating to causes which tor apart straight married couples, which then came into effect, it'd be fair to say there would be consequences of that action.

 

[Tombo]

she's simplifying it too much and once again ignoring that he donated to prop8, which damaged families for no reason. if she was a lesbian donating to causes which tor apart straight married couples, which then came into effect, it'd be fair to say there would be consequences of that action.

"For no reason."

This is incredibly disingenuous, you just don't agree with the reason. That doesn't mean that there isn't one.

 

[AGD]

A Nazi is specific member of a far right political group whose views and positions are largely illegal. The CEO of Mozilla did not expound such views or any views that are illegal. If Eich had broken the law or advocated breaking the law then the argument would be different, however he did not and all he is guilty of is exercising a protected right in a democratic society that opposed a legal redefining of Marriage.

You seem to be linking the moral validity of a protest to the legality of a position. Thankfully others haven't followed this rule in the past otherwise we might not have the society we do today.

Godwins Law aside, what you are trying to do is redefine what Eich actually did or redefine what I am stating (to which you ignore any reply when it is clear that you have done so) in order to support your view that equality is only for those whose views comply with your own perspective. That is where we fundamentally disagree. I beleive equality is for everyone, not just those whose views I agree with.

I completely fail to see how this affects his freedom of speech or equality. His professional life has been affected by his personal opinions because others believe that those opinions will negatively affect his professional performance. Simple. People have the right to protest against anyone for their beliefs (as long as it is not harrassment) and presumably you don't disagree with this right.

Because this is clearly going to continue in an ever decreasing circle of others trying to redefine or reword my position, I will leave this thread with the full quote of the aforementioned article by Emily Moulder, LGBT campaigner and Community Manager at Dattch, (another Gay Dating Site)...

I think the examples and arguments she offers are invalid. She implies that protesting against his appointment interferes with his ability to support or express his political opinions. This is clearly false. She also compares the situation to cheating on a spouse or hunting or being a lesbian, but it is unclear how these could affect one's work competence. Holding homophobic views however, could cause him to discriminate against gay people in his organisation. You may not believe he holds those views, which is fair enough, but that was not the argument she was making in the article. She says no one had issues with his opinions when he was CTO which completely fails to understand the difference between CEO and CTO. She talks about supporting his rights and freedoms but they have not been compromised in any way as far as I can tell.

In summary, it's a very poorly thought out article!

 

[Castiel]

You seem to be linking the moral validity of a protest to the legality of a position. Thankfully others haven't followed this rule in the past otherwise we might not have the society we do today.

I have not done any such thing. The amendment was proposed and subsequently overturned within the legal and constitutional framework of a democratic system...everyone had the opportunity and ability to set out their argument and they did so...what is happening now is that one side is being subjected to discrimination simply because they disagreed with the other...is it ok then, if prop8 had passed and remained in effect that those opposing should subsequently be subject to the same discrimination? Or is equality in constitutional matters only for those you agree with?

I completely fail to see how this affects his freedom of speech or equality. His professional life has been affected by his personal opinions because others believe that those opinions will negatively affect his professional performance. Simple. People have the right to protest against anyone for their beliefs (as long as it is not harrassment) and presumably you don't disagree with this right.

So if Eich was homosexual and in favour of gay marriage, but a vocal group of people who oppose gay marriage called for his resignation and public opinion felt that it affected his professional performance, then it is right that he should be harassed (yes harassed,because that is what happened) out of his job?

I presume you support that position.

For the record, I support the right to protest, I support the right to express yourself within the law...I do not support the right to force your opinion on others through threats or bullying. Which is pretty much what happened to Eich.

For me that is counter to the very equality that we should be striving for.

I think the examples and arguments she offers are invalid. She implies that protesting against his appointment interferes with his ability to support or express his political opinions. This is clearly false. She also compares the situation to cheating on a spouse or hunting or being a lesbian, but it is unclear how these could affect one's work competence. Holding homophobic views however, could cause him to discriminate against gay people in his organisation. You may not believe he holds those views, which is fair enough, but that was not the argument she was making in the article. She says no one had issues with his opinions when he was CTO which completely fails to understand the difference between CEO and CTO. She talks about supporting his rights and freedoms but they have not been compromised in any way as far as I can tell.

In summary, it's a very poorly thought out article!

That's fine, that's your opinon. Myself believe that no one should be subject to trial by public opinon simply because they supported a political amendment in a free and democratic society....I assume
that if he had donated to the opposition to prop 8 and public opinon thought that was subsequently (6 years later) morally wrong then he should be removed from his position also?

You haven't proven he is homophobic or has opined homophobic views (opposition to redefining marriage is not homophobic in and of itself btw), neither have you offered evidence that as CEO of Mozilla (or CTO, which is still relevant as it is an executive position) he has treated any employee under him in a discriminatory way or that his tenure at Mozilla has altered the companies ethos regarding equality in its workforce or consumer base. Nor have you shown how his donation can affect his work competence, as you put it.

All that has been shown is that you disagree with his opinon and that is enough for you to call for, in fact demand his resignation.

 

[Tefal]

i find it funny that the reason prop 8 was rejected by the courts is the same reason people are using to get this guy fired.

you honestly couldn't make it up.

 

[Castiel]

i find it funny that the reason prop 8 was rejected by the courts is the same reason people are using to get this guy fired.

you honestly couldn't make it up.

Indeed. As I mentioned earlier when referencing Justice Moreno.

 

[AGD]

That's fine, that's your opinon. Myself believe that no one should be subject to trial by public opinon simply because they supported a political amendment in a free and democratic society....

You haven't proven he is homophobic or has opined homophobic views (opposition to redefining marriage is not homophobic in and if itself btw), neither have you offered evidence that as CEO of Mozilla (or CTO, which is still relevant as it is an executive position) he has treated any employee under him in a discriminatory way or that his tenure at Mozilla has altered the companies ethos regarding equality in its workforce or consumer base. Nor have you shown how his donation can affect his work competence, as you put it.

All that has been shown is that you disagree with his opinon and that is enough for you to call for, in fact demand his resignation.

Obviously we read the situation differently. His support of prop 8 does imply a homophobic viewpoint in my opinion. The fact that he has not come out and stated otherwise doesn't help his case. Furthermore he has financially supported a politician (Pat Buchanan) with extremely homophobic views which adds further evidence that he might hold homophobic views. I believe that opposing gay marriage does imply homophobia (either conscious or unconsious) as I have yet to hear a valid argument otherwise.

I'll leave with a quote from an opposing article:

Eich is free to believe what he wants, and same-sex marriage remains a divisive issue in America. But to gay people and their allies, supporting an outright ban on equal marriage is concerning: to many, it appears to say same-sex love is lesser than heterosexual love. Given most gay people feel they had no choice over their orientation, that message becomes in effect a statement that gay people aren't the equals of their heterosexual counterparts.

It may be that Brendan Eich believes none of those things. It may be that he believes them all. Hell, maybe he believed Pat Buchanan when he said gay people "have declared war upon nature". But Eich wouldn't say: he has refused to explain or defend any of his views in an open conversation, instead relying on a principle of keeping your views out of the workplace, long after they'd been brought in.

That was Eich's fatal flaw, in his 10 days of spiraling downfall: if he couldn't even become an advocate for himself, and couldn't persuade the Mozilla community to support him as CEO, how could he ever make the case that he was the best advocate for the future of the open web?

The end of Eich need not be a defeat for free expression, or an open culture. He was absolutely free to make his donation, to have his own beliefs, even to decline to discuss them. Mozilla's supporters, advocates and, unusually, even its own employees were equally free to express their concerns, support or dismay at the choice. Mozilla was absolutely free to appoint anyone – whether nudist, buddhist, activist, or biblist – as CEO. It still is.

Yes, it's messy. But that's freedom for you.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/04/brendan-eich-coming-out-party-mozilla-ceo

 

[cheesyboy]

If your boss found out that you enjoyed hunting on the weekend, do they have the right to fire you because they disagree with it? Likewise do you have the right to call for your boss’ resignation because you find out that they’re cheating on their spouse? Both potentially questionable activities but they’re private and, quite frankly, none of your business. So why is it acceptable for the CEO of Mozilla, Brendan Eich, to lose his job over a $1,000 donation to block gay marriage in California? Even OKCupid recently released a statement urging users of Mozilla Firefox to use another browser over the gift to help Prop 8 block gay marriage in California in 2008.
Snip

I'm going to take issue with this bit ^, since it's the crux of the argument against the anti-Eich standpoint.

Basically, it's wrong - because it's (deliberately?) framing the argument incorrectly.

Eich's anti-gay-marriage funding (it wasn't just an opinion, it was acting to prevent gay marriage by funding opposition), flies in the face of Mozilla's corporate identity. This makes his belief relevant to performing his job.

In Emily Moulder's oddly chosen hunting example, this would be like The Bodyshop appointing someone as CEO who, it transpires, attended pro-hunting marches in the past. And likes shooting animals. The customer base would revolt.

"But Mozilla isn't a pro-gay-rights company", you might argue. And well you might. But that ignores who Mozilla are and what they represent.

I use Firefox on my personal machines. I don't do it because it's better than Chrome (I use Chrome at work; it's fine). I use it because, where I see no significant usage advantage either way, the clincher is that the Mozilla foundation are the good guys - my perception is that they stand up for what is right about internet freedoms etc.

Rightly or wrongly, this perception carries over to the world of individual freedoms, choices and rights. They may not explicitly have a mission statement says as much but, as a customer, I use them because I perceive that they stand up for such values. I was actually a little shocked that Mozilla had appointed someone as CEO with such a political viewpoint.

I'm sure I'm not alone in being such a customer, either for Mozilla or for other businesses. Mozilla ****ed up by either not realising a sizeable proportion of their userbase has such a view, or simply failed to perform due diligence so didn't know Eich had made such a donation.

The CEO of GE, Ford, Wallmart, whatever, can go ahead and support anti-gay legislation because no-one expects any more than that from such organisations. Mozilla doesn't get a free pass on this.

 

[Tombo]

as I have yet to hear a valid argument otherwise.

*refuse to hear.

 

[Castiel]

So he was harassed out of his job simply because he believed he should keep his personal views out of the workplace?

And you support that?

Like the article says its messy and its freedom...but it doesn't (as you do) say it is right.

 

[Castiel]

I use Firefox on my personal machines. I don't do it because it's better than Chrome (I use Chrome at work; it's fine). I use it because, where I see no significant usage advantage either way, the clincher is that the Mozilla foundation are the good guys - my perception is that they stand up for what is right about internet freedoms etc.

Rightly or wrongly, this perception carries over to the world of individual freedoms, choices and rights. They may not explicitly have a mission statement says as much but, as a customer, I use them because I perceive that they stand up for such values. I was actually a little shocked that Mozilla had appointed someone as CEO with such a political viewpoint.

I'm sure I'm not alone in being such a customer, either for Mozilla or for other businesses. Mozilla ****ed up by either not realising a sizeable proportion of their userbase has such a view, or simply failed to perform due diligence so didn't know Eich had made such a donation.

If what you say about Mozilla is correct, then they should be supporting their CEO's freedom to express his political positions, surely by doing otherwise Mozilla are saying that freedom of expression is ok, as long as you agree with it and it doesn't affect our bottom line.

That seems contrary to equality and the freedoms inherent in that.

In any case, I haven't heard anywhere that Brendan Eich is opposed to Internet Freedoms or the Freedom to express ones views without fear or prejudice...those who have called for his removal have, by implication, done so however.

 

[cheesyboy]

If what you say about Mozilla is correct, then they should be supporting their CEO's freedom to express his political positions, surely by doing otherwise Mozilla are saying that freedom of expression is ok, as long as you agree with it and it doesn't affect our bottom line.

That seems contrary to equality and the freedoms inherent in that.

That's one of the most fallacious arguments I've ever heard. Would you like time to rethink?

 

[Castiel]

That's one of the most fallacious arguments I've ever heard. Would you like time to rethink?

No, it stands. it is not fallacious, it simply opposes your opinion. Freedom of expression is a universal right...Brendan Eich had every right and expectation to be able to contribute to a legally mandated amendment in a institutional matter without fear of punishment, in exactly the same way that those that contributed to the opposition have the same rights.

Let's be clear, Mozilla have not fired Eich, he was forced to step down by a campaign of harassment against him. I feel that is fundamentally contrary to the freedoms inherent in an equal and free society...you say that is Mozilla's raison d'être...then they should (and some at Mozilla have) support Eich's right to be free from persecution for his personal position on a constitutional definition.

Brendan Eich wasn't simply Mozilla's CEO briefly, he was a co-founder of Mozilla and the ethics that you state they stand for.

As the article here in Forbes States, a line has been crossed and it is a step backward in the fight for equality, not one forward.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tonybradley/2014/04/05/backlash-against-brendan-eich-crossed-a-line/

That said, I think the backlash against Eich and boycott of Mozilla were misguided and completely unwarranted. There is a case to be made for calling it intolerance when a coordinated campaign is mounted against an entire company because a group of people disagrees with the personal beliefs of one employee.

Turn that scenario around for a second. What if a conservative organization mounted a campaign to boycott an entire company because the CEO is gay? I’m fairly sure most of those who took up torches and pitch forks against Mozilla would find such behavior inexcusable, bordering on criminal.

Personally, I believe Proposition 8—and all other similar attempts to legislate and codify discrimination against any specific group of people—is shameful, and had I lived in California I would have willingly given as much money as I could to support efforts to defeat the ballot initiative. This is the United States of America, though, so Brendan Eich is entitled to believe what he chooses, and to support the causes he feels are worthy.

Brendan Eich and Mozilla are two separate things, though. It makes no sense to choose the companies you do business with—or don’t do business with as the case may be—based on the personal beliefs and ideologies of individual employees. It’s unlikely that Eich’s personal political, religious, or philosophical identity would have any impact on Mozilla as a company, and without the public campaign to oust him most people would have continued happily using Firefox without knowing or caring what Eich thought about Proposition 8.

Besides, why stop at the CEO? If we’re going to demonize entire corporations based on the personal beliefs and ideologies of individual employees why not also boycott Boeing BA -1.09%, or Walgreens, or Intel INTC -0.93%, or Google GOOG -4.59%, or the State of California itself—all of which had employees who donated $1,000 in support of Proposition 8 just as Brendan Eich did? If you think $1,000 of support is heinous, you definitely shouldn’t support the Los Angeles Dodgers, or Merrill Lynch, or Allstate ALL -0.32%—each of which had at least one employee who donated $10,000 or more to the effort to pass Proposition 8.

According to a database published by the Los Angeles Times, there are 6,470 individuals who donated $1,000 or more to support Proposition 8. That’s a whole lot of companies to burn at the stake.

.......

The reality is that you shouldn’t necessarily know what his beliefs are or what causes he supports. At the very least, Brendan Eich should have the liberty to believe and support causes as he wishes without being persecuted.

Indeed.

 

[AGD]

In any case, I haven't heard anywhere that Brendan Eich is opposed to Internet Freedoms or the Freedom to express ones views without fear or prejudice...those who have called for his removal have, by implication, done so however.

You keep returning to this false argument. No one is trying to curtail his freedom of expression or his ability to express his views without fear or prejudice (which incidentally is not relevant to this as people liked him before they knew about his prop 8 funding, so this is by definition the very opposite of prejudice).

 

[cheesyboy]

No, it stands. it is not fallacious, it simply opposes your opinion. Freedom of expression is a universal right...Brendan Eich had every right and expectation to be able to contribute to a legally mandated amendment in a institutional matter without fear of punishment, in exactly the same way that those that contributed to the opposition have the same rights.

Let's be clear, Mozilla have not fired Eich, he was forced to step down by a campaign of harassment against him. I feel that is fundamentally contrary to the freedoms inherent in an equal and free society...you say that is Mozilla's raison d'être...then they should (and some at Mozilla have) support Eich's right to be free from persecution for his personal position on a constitutional definition.

Fine, whatever. I'll give you a response;

If what you say about Mozilla is correct, then they should be supporting their CEO's freedom to express his political positions, surely by doing otherwise Mozilla are saying that freedom of expression is ok, as long as you agree with it and it doesn't affect our bottom line.

That seems contrary to equality and the freedoms inherent in that.

In any case, I haven't heard anywhere that Brendan Eich is opposed to Internet Freedoms or the Freedom to express ones views without fear or prejudice...those who have called for his removal have, by implication, done so however.

A company can't maintain an equal rights and freedoms perception by having a figurehead (the CEO) being outright opposed to equal rights and freedoms.

If a company takes corrective action against its figurehead upon realising its mistake, that doesn't go against its message of equal rights and freedoms, because, well, they are removing the guy who is actually against equal rights and freedoms.

It's a pretty poor argument. I don't feel it needed me to point that out.

Edit:
You Forbes article wrongly draws a line between a company and the conduct of its CEO. Anything which impacts the company's reputation (remember the perception of Mozilla) is relevant to your employment.