Proposition 8 was an opinion of the masses: it received 7,001,084 (52.24%) of the votes.
There are a number of unnamed social ills and other problems that could still exist today in some countries or that would have likely lasted longer if we had waited for "popular opinion" to change.
I don't agree with forcing Eich out, but Mozilla should have known better than to pick a candidate that was going to be controversial to begin with. A person in leadership should be and often is held to a higher set of expectations.
So you're setting up an unfalsifiable claim, unless you have a way to gather the opinions of literally every single person that's guaranteed to yield accurate representations of their opinions.
Proposition 8 was passed by a majority: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_%28200...
However one feels about the result, only a fascist would want to shove that bit of history down the memory hole.
As to "passed by a majority", I would say, that depends on how you define a majority. A majority in the context of voting laws, perhaps. But I sincerely doubt it was actually representative of the entire population of California as a whole.
I also find it a bit ironic that someone would resort to name-calling in a thread attempting to defend the unpopular views of an individual as their right to have.
Prop8 was passed based on propaganda.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/04/04/brendan_eich_s...
Under normal circumstances prop8 would __never__ have passed in California, of all places.
People keep screaming about "Tolerance goes both ways", but society needs to move pass discrimination based on race/gender/orientation. Donating money to help pass a law taking away someone else's rights is ridiculous and shouldn't be tolerated. So if I see a new prop9 banning interracial marriages should I consider it merely a point of view? What if prop10 says black people can't vote? How far do we consider "point of view" or "freedom of speech" before we decide enough is enough and we're not going to regress back to the 1920s?
Let's use that reasoning carefully so that we do not disqualify our entire legal code.
So, if one is unhappy with the result of an election we can merely redefine what "majority" means by implying that certain parties who wanted to vote, didn't?
Well that sounds democratic.
Nevermind that in English, the meaning of the same word can change based on context, or in speech, based on tone of voice.