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

Thank you starfish, you said exactly what I have been trying to say. No, if it were about inter racial marriage we wouldn't be having this conversation today, but 50 years ago we probably would have. The First Amendment to the constitution is meant to encourage speech, especially political speech, especially controversial political speech.
I was around in the 1980s and back then if the same campaign were around you would have had a large majority, probably close to 90% donating to a similar cause to Prop 8. In fact it would be our speech that was oppressed. If you want an example look at the news coverage of "The Upstairs Lounge Fire" in the early 70s.
We will not change the opinion of everybody, and even if we strongly disagree with them they are entitled to speak, and donate to political causes. Yes, even if we believe the cause is wrong, and will eventually be proven wrong.
Do we have the right to complain about his belief and donations? Yes, of course we do, it falls under the same First Amendment. If you feel the right way to send your message is to remove a free piece of software from your computer, by all means do it. I don't use Firefox anymore except for compatibility testing. If you want to speak out against him that is great too.
My main point still is that a job, even if it were a minimum wage fast food job, is to great a penalty for donating to a cause, or speaking out. That last sentence is exactly what we are fighting for with ENDA, we are creating a dangerous precedent by firing people over political speech.

 

In the world we live in today, people are being murdered for their sexuality or their gender and I'm supposed to feel sorry for a CEO getting early retirement for assisting in the oppression and persecution of an entire people?

 

You know what I find strange about conservative reaction to this? Hobby Lobby.

Hobby Lobby are trying to get out of providing birth control citing religious reasons and conservatives are lining up to defend the company's right to freedom of religion under the 1st amendment. Ignore the whole "is a company entitled to personhood" argument for the moment. So why are they condemning Mozilla for exercising their 1st amendment rights to associate and disassociate themselves from whoever they please?

Surely what Mozilla has done is perfectly acceptable under the constitution or does the constitution only protect you if you support conservative pet projects?

 

The whole argument about 'freedom of speech' was designed to from a legal/prosecution stand point not to be speech without consequences.

A teacher/school board should have the right to establish which sort of speech is permitted in their classrooms, a parent in their home and an employer in their workplace.

As someone who has been a manager/business owner for the majority of my adult life I've had numerous employees whose beliefs or opinions weren't the same as mine which is fine but the moment those beliefs or opinions become public and alienate a portion of my client base is the moment those consequences come into affect.

Now the people on the 'anti-gay' side of things take that sort of stance and say then they should be able to operate their businesses in the same vein (to a point I agree) but what is often missed on that side of things is their argument doesn't ever come down to simply being 'anti-gay' it is more realistically anti-equality, anti-fair treatment and anti-human rights.

That being said I think many jumped the gun to lambast this guy before giving him a chance to respond. He made a donation eight years ago, the president was against gay marriage eight year ago- lots of people's views have changed in that time. It's an emotional issue which leads to a quick reaction but I feel like he should've been given a chance to comment before people jumped on the boycott bandwagon.

 

As a gay guy I am going to say this that even though I am full supporter of human rights and I agree everyone should have equality in this world I disagree with him having to leave like this. I will refer back to the Duck Dynasty case that happened at the beginning of this year. I do not watch that show nor do I care for said show but notice how that guy was just expressing an opinion.

Is he not allowed to do that in a country that is founded on being free? He stated an opinion people are entitled to disagree with it same as the CEO of Firefox. The CEO was entitled to make a donation and no one has to agree with who he supported or gave money to but he shouldn't have lost his job over it.

Because if I donate money to a gay rights charity (and I have to many before) then people will pat me on the back and say job well done but if I donate to an anti gay charity then the story changes from people patting me on the back saying job well done to people protesting against me saying hateful things about me. How is this free when only SOME people are afforded freedom but not others?

So because the CEO disagreed with gay people and LGBT rights he should be fired and let go? Then I guess America is not really a free country because if it was a gay person who got fired for being gay there would be an uproar and it would be considered discrimination. As a gay person I tell people one thing. You do not have to agree with me and my life.

I have an amazing boyfriend and I love him dearly and if you think that me being in a relationship with another guy is wrong I respect your opinion to say what you feel just so long as you can learn to respect my relationship with him. Starting all these wars over said controversies is not going to solve the issue.

Why scoop to their level when we can respect their opinion and ask them to respect ours instead of trying to always be the ones who win this? Do I agree with what the Firefox CEO did? Of course not I think it wasn't right but at the end of the day I think he has the right to do what he wants because this is a free country and if I am allowed to go to gay pride or to donate to LGBT rights causes and organizations then he should be allowed to do the same to whatever organization he chooses even if I disagree with who he donated money to and who he chooses to support.

 

johnrivera12 -

That's not what happened at all. No one has attempted to silence Brendan Eich. He's free to donate money where ever he sees fit, and he's free to say whatever he believes as loudly and as publicly as he wants. The same is true for everyone else. It's just that none of us are free from the social consequences of our words and actions. The First Amendment protects your right to say what you want to say, and prevents the government from attempting to silence you. It doesn't protect you from the social consequences that result from that speech which are employed by individual citizens.

Brendan Eich wasn't denied being CEO as a result of his beliefs (which were known), and he also wasn't forced to resign as a result of them. If Mozilla consumers and developers hadn't spoke out, then he'd still be their CEO. However, the customers and the developers were offended by what he'd done, this threatened Mozilla's business, and therefore they were forced to take action.

However, let's sit him aside, because I think there is a bigger problem with the argument being made. As I stated previously, you're essentially advocating for free speech without any consequences. Yet, I don't think you realize the consequences of what you're suggesting.

You are advocating for a world in which people who boycotted segregated businesses were in the wrong. You're saying that the business owners free speech rights (which were racist) are being infringed by the boycott. You're saying those who boycotted were nothing more than bullies, attempting to silence critics, and intimidate people into a new social order.

You're saying that a Jewish family who owns a small business must hire someone who denies that the holocaust happened. After all, to deny him that job is to silence his free speech. He does have the right to deny the holocaust, just as people have the right to deny the moon landing.

You're saying that companies like Chick-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby, or universities such as Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, have to hire someone like myself - a staunch gay atheist. Not only that, you're saying that I should be allowed to take their highest ranking positions, and be able to openly and publicly advocate for everything they stand in opposition too meanwhile condemning them for their bigotry.

In the end, you're advocating for a world without any social consequences at all. Because any consequences as a result of speech or actions would be an attempt to silence free speech. I don't think you want this type of world; none of us do.

We live in a world where people can collectively stand up and say, "You know what. I don't like the thing you did, and unless you apologize for doing it - I don't want to deal with you anymore." If it's one person, then it's probably not a big deal. If it's a lot of people - then it's a big deal. It's not an attempt to silence them, it's an attempt to fight speech with more speech. It's how we settle our differences in a civil society in which people radically disagree with one another - we decide not to associate with each other.

In the end, what upsets me the most is that this point of view undercuts the very real sacrifices made by others. There was a time - and it still happens - that coming out as gay, standing up for LGBT rights, and doing all the things you listed WOULD get you fired from your job. People stood up and did it anyway, they sacrificed for us, and they gave up careers and livelihoods so that we can stand here today.

Sometimes, to do the right thing, you have to pay a price. If our enemies aren't prepared to pay the same price that we paid, then they clearly don't believe in their cause as strongly as we believe in ours. I'm not inclined to change the rules to make it easier for them.

 

And that is the thing that most seem to fail to recognize the difference between social consequences and government or legal consequences.

Again I do think in this circumstances the gun was jumped but I think of things like the duck dynasty example and almost person for person who came out touting freedom of speech when the anti-gay quotes were released completely fell silent when the racial quotes were released.

I'd have a ton more respect for those who stood on a pedestal shouting free speech did so for all speech not just speech they agreed with- sadly that is almost never the case.

Like it or not there will always be social consequences and there really needs to be. Imagine a person working in a diverse setting who openly and vocally spewed how he was a white supremacist but outside of that he did his job, he served and was polite to all customers regardless of colour but was vocal within the community about his beliefs. Should the company's owner not have the right to terminate him? Particularly when those of colour start to announce they will no longer frequent the business, or when co-workers state they aren't comfortable working in the setting.

We teach children at a very young age not to use profanity and often they are punished if the language continues whether it's a grounding, loss of privilege or what have you. The same consequences need to continue in adulthood.