Mozilla CEO forced out because of Prop 8 Donation

[Oakvale]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/04/03/mozillas-ceo-steps-down-amid-gay-marriage-furor

This is pretty ridiculous. One private donation six years ago makes you unfit to be a CEO?

Further evidence that gay marriage is apparently the only thing that the middle classes care about. Someone's personal political views are apparently important enough when they're leading a non-political tech company to start a moral outrage witch hunt.

Andrew Sullivan has a good piece about this -

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Zioneer]

Honestly oakvale, I'm pro-marriage equality, but I agree with you. I don't agree that this is somehow a violation of the First Amendment (like some of this CEO's supporters are saying), but come on, he made a small donation to a bigoted cause. Would it be alright if a CEO of a different company was forced out if they donated to a pro-marriage equality or an environmental cause? I'm not going to yell "those who want tolerance are intolerant", but it seems distasteful somehow, since he hadn't really done anything since Prop 8 unlike say, Chick-Fil-A.

[Oakvale]

Honestly oakvale, I'm pro-marriage equality, but I agree with you. I don't agree that this is somehow a violation of the First Amendment (like some of this CEO's supporters are saying), but come on, he made a small donation to a bigoted cause. Would it be alright if a CEO of a different company was forced out if they donated to a pro-marriage equality or an environmental cause? I'm not going to yell "those who want tolerance are intolerant", but it seems distasteful somehow, since he hadn't really done anything since Prop 8 unlike say, Chick-Fil-A.

Yeah, I'm for gay marriage (if we must have marriage), but whipping up outrage against private citizens for expressing their personal political views is pretty disturbing - there's no suggestion that his personal views were going to affect policy at Mozilla in any way, yet heresy against mainstream liberalism must, apparently, be swiftly punished.

[Maxwell]

Yep. I'm with both of you on this, but I don't think that's surprising.

[7,052,770]

Would a CEO be fired if it came out that he had donated to a group that advocated treating non-whites like second class citizens, even if he had done it 6 years ago? At virtually ever company in America, the answer is yes.

This is the free market at work. Republicans should be loving it.

[afleitch]

Honestly oakvale, I'm pro-marriage equality, but I agree with you. I don't agree that this is somehow a violation of the First Amendment (like some of this CEO's supporters are saying), but come on, he made a small donation to a bigoted cause. Would it be alright if a CEO of a different company was forced out if they donated to a pro-marriage equality or an environmental cause? I'm not going to yell "those who want tolerance are intolerant", but it seems distasteful somehow, since he hadn't really done anything since Prop 8 unlike say, Chick-Fil-A.

Yeah, I'm for gay marriage (if we must have marriage), but whipping up outrage against private citizens for expressing their personal political views is pretty disturbing - there's no suggestion that his personal views were going to affect policy at Mozilla in any way, yet heresy against mainstream liberalism must, apparently, be swiftly punished.

As Mozilla themselves announced, he wasn't 'pushed'; he quit. He lost the support of his own company and indeed, Eich only announced he was stepping down after it was revealed on Wednesday that he'd given money to Pat Buchanan's presidential campaign in 1992, and later to Ron Paul's campaign.

Given the ethos of Mozilla, it's staff and shareholders, Eich not only had a history of making a donation to reverse the rights of same sex couples to marry (which whether you like it or not is now a make or break issue for many people) he had also given donations to two of the most, how shall we put it, marginal Republican candidates of their respective campaigns.

That was all that had been dug up about him before he stood down. It was not good business sense for him to continue as the CEO of a company that has an entirely different ethos to the values that the CEO holds.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Mozilla has the right to fire whomever they like for whatever reason they please, though I find the marriage equality movement (which I of course support) distasteful at times (see Chick-Fil-A) and this is one of the reasons why.

[they don't love you like i love you]

This was simply a good business decision. Mozilla was facing bad press and boycotts because of it. I think OKCupid was even publicly asking users not to access the site using Mozilla.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I had mixed feelings about this one.  Yeah, the gay rights groups clearly blew this out of proportion.  They did.  After all, people with objectionable views are going to control some things, and it's not as if this man would have based his business decisions on his politics.  However, no one was fired and the CEO probably could have at least waned the protestors by apologizing for what he did - a simple, short yet sweet, letter of regret.  He took the high road, instead.

Anyway, maybe it's just me, but it seems so much attention has been going to the Mozilla controversy while the World Vision story has largely been ignored, which I think is of greater significance if only thanks to the double backlash that organization received.

[7,052,770]

Mozilla has the right to fire whomever they like for whatever reason they please, though I find the marriage equality movement (which I of course support) distasteful at times (see Chick-Fil-A) and this is one of the reasons why.

Wait, what?  Chick-fil-A had the best business day in their entire history when all the fatass rednecks in the South waited over an hour for some greasy fast food just to stick it to Obama and all those libruls (as if they cared). To this day, right-wing Christians really think they're doing something by packing out Chick-fil-A. If anyone is embarrassing or "distasteful," it's all of those idiots.

Making anti-gay marriage statements was a brilliant business ploy for Chick-fil-A, gaining them many more customers than they lost (hell, I still eat there once a month or so). If I owned a restaurant, I'd probably make some statements like that too just to get business.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Mozilla has the right to fire whomever they like for whatever reason they please, though I find the marriage equality movement (which I of course support) distasteful at times (see Chick-Fil-A) and this is one of the reasons why.

Wait, what?  Chick-fil-A had the best business day in their entire history when all the fatass rednecks in the South waited over an hour for some greasy fast food just to stick it to Obama and all those libruls (as if they cared). To this day, right-wing Christians really think they're doing something by packing out Chick-fil-A. If anyone is embarrassing or "distasteful," it's all of those idiots.

Making anti-gay marriage statements was a brilliant business ploy for Chick-fil-A, gaining them many more customers than they lost (hell, I still eat there once a month or so). If I owned a restaurant, I'd probably make some statements like that too just to get business.

All it took was the pearl clutching to get all of those people into their stores. The negative reaction lead to a much greater positive reaction.

[Oakvale]

Would a CEO be fired if it came out that he had donated to a group that advocated treating non-whites like second class citizens, even if he had done it 6 years ago? At virtually ever company in America, the answer is yes.

This is a false analogy. Support for same-sex marriage has been a mainstream position for, what, three, four years? Even (especially?) among gay rights activists support for buying into arguably archaic, patriarchal structures like marriage has been controversial.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It certainly is. I don't know how Republicans feel about it, nor do I care.

Honestly oakvale, I'm pro-marriage equality, but I agree with you. I don't agree that this is somehow a violation of the First Amendment (like some of this CEO's supporters are saying), but come on, he made a small donation to a bigoted cause. Would it be alright if a CEO of a different company was forced out if they donated to a pro-marriage equality or an environmental cause? I'm not going to yell "those who want tolerance are intolerant", but it seems distasteful somehow, since he hadn't really done anything since Prop 8 unlike say, Chick-Fil-A.

Yeah, I'm for gay marriage (if we must have marriage), but whipping up outrage against private citizens for expressing their personal political views is pretty disturbing - there's no suggestion that his personal views were going to affect policy at Mozilla in any way, yet heresy against mainstream liberalism must, apparently, be swiftly punished.

As Mozilla themselves announced, he wasn't 'pushed'; he quit. He lost the support of his own company and indeed, Eich only announced he was stepping down after it was revealed on Wednesday that he'd given money to Pat Buchanan's presidential campaign in 1992, and later to Ron Paul's campaign.

The fact that he wasn't literally fired doesn't weaken my criticism here. He position became untenable because people decided that what he does with his own money (i.e. supporting the position, that FTR I think was wrong, held by a majority of Californians just six years ago) makes him unacceptable as the leader of a technology firm. The fact that he contributed to some right-wing Presidential campaigns, and that that's apparently unacceptable sacrilege, only furthers my point here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can understand it being a make or break issue for people if he were a candidate for political office or something. I don't know why the left is apparently okay with McCarthyism against people who, for whatever reason, oppose same-sex marriage when, again, there's no evidence whatsoever that his personal views would have any impact whatsoever on the policy of the company.

Where does this logically stop? Maybe McCain/Romney supporters should be automatically disqualified from running companies since they presumably support policies that hurt the working poor and oppose state-sponsored healthcare?

[Nhoj]

Probably a third of mozillas workforce would need to be fired if giving money to ron paul is a sin.

[Simfan34]

Oakvale is just totally right- I really cannot add anything he hasn't said. The intolerance of some for dissenting opinions is alarning.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Mozilla is essentially a non-profit dedicated to "doing good" in the Internet realm. The people who work there, by and large, do it because they believe in its mission. There are plenty of better places to work in the area if you're looking for a killer payday.

As a result, the company culture at Mozilla is very socially conscious -- even moreso than the rest of Silicon Valley. Eich's hiring was a severe and intolerable cut from most employee's moral paychecks.

Sure, those of us in the tech journo space got some solid clicks off the dispute, and OKCupid got some cheap publicity exploiting the issue. But at the end of the day, Mozilla's employees -- the rank and file -- found Eich's hiring as CEO to be counter to the Mozilla culture. Eich, for his part, showed absolutely no skill in mitigating the issue and proving that he was, in fact, part of the culture despite his support of Prop 8. He argued that employees had to respect his lack of tolerance as part of the organization's tolerance culture, and that lots of employees from the Indonesian branch were in agreement with him that gays need to be stopped from marrying. An internal revolt developed before an external one did, and the former was more damaging anyway. Eich had to go.

[Simfan34]

Mozilla has an Indonesian branch large enough to create an "internal split"?

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Mozilla has an Indonesian branch large enough to create an "internal split"?

No, the issue isn't that the Indonesian branch was aligned against the U.S. branch, it's that the U.S. branch was aligned against Eich. Eich was just using the Indonesian workers as cover -- in the "see, not everyone in the company disagrees with me" sense.

[AggregateDemand]

It's sad because we don't know why he supported Prop 8.

Some supporters were bigots who wanted to marginalize gays. Other supporters weren't convinced that an institution with centuries of ingrained heterosexual bias would work seamlessly for gays. Another faction was merely expressing their belief that marriage is a religious tenet and should be defined by the church.

People always assume the worst, and that's where the problems begin.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

That was all that had been dug up about him before he stood down. It was not good business sense for him to continue as the CEO of a company that has an entirely different ethos to the values that the CEO holds.

How do any of his known political views contradict those of Mozilla?  Mozilla has not been a particularly political organization.

[SteveRogers]

While I don't personally care enough about Eich's personal views to feel the need to take action against Mozilla (as opposed to a Chick-fil-a situation), I completely understand why many people would feel that way, and I support their right to publicly protest Mozilla in whatever way they see fit. Eich exercised his right to free speech by supporting Prop 8. People who disagreed with him exercised their right to free by publicly voicing their discontent and their disapproval of Mozilla for associating itself with him and making him Mozilla's public face. Mozilla employees also exercised free speech by expressing an opinion that the CEO's views clashed with the corporate culture and desired public image of Mozilla. At the end of the day everyone got to exercise their right to free speech, and the free market functioned just as the Pauls keep telling us it should.     

Eich wasn't "forced out" because he supported Republican candidates for president. He was publicly ridiculed because of one very specific view he publicly expressed: the view that a particular group of citizens should be discriminated against and denied equal rights by the state government. If you don't see why many people would feel offended enough by that stance to change their internet browser, then so be it. But understand that many people have good reason to react to Eich's views the same way they would react to racism. How long that's been the prevalent public view of homophobia is irrelevant.

 Tolerance means tolerating the right of terrible people to think and say terrible things, but it doesn't mean pretending that terrible people aren't terrible.

[Joe Republic]

That was all that had been dug up about him before he stood down. It was not good business sense for him to continue as the CEO of a company that has an entirely different ethos to the values that the CEO holds.

How do any of his known political views contradict those of Mozilla?  Mozilla has not been a particularly political organization.

That's right, it isn't.  That said, Eich was the only employee of Mozilla to donate to the pro-8 campaign.  Three other employees donated to the anti-8 campaign, which in fact more than canceled out Eich's contribution.

[7,052,770]

Oakvale is just totally right- I really cannot add anything he hasn't said. The intolerance of some for dissenting opinions is alarming.

Would you feel the same way if the CEO had donated to segregationist causes?

Remember, it's not the government who did this. This is pure free market, which Republicans worship when it's convenient.

[7,052,770]

It's sad because we don't know why he supported Prop 8.

Some supporters were bigots who wanted to marginalize gays. Other supporters weren't convinced that an institution with centuries of ingrained heterosexual bias would work seamlessly for gays. Another faction was merely expressing their belief that marriage is a religious tenet and should be defined by the church.

People always assume the worst, and that's where the problems begin.

It's sad because we don't know why _____ supported Jim Crow.

Some supporters were bigots who wanted to marginalize blacks. Other supporters weren't convinced that an institution with centuries of ingrained Caucasian bias would work seamlessly for blacks. Another faction was merely expressing their belief that racial equality or lack thereof is a religious tenet and should be defined by the church.

People always assume the worst, and that's where the problems begin.

[Sbane]

Honestly oakvale, I'm pro-marriage equality, but I agree with you. I don't agree that this is somehow a violation of the First Amendment (like some of this CEO's supporters are saying), but come on, he made a small donation to a bigoted cause. Would it be alright if a CEO of a different company was forced out if they donated to a pro-marriage equality or an environmental cause? I'm not going to yell "those who want tolerance are intolerant", but it seems distasteful somehow, since he hadn't really done anything since Prop 8 unlike say, Chick-Fil-A.

Yeah, I'm for gay marriage (if we must have marriage), but whipping up outrage against private citizens for expressing their personal political views is pretty disturbing - there's no suggestion that his personal views were going to affect policy at Mozilla in any way, yet heresy against mainstream liberalism must, apparently, be swiftly punished.

As Mozilla themselves announced, he wasn't 'pushed'; he quit. He lost the support of his own company and indeed, Eich only announced he was stepping down after it was revealed on Wednesday that he'd given money to Pat Buchanan's presidential campaign in 1992, and later to Ron Paul's campaign.

Given the ethos of Mozilla, it's staff and shareholders, Eich not only had a history of making a donation to reverse the rights of same sex couples to marry (which whether you like it or not is now a make or break issue for many people) he had also given donations to two of the most, how shall we put it, marginal Republican candidates of their respective campaigns.

That was all that had been dug up about him before he stood down. It was not good business sense for him to continue as the CEO of a company that has an entirely different ethos to the values that the CEO holds.

What is wrong with making a donation to Ron Paul?

[AggregateDemand]

It's sad because we don't know why _____ supported Jim Crow.

Some supporters were bigots who wanted to marginalize blacks. Other supporters weren't convinced that an institution with centuries of ingrained Caucasian bias would work seamlessly for blacks. Another faction was merely expressing their belief that racial equality or lack thereof is a religious tenet and should be defined by the church.

People always assume the worst, and that's where the problems begin.

Please stop with your penny-dreadful attempts at metaphor.

Marriage is a voluntary contract, not a immutable genetic characteristic. Homosexuals can be married (to members of the opposite sex), which further illustrates the abundant lack of bigotry from an intellectual standpoint. The problem is lack of relationship privileges for all unmarried individuals, not just homosexual couples.

If you want to make specious incendiary arguments, you'll need to find a forum for complete idiots.