Mozilla CEO quits after a few days of being CEO

[Hideyoshi]

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/mozilla-ceo-resigns-calif-gay-marriage-ban-campaign/story?id=23181711

Pressure from gay rights supporters caused the CEO to step down just days after he was promoted.

I think this is a powerful sign that LGBT equality is becoming even more mainstream.  I give it a couple more years before gay marriage is legal.

[ZoeM]

He was forced out of office for voting the wrong way.
What has become of this country? What has become of the 'tolerant' left? What happened to 'no h8'?
So disappointed right now.

[Hideyoshi]

He was forced out of office for voting the wrong way.
What has become of this country? What has become of the 'tolerant' left? What happened to 'no h8'?
So disappointed right now.

Please tell me you're not serious. If he donated money to a white supremacist group, would you still be all for him?

I, being part of the evil left, do not tolerate bigotry. I'm sorry, I would be classified as a self-hater at that point. This is the 21st century.  People need to realize that we won't tolerate iron age mandates anymore.  Why?  Because they demonize, degrade, and dehumanize adults for doing perfectly natural things with consenting adults which harms no one.

If you don't see this as a victory for trans people and the LGBT community as a whole, we must be reading different articles.

[ZoeM]

This is bigotry. He opposed gay marriage - so what? That's his religious belief. It's no less valid than anyone else's.
But apparently in today's world if you hold the wrong belief you're evil incarnate, no better than a racist. And tolerating you is off the table - you'll be lucky to keep a job as a normal employee, let alone anything of leadership.

Freedom of religion just got a lot less free, Hideyoshi - and people who ought to know better are celebrating its demise.

You're actually proposing that the Bible should not be tolerated in modern society. And you wonder why they oppose us.

[Heather]

I'm so staying out of this. 

[Hideyoshi]

This is bigotry. He opposed gay marriage - so what? That's his religious belief. It's no less valid than anyone else's.
But apparently in today's world if you hold the wrong belief you're evil incarnate, no better than a racist. And tolerating you is off the table - you'll be lucky to keep a job as a normal employee, let alone anything of leadership.

Freedom of religion just got a lot less free, Hideyoshi - and people who ought to know better are celebrating its demise.

You're actually proposing that the Bible should not be tolerated in modern society. And you wonder why they oppose us.

I don't wonder why 'they' oppose you.  It is because religion has had a stranglehold on this country since its inception, and people are sick of it intruding in their lives when they don't subscribe to it.  It's not necessarily that the bible shouldn't be tolerated, it's that the bible or ANY religious belief should have absolutely NO BEARING in legislation (see 1st amendment to the Constitution)

You have no less freedom of religion. But if you choose to assert a bigoted belief, and actively participate in the effort to take away the rights of others, damn right you should suffer the consequences.

You can hold such beliefs privately, but once you bring them out in the open, you can and SHOULD be criticized.  That's how freedom of speech works.  You can say whatever you want (within bounds of reason), but you also put yourself out there to be critiqued.  What's the old saying?  Better to be silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt?

Much like a science teacher in a public school can believe in a 6,000 year old earth and not accept evolution, but once they start trying to teach that nonsense to kids, they should be held accountable for spreading falsehoods. 

[ZoeM]

It is not your right to decide what is true or false, Hideyoshi. Outside your own box of opinions your views mean no more than anyone else's, and I find it alarming indeed that you're so willing to impose them on those you and others so often accuse of trying to impose their views on you.

We cannot go from protesting the moral code imposed upon us by others, to imposing our moral code on them. We cannot go from advocating tolerance to advocating intolerance simply because we're winning. That's not an act of tolerance. It's an act of a destructive conqueror trying to wipe out their rivals.


Look at the situation. See what language is being used, and by whom. Who's saying 'we cannot tolerate them'? Who's advocating 'separate and inequal' now? Who's telling whom to get back in the closet? And why?

[Hideyoshi]

It is not your right to decide what is true or false, Hideyoshi. Outside your own box of opinions your views mean no more than anyone else's, and I find it alarming indeed that you're so willing to impose them on those you and others so often accuse of trying to impose their views on you.

We cannot go from protesting the moral code imposed upon us by others, to imposing our moral code on them. We cannot go from advocating tolerance to advocating intolerance simply because we're winning. That's not an act of tolerance. It's an act of a destructive conqueror trying to wipe out their rivals.


Look at the situation. See what language is being used, and by whom. Who's saying 'we cannot tolerate them'? Who's advocating 'separate and inequal' now? Who's telling whom to get back in the closet? And why?

What is true is what is demonstrable. This country was founded in an attempt to make a secular nation.  Religion has, throughout history, sought to circumvent laws and exploit loopholes to poison the political system with its beliefs which are not grounded in reason and are defended against all reason.

What I'm saying isn't about imposing anything.  It's about holding TRUE to the first amendment to the Constitution.  Three parts of it which pertain to this situation are:

1. Establishment clause
2. Free exercise clause
3. Free speech

Tell me where I'm trying to impose anything on anyone that isn't in accordance to those three things.

Religion is SUPER GOOD at playing the victim and acting as if it's being oppressed.  It's sort of a 'stop oppressing my right to oppress others' deal. You can practice your religion, pray to whatever you want, believe whatever you want, but keep it out of public schools and the law, and everything is dandy (see establishment/free exercise clause)

You can say whatever you want (except understood things like fire in a crowded theater), but you must be ready to face to consequences.  If I had a religion with mandated that 'On each new moon, thou shalt say "eat s*** and die" to thy employer,' and I get fired, should I cry that I'm being oppressed?

[Kaylee]

It is not your right to decide what is true or false, Hideyoshi. Outside your own box of opinions your views mean no more than anyone else's, and I find it alarming indeed that you're so willing to impose them on those you and others so often accuse of trying to impose their views on you.

Like Brendan Eich was willing to donate money to impose his opinions on others?  Hideyoshi isn't trying to deny him a basic human right - to have a relationship legally recognised should be the right of ANY couple.  Yes people should always be entitled to an opinion, but if the outcome of that opinion being implemented is pain or suffering for anyone it should be dismissed, no matter the source.

Why should outdated opinions be tolerated in modern day society?  Because an old book of unknown provenance said so?

People should not deny others the same rights that they have purely on religious beliefs, end of story.

[VeryGnawty]

I think some people are missing the point, here.  This isn't about religion, or free speech, or morality, or oppressing people.  This is about plain old CAPITALISM.  You know, that agency which has been both glorified and vilified over the decades in discussions about America.

Businesses are in the business of making money.  If something is not making you money, then it is not good for business.  When one of the most prominent figures in your company takes up an unpopular political stance, he will get public backlash.  That's just the way things are.  People will boycott.  People will protest.  It's not good for BUSINESS.

In an ideal world, you could say whatever you want without the fear of it affecting your job in any way.  In an ideal world, the workplace and private life would never clash.  We don't live in an ideal world.  If you donate money to an unpopular political cause, you should expect it to have consequences to your life.  Freedom of speech doesn't mean that you have freedom FROM speech.  He said that he wanted to support Proposition 8 by donating money to the cause.  Other people said, "I don't know if I want to support a company that makes this guy money."

Freedom of speech doesn't mean that you can do stupid stuff without consequences.  If I wanted to donate money to a group that believes that black people are inferior and should still be slaves, then people would be right in not wanting to support a business that makes me money.  Freedom of speech means that you are free to be stupid, ignorant, arrogant, self-righteous, et cetera.  But, it doesn't mean that you are free from the CONSEQUENCES of being stupid, ignorant, arrogant, or self-righteous.  We live in a world where you can lose you job from doing or supporting unpopular things.  That probably won't change any time soon.

[ZoeM]

All your arguments are based on the premise that Eich was wrong and that gay marriage is a right. You've judged Eich on your standards and found him guilty, not on any sort of widely valid criterion.

Let me restate. Whether or not gay marriage is a right is a matter of opinion. You can't use it as an inalienable truth, on any level outside your own personal beliefs.

What you're doing is taking the position that you've already won, that you have the only good and right viewpoint, and arguing from there.

I'm also seeing a severe amount of disrespect and disregard for your opponents. Not only do you disagree, you disagree with their right to exist on the same level as your own beliefs, based solely on your own beliefs. You've moved beyond tolerance and discourse and straight into fanatical 'burn the heretic' mode. And you don't seem to even see what's happened. You're ostracizing people for having religious beliefs - and celebrating when you destroy their lives and/or livelihoods. It can't be justified, and I'm amazed to see so many people trying. Especially when those same people probably took the opposite position during the World Vision fiasco.

We truly are no better than the intolerant '50s stereotype culture we love to oppose. Worse, even - for we went straight from being oppressed to oppressing ourselves, without even stopping to wonder why.

[Hideyoshi]

All your arguments are based on the premise that Eich was wrong and that gay marriage is a right. You've judged Eich on your standards and found him guilty, not on any sort of widely valid criterion. 

Name one nonreligious reason as to why gay marriage should be illegal. 

Let me restate. Whether or not gay marriage is a right is a matter of opinion. You can't use it as an inalienable truth, on any level outside your own personal beliefs.

What is true is demonstrable.  It is a demonstrable fact that gay marriage harms no one.  It only acts to benefit people and society as a whole. If you want to use the notion that because you think it's icky and that is the reason why it harms you, I will find that reason childish and unimpressive.

What you're doing is taking the position that you've already won, that you have the only good and right viewpoint, and arguing from there.

Justice prevails.  You are on the wrong side of history.  People will look back on those who oppose gay marriage (which affects every non/pre-op transgendered person who desires the same sex) the same way they look back on those who opposed the rights of women, interracial marriage, etc.  And the same people who opposed those things back then are the kind of people who oppose gay rights now.  Backwards, religion-touting people who want to force their iron age mandates on others, whether they like it or not.

[Kaylee]

All your arguments are based on the premise that Eich was wrong and that gay marriage is a right.

Gay marriage is already a right over here in the UK, why shouldn't it be in the US?

As long as it doesn't interfere with other peoples lives then people can have whatever opinions they want.  As soon as it infringes on others then that opinion needs to be held up for scrutiny, otherwise scenarios like <Text redacted due to not wanting to invoke Godwins Law>

[KelsieJ]

Eich's rights weren't impinged by anyone, and his First Amendment protections weren't violated. The market decided they did not support his ideology, and the market reacted. The free market economy exercised it's freedom of speech to say that Eich's views did not reflect theirs.

It's all very simple, even a Christian should get it 

[Missy~rmdlm]

This is bigotry. He opposed gay marriage - so what? That's his religious belief. It's no less valid than anyone else's.
But apparently in today's world if you hold the wrong belief you're evil incarnate, no better than a racist. And tolerating you is off the table - you'll be lucky to keep a job as a normal employee, let alone anything of leadership.

Freedom of religion just got a lot less free, Hideyoshi - and people who ought to know better are celebrating its demise.

You're actually proposing that the Bible should not be tolerated in modern society. And you wonder why they oppose us.

No he's a hypocrite and a lair. He has stated he supports equality, but money talks, and it's not like he's proven anything other than his money contribution. Weird how these cases always -are- about money being donated to hate. I don't much care what people say, I care what they do, and he has a bad record with no reconciliation.

[Hideyoshi]

No he's a hypocrite and a lair. He has stated he supports equality, but money talks, and it's not like he's proven anything other than his money contribution. Weird how these cases always -are- about money being donated to hate. I don't much care what people say, I care what they do, and he has a bad record with no reconciliation.

It really is all about the money

Which brings me to another point... Hobby Lobby.

Opposes contraception because it's against their religious views to avoid paying for services for its employees // Invests in a pharmaceutical company that manufactures 'abortion pills'

[kira21 ♡♡♡]

He demonstrated he is a tool and they demonstrated they didn't want a tool in command.  Simple no?

[Kara Jayde]

All your arguments are based on the premise that Eich was wrong and that gay marriage is a right. You've judged Eich on your standards and found him guilty, not on any sort of widely valid criterion.

Let me restate. Whether or not gay marriage is a right is a matter of opinion. You can't use it as an inalienable truth, on any level outside your own personal beliefs.

What you're doing is taking the position that you've already won, that you have the only good and right viewpoint, and arguing from there.

I'm also seeing a severe amount of disrespect and disregard for your opponents. Not only do you disagree, you disagree with their right to exist on the same level as your own beliefs, based solely on your own beliefs. You've moved beyond tolerance and discourse and straight into fanatical 'burn the heretic' mode. And you don't seem to even see what's happened. You're ostracizing people for having religious beliefs - and celebrating when you destroy their lives and/or livelihoods. It can't be justified, and I'm amazed to see so many people trying. Especially when those same people probably took the opposite position during the World Vision fiasco.

We truly are no better than the intolerant '50s stereotype culture we love to oppose. Worse, even - for we went straight from being oppressed to oppressing ourselves, without even stopping to wonder why.

I'm curious, you seem to be coming at this from a philosophical standpoint that there is, perhaps, an objective viewpoint that people could take, outside of their own subjective viewpoint. Have you ever actually known that to be the case though?

Whether you're influenced by religiosity, or secularism, your viewpoint is not objective, and it's dangerous to assume it is, as that would lead you to believe your opinion trumps other peoples because they can't be objective, whilst you can. Objectivity doesn't really exist outside of uninterpreted scientific datasets. There are those here that believe that he is wrong based on their pre-existing beliefs, whether secular or religious, and there are those that would suggest he is right, but how could anybody judge his viewpoint from an objective, 'global morality' or what 'truly' is right or wrong, when by their very definition, right and wrong are subjective?

[CaitlinH]

He was facing mounting pressure from inside the Mozilla organisation with several prominent employees publicly calling for him to step down. Aside from the bad press he has generated for Mozilla in recent days, his views were at odds with the organisation's image of openness and inclusiveness.

I think it's a shame that he was removed honestly. Regardless of his bigoted views, he has been a major figure in the development of the World Wide Web. His work has paved the way for the development of a more client-interactive, user-friendly WWW and the modern developments with HTML5. He was more than qualified for the position, and should be allowed to hold personal views without them reflecting on his corporation. Sadly the CEO of a company is very much their public face, and so I can understand why he chose (or was heavily encouraged) to resign.

[Eva Marie]

He was facing mounting pressure from inside the Mozilla organisation with several prominent employees publicly calling for him to step down. Aside from the bad press he has generated for Mozilla in recent days, his views were at odds with the organisation's image of openness and inclusiveness.

This is the way I see it.

Simply put - Mozilla is not a charity or a political organization - it is a business, and business leadership is all about growing the business and increasing value for the shareholders - period. That's it, nothing else. When you exist at the C-level of a company you are playing with the big boys; it is a very alpha-male dominated space. There is no room for anyone's personal feelings; if you get fired it's just business. If you have questionable things in your history that might affect the business those things most likely will come back and bite you at some point.

This particular CEO had this donation in his history, and it flew in the face of one of the stated cornerstone values of the company - inclusiveness. This created a trust issue and uncertainty with some board members and with some outside organizations, and that's where the pressure on him came from to step down. When a CEO causes controversy for his business in this way he's on borrowed time.

It's a business decision. They need a CEO that everyone trusts, especially the board of directors. He's gone now and some other company will likely scoop him right up and he'll be fine. Unlike the rest of us those guys always manage to bounce right back from getting fired.