Comment by ftfish | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ftfish | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

"What's wrong with it being a deeply-held belief?"

Wait, what? Alright, let's start from the beginning.

"Hell, for that matter, what exactly is this position everyone keeps ascribing to him?"

It may seem like we can't really tell, because he never really openly commented on this, but what we do know is this:

* he donated $1,000 of his own money to support Proposition 8

* the full text of Proposition 8 (according to Wikipedia):

Section I. Title

This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act." Section 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution, to read:

Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Is it really hard to figure out that Brendan Eich is a man who would pay $1,000 so that two consenting people in love can not marry if they are of the same sex?

I am not a gay person myself and I think it's safe to assume you are neither. And you might have read http://www.teamrarebit.com/blog/2014/03/24/goodbye_firefox_m... by now. But I really recommend doing a little bit of a research on the topics of gay marriage and LGBTs to see what exactly is wrong with his belief that LGBT people don't deserve basic human and civil rights.

Note: I was only responding to the quoted text. It's a whole another issue whether he should resign as a CEO of an organization that prides itself for being open and inclusive (or at least issue an apology and/or a statement of his changed mind on this issue). Also another question is whether it is the right solution to boycott a whole company which I am sure is full of people who do not agree with the new CEO's belief.

>It's a whole another issue whether he should resign as a CEO of an organization that prides itself for being open and inclusive (or at least issue an apology and/or a statement of his changed mind on this issue).

Why would either of those options happen? Since when is a person not entitled to his own opinions and beliefs? Him being the CEO has nothing to do with the stand on diversity of the organization itself, that was the whole point of Mozilla's statement. He is not firing his gay employees or enforcing his agenda upon the organization because that has nothing to do with his current position at Mozilla. In fact, the money he spent was his own, not Mozilla's. One can do whatever the fuck one wants with his own money as long as it's legal.

Making his stance against gay marriage public was probably not a good idea from a business standpoint, but there's absolutely nothing from that that should taint Mozilla's image.

The real problem here is that he actually acted on his opinions. If someone is a homophobe, racist or even a pedophile -- while they are not acting on their opinions or whatever drives them, I agree, they are free to think whatever they want. It would be better for them to work those issues out, but hey, if they're not actually harming anyone, I don't personally care.

We don't really know yet how his personal beliefs will affect the company. Read through some of the other comments here, I agree it could just be in very subtle -- yet still negative -- ways.

What I think is more interesting is how this reveals how deeply rooted sexism and homophobia are in our society. Yes, racism is still obviously a problem, but think for a moment what the reactions would be if the new CEO was known to have donated to KKK.

Here are some more fun exercises:

* what if the new CEO was a scientologist?

* what if the new CEO was an African American and it was revealed he donated to a group that attempts to make interracial marriage illegal again because he believes white people are sub-human creatures (the way the actual new CEO probably sees gay people, since he doesn't believe they deserve human and civil rights)?

* what if the new CEO was a neo-nazi sympathizer?

* what if the new CEO was a woman who really, really doesn't like men (and maybe even donated to some cause that attacks men or men's rights in some way)?

You can argue that all of these are just opinions. But where do we draw the line? People are usually very inconsistent with that. Homophobia is tolerated while putting a woman in a leading position makes people question this decision. Heck, people get all riled up over Ben Affleck being the next Batman, but the fact Bill Murray abused his wife doesn't stop him from being a geek idol.

Yeah, I don't think that is how America works. You can hold any belief and support any organization in any way that is legal so long as that organization itself is not criminal or an enemy of the US. Maybe people will think you're a weird duck, but professionally punishing people ("you can't be CEO!") for something that doesn't affect the job at hand -- well, kind of an ass thing to do. He's apparently a good coder and a good leader by many metrics, so let him do his thing. I know that if the tables were turned, and I was the CEO of a company, and a fundamentalist Christian-majority started to yell,"Fire him! He doesn't believe in God and gives to organizations that seek to lure our children to Satan!", I wouldn't want their beliefs to wreck my professional career. We don't fight our battles in the office like that.

If you disagree with him, then disagree with him. And while you're at it, do it The American Way (TM) by boycotting sh*t and blogging and giving money to organizations that he finds morally reprehensible and electing (buying? :|) politicians that support your view.

I'm sorry, but you haven't really made any real argument here that wasn't a baseless non-sequitur or slippery slope, and apparently only acted on the fact that you have a strong stance against this person. None of the examples you provided really matter since it just so happens that the fact of the matter is not the opinions or actions this person has in his private life, but what he does for the organization (I'm also going to give you the benefit of ignoring that you just did a huge reductio ad absurdum by comparing being against gay marriage with the killing of black and jewish people).

Yes, making his opinions and actions public were a bad and stupid idea, but he's not a criminal for having opinions that differ from yours, and his current job isn't being the Pope. His job position isn't centered around his morality, it's centered around his performance as CEO of the organization. Again, stupid move to make his unpopular opinions public, yes. But having a personal stance doesn't make him evil.

What on earth are you talking about? Firstly, I don't even know this guy. Actions in private life? His actions could have had a real impact on real people if Prop 8 won. And while being murdered or have your loved ones killed is technically worse than being derived of other human (and civil) rights, human rights are human rights, they are here for everyone. The same for civil rights.

It wasn't a "stupid idea" to make his actions public. Actually he didn't, someone had to discover this. He's actually being a coward and won't even admit what his views are.

And while it's not criminal to stomp on other people's human and civil rights -- that is if those people are gay, one day it will be. Taking away (or at least trying to) someone's rights does make you evil.

In all of those cases, those are the private beliefs, and as long as the leadership is sound why does it matter?

The problem here is with the line "acting on his opinions". He didn't go into a church and bust-up a marriage ceremony. He didn't go drag a guy behind his truck. He didn't go and give weapons to his local skinheads to go make trouble.

He went and gave money, as is acceptable in place of a letter of support and considered an idiomatic way of voicing an opinion, to an organization doing something that many disagree with.

You are trying to make an argument for censuring people based on their participation in local government.

Much as we all hope that in a few years everyone will look back on LGBT discrimination as silly and outmoded, I hope we too will look back at this time of civic indifference and inactivity and say "Well, we now know that we get the kind of governance we work towards".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com