It is everyone's business. The sooner the culture makes an othered minority issue socially repugnant and less some sort of innocuous personal political belief as you hint, the greater the chance for longer term change.
So despite Eich's personal politics, Mozilla is a place where healthcare is extended to transexuals, and staffers have come out in support of Mozilla org's friendliness to non-straight sexualities, even though they don't support Eich's personal view.
http://subfictional.com/2014/03/24/on-brendan-eich-as-ceo-of...
I would be interested to hear from the LGTB community within Mozilla as to where the consensus is on this move.
Employment discrimination on the grounds of sexuality is illegal here. By saying that they offer healthcare equally to gay employees[0], Mozilla seem to be doing what would here be considered a minimum.
Is that really considered good in the US? To me personally, this comes across as a very weak statement that actually makes me more concerned. It sort of reads like: gay employees are treated equally here, but we were aware that this is not legally required, so we had to think about it and now we're make a big deal out of our decision. It reads like a homophobic CEO approved the message.
Furthermore, there is a body of employees reporting discomfort and distress at having Eich as CEO, e.g. [1],[2], and you can start a reasonable link chain from those if you're interested to read more.
[0] https://blog.mozilla.org/press/2014/03/mozilla-statement-on-...
[1] http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014/03/28/Mozilla-employees-...
Directly following that is "In a post on his blog, Eich writes, “I am committed to ensuring that Mozilla is, and will remain, a place that includes and supports everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, age, race, ethnicity, economic status, or religion”. Whatever his current personal beliefs, he has pledged that Mozilla will be that environment. At this point he is actually doing what the detractors are asking of him: making a positive contribution to counter a previous negative one.
Your second link on distress has At every turn, I have been heartened by the degree of passion and care that have been apparent as colleague after colleague steps forward to express nuanced opinions, and by the commitment to equality and fairness that runs through the group like the stitches in the binding of a book. and And as much as I’d rather not see a boycott of everything Mozilla does (which, it seems, most people still think of as “Firefox”) based on the actions of a single person affiliated with the organization, I am completely psyched to see this many people this angry in defense of civil rights.
These are people annoyed with a CEO, but who are very positive about Mozilla's culture. They are nuanced opinions that aren't the oversimplified "crucify the company because the new CEO made a donation half a decade ago". They take pains to separate the private behaviour of the CEO and the culture of Mozilla.
Those links are saying the same thing my link did: Not particularly happy with the personal beliefs of the CEO, but very happy with the environment at Mozilla. It's the knee-jerk politics that talks of the ascendence of the new CEO being matched up with a new culture at Mozilla where gays are oppressed by jackboots. I've worked in places before where the CEO was not looked on kindly by the staff, yet we still did good things.
Regarding healthcare in the US, I'm not too familiar with it, but different workplaces have different levels and coverage of healthcare, and healthcare is a significant perk of a job. When our Australian company first reached out to make an SF office, our recruiters were initially puzzled at the importance that the locals put on healthcare as part of their remuneration package. Healthcare is another fiery topic though, and best left to a different thread :)
That's not what they are saying. Offering healthcare equally to gay employees is, of course, done by virtually every company. Offering healthcare to those employees' domestic partners, rather than just their legally married spouses, is somewhat common, but far from standard.
I find it highly disingenuous to call supporting equal rights "petulant and abrasive".
OKCupid's business revolves around personal relationships. Some of those relationships are same sex relationships. To OKC, this issue is important to them. Let's not confuse meaningful concern with rhetoric.
How is this any different then when same sex couples boycotted businesses in California where the owner donated to Prop 8 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)]?
edit: Can you stop with the downvotes? I'm not arguing that OKCupid's message is petulant and abrasive. I was trying to make sense of what honksillet was saying.
These fools would turn it into some kind of weird personal political fight if we castrate the next Turing. Hey, it's just a chemical castration. No need to make it personal. It's actually good for you.