Mozilla CEO forced out because of Prop 8 Donation

[bedstuy]

I understand that those who tried to pressure him out of the job justify it by saying that this is more than just a run of the mill political issue, it's about basic equality.  But OTOH, there are plenty of other political issues that are literally about life and death.  Why not investigate every CEO's political statements and political donations on abortion, capital punishment, drone warfare, the US intervention in Libya, etc., and then organize boycotts of the companies whose CEO has the incorrect position on one or more of those issues?

To me, the differences comes down to creating a tolerant work environment.  If the boss has some position that a group of employees do not deserve equal rights, it's just problematic.  If someone says women shouldn't be able to vote or black people shouldn't be able to serve on a jury, can they really effectively manage an organization including women and black folk?  As any kind of organization, you need some type of norms of respect for each individual.  There at some level is going to be a clash between a tolerant environment of gay people and tolerance of homophobic and intolerance.  Unlike political issues, these types of civil rights issues are always going to matter in the workplace.

The question to me is whether opposing SSM is so heinous and disruptive to a good workplace environment that this was merited.  I would say no.

[bedstuy]

To me, the differences comes down to creating a tolerant work environment.  If the boss has some position that a group of employees do not deserve equal rights, it's just problematic.

You can't jump to that conclusion for the same reason right-wingers cannot assume that proponents of government expansion are supporters of communism. The SSM debate is just modern day McCarthyism run amok.

The lack of Equal Protection in relationship contract law affects everyone who is not married. Gays are a tiny subset of the affected population, but Democrats exploit gays because they offer more political capital than other unmarried demographics.

I don't know what on earth you're talking about.  Unmarried people haven't decided to get married.  They may not have a serious, committed relationship or they may not want to get married.  That's totally different from gay people who cannot get married, even if they have a serious committed relationship and they want to get married.  It's about the equality of being allowed to get married at all.  No offense, but you're clearly being obtuse as an argumentative strategy.  There's no point in having this conversation if you're going to be willfully obtuse. 

I understand that those who tried to pressure him out of the job justify it by saying that this is more than just a run of the mill political issue, it's about basic equality.  But OTOH, there are plenty of other political issues that are literally about life and death.  Why not investigate every CEO's political statements and political donations on abortion, capital punishment, drone warfare, the US intervention in Libya, etc., and then organize boycotts of the companies whose CEO has the incorrect position on one or more of those issues?

To me, the differences comes down to creating a tolerant work environment.  If the boss has some position that a group of employees do not deserve equal rights, it's just problematic.  If someone says women shouldn't be able to vote or black people shouldn't be able to serve on a jury, can they really effectively manage an organization including women and black folk?  As any kind of organization, you need some type of norms of respect for each individual.  There at some level is going to be a clash between a tolerant environment of gay people and tolerance of homophobic and intolerance.  Unlike political issues, these types of civil rights issues are always going to matter in the workplace.

The question to me is whether opposing SSM is so heinous and disruptive to a good workplace environment that this was merited.  I would say no.

"Oh come on you gays, of course I'm a supporter of gay rights and all, but it's not THAT big of a deal you can't get married and can get fired for being gay! Just sit down, shut up, and wait for the level of support to become ~80-90% so we milquetoast straight people can finally hand you your civil rights."

That's not really my point.  I just think we need to value an open and honest debate where people can speak their mind openly, even when they say dumb things.  Will firing this guy convince anyone or advance the cause of gay rights?  I just think it will silence people, which can be good in a work environment, but generally isn't good in a public debate.  I would rather just have this guy embarrass himself and suffer the consequences of people seeing him in this negative way.  Ultimately, that's what happened, but I wouldn't actually fire him.  There are some beliefs where I do not extend that courtesy , like that homosexuality is immoral.  If someone said that, you couldn't really have them in your workplace or organization.

[bedstuy]

I don't know what on earth you're talking about.  Unmarried people haven't decided to get married.  They may not have a serious, committed relationship or they may not want to get married.  That's totally different from gay people who cannot get married, even if they have a serious committed relationship and they want to get married.  It's about the equality of being allowed to get married at all.  No offense, but you're clearly being obtuse as an argumentative strategy.  There's no point in having this conversation if you're going to be willfully obtuse.

I said lack of Equal Protection affects everyone who's not married. My statement was not a prompt for misguided rationalization of the virtues inherent to discriminating against people who don't want to be married.

If we cannot have a conversation, it's because you cannot understand the complexity of the issue.

Do you think people get married solely for more beneficial tax treatment?

[bedstuy]

I understand that those who tried to pressure him out of the job justify it by saying that this is more than just a run of the mill political issue, it's about basic equality.  But OTOH, there are plenty of other political issues that are literally about life and death.  Why not investigate every CEO's political statements and political donations on abortion, capital punishment, drone warfare, the US intervention in Libya, etc., and then organize boycotts of the companies whose CEO has the incorrect position on one or more of those issues?

To me, the differences comes down to creating a tolerant work environment.  If the boss has some position that a group of employees do not deserve equal rights, it's just problematic.  If someone says women shouldn't be able to vote or black people shouldn't be able to serve on a jury, can they really effectively manage an organization including women and black folk?  As any kind of organization, you need some type of norms of respect for each individual.  There at some level is going to be a clash between a tolerant environment of gay people and tolerance of homophobic and intolerance.  Unlike political issues, these types of civil rights issues are always going to matter in the workplace.

The question to me is whether opposing SSM is so heinous and disruptive to a good workplace environment that this was merited.  I would say no.

"Oh come on you gays, of course I'm a supporter of gay rights and all, but it's not THAT big of a deal you can't get married and can get fired for being gay! Just sit down, shut up, and wait for the level of support to become ~80-90% so we milquetoast straight people can finally hand you your civil rights."

Was there a single instance at all of Eich in all his years helping to build the company ever displaying personal intolerance or animosity toward any gay employees of the company?   

There's the support of Prop 8 in question.  I have no idea what else has been alleged or happened.

[bedstuy]

Do you think people get married solely for more beneficial tax treatment?

Do you think people who get married for love do not benefit from the tax treatment? or any of the other property/healthcare benefits?

So, unless we can find a way to get 100% of the population married, gay people can't get married.  Part of the advantage of marriage is sharing another person's life, which isn't something everyone wants or needs or can have at every moment of their life.  There's also disadvantages and responsibilities of marriage, along with potential massive headaches in a divorce.  And, maybe we should have less or no tax benefit for married couples, but that's no argument against gay marriage.