You forgot firing the technical CEO who had been with the company since 1995 (who btw also invented Javascript) for his personal politics. Looks like it worked out well for the company.
I mean, in one comment your bundling together a group of people, assuming that one belief begets another, then comparing that belief with other popular less divisive beliefs. It feels like an attempt at shaming, which I personally don't think is productive.
I believe that who and how one loves is no one else's business except that of the consenting adults involved. Full stop. No equivocation, no caveats.
Anyone else needs to mind their own fucking business.
However, trashing someone's career because of their personal beliefs (with the caveat that those beliefs play no role in their professional position) is wrong.
Assuming Eich didn't bring those beliefs into the office (whether that be by his speech or actions as an employee), it's irrelevant to his job.
If we believe in liberty (such as the right of consenting adults to love how they need to do so), then we have to accept that others have liberty too -- within the constraint that the exercise of one's liberty doesn't impinge on the liberty of others[0].
Want to hate on Eich because he's a homophobe? Go for it. Want to call him out on his homophobia? Get on wit' yo' bad self!
But none of that had anything to do with Eich's qualifications or ability to run Mozilla.
What if you had a homophobic boss who hounded you out of your job because of your beliefs? Is that right?
If you want to have a truly free society, you need to allow unpopular opinions to be held and expressed. And unless and until those opinions/beliefs actually impinge on the rights of others, we should tolerate (note I say 'tolerate' not embrace, endorse or accept) them.
[0] As in "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."
But none of that had anything to do with Eich's qualifications or ability to run Mozilla.
Ignoring the other arguments about comparing this to other basic human rights, if his politics are bringing a bunch of hate onto the company then it does impact his ability to do his job effectively.
That's a fair point.
I'd only say that I find it illiberal and deeply reactionary and regressive to hound someone professionally because of their private actions (in that case, a monetary political donation).
As much as I believe that all of us, regardless of ethnicity, melanin content, chromosome configuration, religion, or any of many, many other "differences" should equally benefit from the rule of law and equality under those laws, whether that be loving who and how we choose, agency over what happens to/with our bodies or any other human/civil right, I also believe that we need to extend that to those who disagree with me.
Because if we are only free to live/speak/believe as we wish as long as other folks don't kick up a fuss about it, and along the way destroy our livelihoods, is that really freedom?
And if it's okay to do so for those who hold "vile" beliefs, who's to say that beliefs we hold won't be considered "vile" next week, next month or next year?
As such, by all means call out those who espouse hate and discrimination. But destroying someone's livelihood because you don't like what they think or say is antithetical to the ideals of liberty and equality.
If enough of his employees feel the same way, and there is enough negative press from others (who are also just democratically expressing their opinions), then clearly his position as CEO was untenable.
To equate that to destroying someone's livelihood based on their political beliefs is exactly the sort of mental gymnastics which keeps me coming back to this site.
Donating to prop 8 doesn't qualify as impinging on others rights?
"But none of that had anything to do with Eich's qualifications or ability to run Mozilla"
From a tech standpoint sure, but Mozilla has LGBTQ employees and contributors and it was a public relations nightmare.
Are you arguing that our democratic process impinges on people's rights?
Are you arguing that anyone who disagrees with a particular position that you support should not have the same political agency that you do?
If so, then you are espousing support for a society that punishes non-conformity and freedom of thought and expression. I find that idea to be deeply authoritarian and illiberal.
I oppose denying basic human and civil rights to anyone.
And while that includes the right of folks to love who and how they wish, to have agency over their bodies and lives, it also includes the right of everyone to believe and speak as they choose, even if -- especially if -- I disagree with them.
While I agree with the sentiment that all humans should be allowed to love whom and in the way they see fit and vehemently disagree with Eich's personal views, I can't agree with your assessment that he "forced" anyone to do anything.
He took part in a political process. That he was on the side that you (and I, for that matter) disagree with, doesn't invalidate his right to do so.
His side was (and rightly so, in my view) smacked down.
However, I take serious umbrage to your characterization that I'm wrapping anything in the flag, or that claiming that everyone should be allowed to exercise their political franchise (which you appear to reject) is disingenuous.
I believe that individuals voting their conscience in free and fair elections is the heart of democracy.
Unless I misunderstand your position (which is certainly possible), you appear to claim that other citizens (in this case, Eich) should not have the right to vote their conscience if you (or I, for that matter) disagree with their position.
What, exactly, is disingenuous about that?
I think so. I'm not saying he can't vote his conscience but if he votes for a measure to revoke the right to marry from people in his OWN company those people are free to oppose his appointment as CEO as part of their freedom of expression.
"I can't agree with your assessment that he "forced" anyone to do anything."
You're right. He attempted and failed to do so since the measure didn't pass.
It's not inconsistent to democratically vote for something that restricts the freedoms of someone else. Gun laws, abortion, wearing masks, etc. And people are free to associate with me based on my views on the subject.
Thanks for the apology.
Obama had the same position I did in 2008.
What's with the ignorance or (I hope not) revisionist history?
Even better, Obergfell v. Hodges[1] made marriage equality the law in the entire US in 2015. Better late than never.
While I strenuously disagree with the position you held (still hold?) around marriage equality and find such a stance to be illiberal and downright nasty, I also believe that your right to hold that position as a private citizen should be tolerated in a free society.
What's more, I don't believe that your opinions (and actions related to them) as a private citizen should be reason to hound you out of your professional position, unless you used your position to impose those opinions on the workplace you managed.
It's unfortunate that some people hold opinions about freedom of thought and the exercise of the political franchise that are as odious as your opinions about marriage equality.
And it's even worse that such people executed on their illiberal, reactionary ideas to force you from your position.
A free society must tolerate unpopular and illiberal ideas, or it's not a free society. Which is why I have decried your ouster from Mozilla in this thread.
That said, I believe your ideas about marriage equality are illiberal, anti-democratic and just plain nasty. But they are your ideas, and in a free society, you are entitled to them.
There's no point arguing if you can't even accurately state the other side's views (you know, the ones Obama aligned himself with in 2008 in order to get elected).
This used to be a required skill in political debating, but it's not taught or practiced much now. It definitely is more work than simply putting bad intentions or premises into your opponent's mouth, grandstanding against the resulting straw-man, and hiving off into disjoint factions that can be divided and conquered more easily.
Still, I would never pull that kind of crap on you or any other HN antagonists. We need to work together against common enemies, if we can. Warmongers, crypto-backdoor advocates, surveillance capitalists, banksters, polluters, DRM-everything vendors -- in general, the monied interests and oligarchs who call too many shots today.
Obviously, I don't know the specific thoughts in your head, but I expect (and please do correct me if I am wrong) it goes something like this: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid, and are the only marriages which should be recognized. But a 'civil union' would be okay as that wouldn't violate my religious belief." Or something similar.
Your agreement with President Obama's stated alignment to similar views, which (as I'm sure you know) turned out not to be his views[0] at all clarifies your view for me. Thank you.
However, regardless of your personal views (especially as it appears to be part of your religious belief), it's inappropriate for California or the US as a whole to regulate civil marriage in this fashion. As Judge Walker found in Hollingsworth v. Perry, Proposition 8 was a violation of the due process and equal protection rights of those seeking to marry others of the same biological sex[0].
And I believe that reasoning, as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented[1], were more than sufficient to support Judge Walker's ruling.
I strongly recommend you read those transcripts, as I did. The arguments and evidence presented are clear and convincing.
But I'd go even further and say that regulating marriage in this way to satisfy a specific set of religious beliefs is unsupportable on First Amendment grounds (and applied to the several states via the 14th Amendment), as preferring one set of beliefs disadvantages the First Amendment rights of others who do not share those beliefs.
The views you appear to hold and that President Obama claimed to hold are, if codified into law, in direct conflict with the Constitution.
While you may believe that it's morally or ethically wrong for those of the same sex to marry, and to act upon that belief (by not marrying someone of the same sex), it is not permissible for the government to enshrine that belief into law.
As such, it's not that I don't understand those views. Although whether I understand them or not is irrelevant. My issue is that the government is restricted from giving preference to those (or any other) religious views.
Those religious views may be relevant to those who hold them, but they cannot be imposed on others who do not. It's a pretty simple idea.
That's no straw-man. That's a core tenet of our system of government.
>Still, I would never pull that kind of crap on you or any other HN antagonists. We need to work together against common enemies, if we can. Warmongers, crypto-backdoor advocates, surveillance capitalists, banksters, polluters, DRM-everything vendors -- in general, the monied interests and oligarchs who call too many shots today.
You apparently misunderstand my point and my motivation. Just because I disagree with your views on this particular subject, doesn't necessarily mean that I must needs reject any other views you might have.
Don't confuse me with someone who immediately assumes you are an unredeemably evil person because you don't share this particular view with me.
I never said anything even approaching that.
What's more, the issue is moot and has been for just over five years.
You accuse me of "putting bad intentions or premises into your opponent's mouth, grandstanding against the resulting straw-man, and hiving off into disjoint factions that can be divided and conquered more easily," but that's clearly not the case.
In fact, if you read through this thread you'll see that I strongly support your right not only to hold the views that you do, but to act upon those views, within the strictures of our legal system, as you see fit.
Even more, you assume that I am unwilling to work with those who share some goals, but not others. As to the ones you mention: "Warmongers, crypto-backdoor advocates, surveillance capitalists, banksters, polluters, DRM-everything vendors -- in general, the monied interests and oligarchs who call too many shots today," I am also appalled and wish to change the trajectory of each and every one of those important issues. And I'm happy to work with those who support those goals and wish to address them in a principled way.
As I said repeatedly in this thread, that if we wish to have a free society, we must tolerate even -- no, especially -- views with which we vehemently disagree.
It's not about specific views or ideas, it's the principle that's important -- at least to me.
That I disagree with your views on marriage equality (or at least what I understand of them based on your support for Proposition 8 and your further elucidation here) is based in exactly the same set of principles.
As you should have noted, I loosed my venom just as strongly against those who seek to punish or silence others for views with which they disagree. And again I do so in support of exactly the same principles.
I find it disappointing that you attack me for expressing my views while I'm defending your right to express yours. More's the pity.
To put a fine point on that, please note that I did not denigrate you as a human or a citizen, nor did I call for you to be silenced or forced to betray your beliefs. Just the opposite in fact.
All I did was rather pointedly disagree with (my understanding of) your views on marriage equality.
Please try to separate your reaction from my statements.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/10/obama-frustr...
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/sup...
I would. I considered RMS's previous personal politics on pedophilia similarly deplorable and distasteful and I actively, financially support him as Chief Gnuisance because it was his personal politics and he is entitled to his view, and all humans are naturally imperfect and many of the most brilliant in some ways have the greatest weaknesses in others. I still like Roald Dahl's books after learning about his antisemitism and I don’t resent Terry Davis over his racism.
The world is not black and white. We should do our best to work constructively with those around us to improve the world. That often includes tolerating ideas and beliefs that you may personally disagree with.
For what it's worth, as a die hard card carrying liberal - I find your attitude cancerous to both society and democracy.
I'll note that it's mainly users of Firefox who had to "face the consequences" of firing Eich for his views...
This is just a sad story without any winners.