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

Peret Allez,
Employers can hire and fire with some exceptions. If they give a reason (they are not always required to) they cannot currently hire and fire based on race religion etc. If they did not think he could do the job he would not have even been on the short list for CEO.

He was in fact fired. Once you reach a certain level in a company you are asked, or even pressured to resign instead of being fired.

 

So if this were say, the 60s, you could say

Bill Gates donated to Martin Luther King and Civil Rights Movement organizations

Brendan Eich donated to the presidential campaign of George Wallace and racist segregationist politicians

Those are the same thing? Eich being a racist who has donated money to maintaining racial segregation should be ignored because he could still do a good job running the company?

Substitute black civil rights in the 1960s for gay civil rights in the 21st century, and those are the scenarios we are looking at.

Your attempt at equivocating the scenarios you present fails badly.

Eich needed to go. His actions to actively deny civil rights to a minority population disqualified him from being an effective leader of Mozilla.

 

There is little doubt he was pressured to resign. Days earlier it looked as if he was preparing to dig in and weather the storm.

However, the pressure for him to resign had little to do with his personal political beliefs. It had to do with the public backlash, and the damage it was doing to the company. Without the backlash he would have remained on as CEO. This entire situation is the fault of Monzilla, who should have never placed someone like that in the position of CEO in the first place.

Consider, for a moment, all the Christian Conservative companies. I'm a liberal gay atheist. My values are almost entirely opposed to their values. We are strongly at odds on a whole range of issues. Should they be forced to appoint me as their CEO? Of course not, that's ridiculous.

If Chick-Fil-A made me their CEO, does anyone honestly believe there wouldn't be a backlash from all the Christian Conservatives who patronize their establishments? Of course there would be, and it wouldn't be in the least bit shocking.

We constantly stand here and defend Christian institutions - such as Christian Universities - to fire people who break their moral pledges. For example, when someone comes out as LGBT on their staff it's not uncommon that they'll get the boot. In fact, it's almost certain. I defend their right to fire them. I also defend their right to require employees not to advocate for values that are opposed to the schools stated values (such as advocating for gay marriage). They have the right to do this as private institutions.

Now, I find these places abhorrent, and would love nothing more than to see them collapse into bankruptcy, and disappear from the face of the Earth. However, I defend their right to free speech and freedom of association.

What I want in return is my right to free speech and freedom of association. That means I have the right to put pressure on a company to reflect my values. If they refuse to reflect my values, then I have the right to dissociate myself from them and encourage others to do the same. This is what happened with Monzilla.

Monzilla claimed to be a strong supporter of LGBT equality and equal rights. They seemed to be our allies. Yet, appointing Brendan Eich as their CEO was clearly in direct opposition to those stated values. This was less a problem involving Brendan Eich than a problem with Monzilla going against it's values. Now that he's gone, I'm hoping that other pro-equality businesses and corporations will think twice before making the same mistake.

Now, I don't particularly like the idea of people being overly scrutinized for their political beliefs or values when they hold relatively non-consequential roles. If all you're doing is sitting at a desk and doing computer programming, flipping burgers, or cleaning floors it's not something that really matters. However, when you're in a position that has power and authority over others... then it starts to become important. The higher you move up the food chain, the more important, and the more scrutinized you should become, as you begin to set the tone and culture for an institution.

 

I can cut this to one overt phrase- Hate is not compatible with civilization.

 

I am talking about this in purely ethical terms, not about the current legal realities. I actually don't agree with the current employment non-discrimination law. It doesn't protect groups it should protect, and it protects groups it should not.

What I am asking is for you to provide a reason why people should be forced to associate with and give money to other people they don't want to. If Eich were a white supremacist, but still "able to adequately perform his job duties," would you still say the Mozilla board should be forced to keep him on and give him money for his work? What is the legitimate liberty interest Eich has that should staple his face to Mozilla's teat?

 

The way I see matters, Eich is still free to say whatever he wants, just not as the public figurehead of Mozilla, a company who decided it wasn't in their best interest or the best interest of their customers to have him around.

Let Eich go seek out employment at Hobby Lobby, Chick-Fil-A, Urban Outfitters, Exxon or The Salvation Army or some other company where he'd be more welcome. It's not as if Mozilla duct-taped his mouth shut, or anything, or removed his vocal chords. He's can work elsewhere.

 

HuskyPup,
I doubt he has to work elsewhere. He most likely was given a less public position at Mozilla. If he did leave completely I'm sure he got one hell of a golden parachute. There is very possible the board did not even know of his political donations when they selected him. I know my being gay, or involved in gay rights organizations is not on my resume, at least not the one my current employer has. They know I'm gay since they are paying for my husbands benefits, but it wasn't on my resume when I was hired. He has also been with Mozilla since it was formed.

Yes, it is the right of anyone to associate or not associate with anyone for any reason. I just think the penalty was overly high for a political opinion.

 

He said himself previously he won't resigned unless told to.
I believe they told him, as mentioned before, hes bad for buisness.. that was the whole point of the hype, to put pressure on mozilla that they'll lose more market share, and it worked.
Sorry but I can't feel bad for him, he makes people suffer (indirectly), the boycot was justified >.>

 

This was six years ago he supported this cause. The cause was only about Prop 8, banning same sex marriage. I could point out that even President Obama was against gay marriage just 2 years ago, should we remove him as CEO of the United States? Hillary Clinton did not either, should we oppose her running for President? (source)

 

Except for the fact people dug up this information.

Anyways I have a little hypothetical, if I found out that a new guy my work was employing to a new CEO or position of power in the company was gay and LGBT+ but didn't think the B was real, it was just a phase and believed in all such stereotypes surrounding bisexuals. Should I bring this to the attention of the execs hiring this guy as I'm a bit uneasy of how I may be treated by him? Should he be denied the job because he supports equality but only to those people he thinks exist?

 

Not with the alternative being Mitt Romney. There was no viable candidate more humanistic than Obama in the last cycle. That's certainly not a claim that Obama was or is sufficiently humanistic.

 

But he is in office now, and we know he was anti same sex marriage 2 years ago, shouldn't we have him removed like we did to the Mozilla CEO? His VP, Biden, actually came out in support of Same sex marriage before he did.

 

@DMark69: I quoted the first paragraph from the article you provided a link for:

"To appreciate how rapidly the ground has shifted, go back just two short years, to April 2012. President Obama didn’t support marriage equality, not formally. Neither did Hillary Clinton. And few people were denouncing them as bigots whose positions rendered them too divisive, offensive and regressive to lead."

Is there not a worthwhile distinction to be made between not supporting marriage equality formally, and actively supporting opposition to it, as was the case with Eich?

 

These, of course, are radically different situations. Obama and Hillary had denounced their old positions, and have embraced marriage equality. They have also fought hard for us on other issues before they were pro-marriage. Our working with them, despite their opposition to marriage equality, was strategic and necessary at the time.

There will never be another candidate for President from the Democratic Party that is not in favor of marriage equality. Never. Those days and strategic alliances of necessity have ended. Throughout my life I've had to bite my tongue, hold my nose, and advocate for Democrats who wouldn't embrace me completely out of fear. I hated every minute of it, but I did it because I held a longer term vision for what I wanted... because I knew this day and time would eventually come. I knew we'd eventually win.

Brendan Eich could have been forgiven for the error of his ways just as Obama and Hillary were forgiven. All he had to do was denounce his former position as misguided, give a statement about having "evolved" on the issue, give some money to some pro-LGBT groups, and apologize to everyone he hurt and offended. Had he done this, his problem would have disappeared. He would have been redeemed, and welcomed into the fold.

He didn't do that. In fact, he was clearly avoiding stating his position on LGBT issues, because it was clear that his position had not changed. This is what separates him from Hillary and Obama.

To be honest, I'm not sure what people who are sympathetic to Eich expect. It's not like we live in a magic idealistic world where pixie's float around sprinkling tolerance dust, and that if our enemies see how nice we are they'll suddenly become less bigoted. They're not going to wake up one day and say, "Oh those fags, they've been so nice to me. I guess I was wrong to see them as perverted abominations, I should probably embrace them as my equal!"

That's never going to happen. Never. There will always be people in this world who hate us simply for who we are, and there will always be people sympathetic to their cause. We have an obligation to future generations to fight against their influence, to create a world where future LGBT people can be born and never have to experience the same things we experienced. A world in which being gay is seen as natural as being straight.

In order for that world to exist, people like Eich have to be marginalized to the fringes of our society. That's the only way. There is no acceptable outcome in which we co-exist peacefully; that's a pipe dream. It isn't how the culture war works.

If we were on the losing end of the culture war, we'd face far worse than them. If we had lost, we'd find ourselves in the same position as LGBT Russians and Ugandan's do today. No reasonable person is calling for that - that's the tolerance, kindness, and mercy that we extend to our enemies. They won't be lynched in the streets and they won't be imprisoned. They will be allowed to continue on with their bigotry for as long as they are willing to sustain the social isolation that will be imposed upon them as society turns their back on them.

They will ultimately become a minority group themselves, and if we're lucky one day their bigotry will die out completely.

There is a danger in growing complacent in our recent victories. The high likelihood of marriage equality extending across the entire nation is looming in the next few years. At that point, our movement is going to face one of it's greatest tests. A lot of people will want to relax and become complacent. They'll believe that the culture war is over, and that they've won.

Meanwhile, our enemies will have been dealt a harsh blow, and would be clearly established as the underdog. The war will have shifted toward our favor. Years will pass, and we'll grow comfortable. Then when we least expect it, our enemies will start to claw their way back. We'd then find ourselves fighting over ground that we already thought we controlled.

The civil rights movements for African Americans and women fell into that type of complacency. Now, today, we exist in a country where the Voting Rights Act has been dealt a near fatal blow by a Supreme Court sympathetic toward the side of racial bigotry. We watch in horror as the ability to vote in our country is being curtailed, specifically to undermine the ability of African American's to vote. Meanwhile, at the same time, a woman's right to choose is under the harshest assault it's seen since Roe vs Wade. Even the topic of contraceptions to prevent pregnancy are back on the table.

This is what happens when you grow complacent. This is what happens when you grow comfortable in your victories. It's important to learn from those mistakes, and realize that when you're winning - that's the perfect time to double down and press the attack. Never let up, never grow complacent, and remain forever vigilant while always pressing forward.

Of course, there is not only the risk of losing ground that we won should we grow complacent. There is the fact that the culture war has gone global. It's the fact that now, more than ever, our LGBT brothers and sisters across the globe need us. Our enemies realize that they're losing the war here at home, and have started to lay the ground work to keep our movement from spreading to other countries. They already have a head start, and they've enjoyed a great deal of success.

The culture war isn't about any one individual. It isn't about you, it isn't about me, and it isn't about Brendan Eich. It's about the type of culture and society we live in, and paving the way for future generations to have it better than we did.

There are two opposing sides. One side believes that LGBT people are equal to straight cis-gender people. The other side does not. A culture cannot hold these two views simultaneously because they are in direct opposition. One side, ultimately, is going to be marginalized.

 

"I do not like Asian cuisine, it tastes like shit" -Tell him to shut up.
"I do not like black people" -Tell him to shut up or fire him at your own will.
"Hail Hitler" -Fire him.

It's a case by case thing. There are no guidelines for these kind of stuff. You fire people at your own judgement and critiria in a private company. Altough firing someone for being a minority is not the same thing as firing someone for sayng/doing stupid stuff.

 

Alright. My two cents is that I find this completely unnecessary and stupid. There's a difference between having an opinion (which everyone is allowed to do) and using public funds to push your opinions on others. The guy didn't deserve to lose his job because of an opinion he had. I find his stance on gay marriage stupid. That doesn't mean I'm allowed to complain and whine until he loses his job for no other reason than "I'm offended." This is just plain stupid and I feel as though people are way to sensitive to what other people think of them. What matters is ensuring public policy doesn't oppress the LGBTQ community and informing people of what it means to be LGBTQ, NOT getting butt-hurt over someone who has an opinion that differs from yours and uses completely legal means of supporting his opinion.

 

He donated money to the campaign to have a right given to LGBTQ people taken away again. Granted it wasn't public money he used, but he still supported the oppression of a minority.

If Prop 8 was about inter racial marriage we wouldn't be having this discussion and Eich wouldn't have got the job in the first place. So why is it OK to have odious views about us and support causes that oppress us without any push back from us? I don't like this idea that our proper response should be "thank you sir may I have another?"

 

As others said, Eich donated money. He was *activley* against LGTB.

In your hypothetical case, I might tell people around me what kind of CEO he is but its not like I can do much about it.. you inserted many variables in there that are different than Eich case so im not sure where exactly the line ends :icon_bigg

 

Anyone seen the Firefox input page? - https://input.mozilla.org/en-US/?q=&date_end=2014-04-06&date_start=2014-03-04 (really odious crap in there by the by).

Apparently contributing to the oppression of a minority is freedom of speech, freedom of religion and having a diverse opinion.

 

I have to say this concerns me.

I fully agree that Prop 8 is/was a nasty terrible thing, and that it was just plain lousy for someone to support it. However he has his right to his opinion, and to donate to political causes, no matter how much I disagree with them. It bothers any time I see anyone lose their job based on anything other than their job performance.

I know it sounds a bit trite, but some times I worry that we are becoming the monster that we were fighting.