Brendan Eich Javascript creator to Mozilla foundation

[whatthefunk]

I think people are entitled to have their own opinion. Even CEO's. But.
Eich did not only have an opinion, he supported people who want to enforce their opinion on others. If you are against gay marriage, you shouldn't marry a gay, but why forbid other people to marry a gay?
A CEO is more or less the 'face' of a company. If you want to have such strong opinions about gay/lesbian rights, you can't be the CEO of a company like Mozilla. Mozilla is supposed to be in favor of things like freedom. If Russia (or any other country) starts to censor gay sites, how can I trust Mozilla (Firefox) will help to remove that censorship, when the CEO is so strong against equal rights for gay/lesbian people?
As some technical director, his former function, he's not the face of the company. As CEO he is.
If I support freedom of hunting deers in my 'personal time', in my profession I can't be CEO of some animal protection organization.

Having an opinion often means that you are against other opinions and try to make your opinion law. If all laws that forced opinion on others were erased from the law, there would be no laws. Laws are basically restrictions on freedoms. America is unusual in that they complain th most about freedoms but also have more laws than just about anywhere. So if someone has an opinion and fights for that opinion, isnt this normal? If nobody fought for their opinions what kind of world would we live in?

[smeghead]

I think people are entitled to have their own opinion. Even CEO's. But.

But = Everything i said before this word is now invalid.

Eich did not only have an opinion, he supported people who want to enforce their opinion on others.

No, he supported the retention of the societal norm against people who wanted to change it. Because they decided they had a human right to a idea that had never been accepted before even in societys more open to homosexuality, ancient Greece & Rome for example, than the USA.

As some technical director, his former function

He created Javascript. not just some insignificant geek.

Mozilla is supposed to be in favor of things like freedom.

Does not Freedom also mean he can think what he wants?

how can I trust Mozilla (Firefox) will help to remove that censorship

It's open source. write a add on to do that.

when the CEO is so strong against equal rights for gay/lesbian people?

It's a new right.

So we are clear here. If you want to be homosexual, go ahead. I'm a Christian. I believe it is a sin. so is Adultry and any other sex outside the bounds of marriage which is between a man and a woman. If you're not a Christian i don't expect you to behave as one.

So, we come to the state and what is equal before its eyes. IMO the state should be out of the marriage business. all the contracts should be a civil contract issued by the state. Marriage is a religous institution the government has no right to mess with. All current marriages should devolve, for lack of a better word, to civil unions. Religous clergy would be striped of the power to perform civil unions.

It keeps the government out of the bedroom and the pulpit.

My 2 cents

[oshunluvr]

IMO the state should be out of the marriage business. all the contracts should be a civil contract issued by the state. Marriage is a religous institution the government has no right to mess with. All current marriages should devolve, for lack of a better word, to civil unions. Religous clergy would be striped of the power to perform civil unions.

I totally agree. Not allowing gays to "marry" strips them of the right to a different tax structure, medical decision making, inheritance benefits, etc. Structural inequality in our government should be unacceptable to everyone. Civil unions make much more sense for all sides of the debate. The religious and secular arguments can end and the government can remove another obstacle to equality.

[Goeroeboeroe]

I don't think it has much to do with Mozilla placed in San Francisco. Here in The Netherlands there was a big discussion - also in mainstream papers, not only on tech boards - about this too. (Of course some people might see The Netherlands as one big San Francisco, grin.)
For me it's still pretty simple. He has the right to have his opinion. But if you start to promote that opinion the way he did, you just can't be the CEO of a firm that does the opposite. As I said before: if you hunt deers, you can't be the head of an animal protection organization.
I know he invented JavaScript, but his former job in Mozilla was being some technical director. In that position there was no problem, he was not the public face of Mozilla. As CEO he is.

[MoonRise]

Interesting thread here. Some many different views but also so many commonalities. Will state just one thought here. Separation of Church and State. What happened to that?

[Qqmike]

Will just state one thought here. I'm intolerant of intolerance. ;-)
(CAUTION: I am, you know, a mathematician in-drag.)

[oshunluvr]

Will just state one thought here. I'm intolerant of intolerance. ;-)
(CAUTION: I am, you know, a mathematician in-drag.)

Yes, but can you also tolerate tolerance?

[Qqmike]

So, you are asking if I can tolerate those who tolerate being intolerant of certain socio-subgroups ...

[charles052]

I think I agree with most here, that a CEO of a prominent business should not be so outspoken and expect to keep his job. I'm a Christian and believe that homosexuality of a sin and a choice, but if I were a CEO, I'd definitely keep that under wraps from the public eye. Mind you, I wouldn't dare try to condemn others or try to make the law enforce my beliefs as this guy did (in a manner of speaking), I'd just respectively say what I think and move on. As Christians, we're supposed to be doing good in this world, and going around condemning others isn't good.

[claydoh]

Church and state have nothing to do with this, really, I think. And by all accounts, he never has been outspoken on his view at all.

Mr. Eich had been with Mozilla corp and Mozilla foundation since the beginning. Paces known for inclusion and welcoming as part of its culture. The board selected him for the position, even after the reveal of his donation. I guess those things doesn't mean much. Unless there are actual accounts of his views being factors in any decisions or policies, I am still holding to this being an internal political maneuver, for the most part.

I say "for the most part" because there a few other factors that add up to the stinky mess:
Mozilla's choosing him, and not realizing that there would be at least a minor backlash from some segments of the LGBT community (so-called gay mafia)

Eich's tepid public response, though to be honest, anything he said in any way would have been more fuel in the fire (lose-lose situation)

The headline-grabbing media outlets and blogosphere doing its job well. The initial firestorm, as far as I can see, came from the periphery, and not in large numbers, if one believes any of the reports that actually tried to look at the situation without bias. (is it even possible to filter or trust anything these days?)


It is very difficult to express anything even slightly outside of the accepted norms in many venues these days without being shouted down as a homophobic sexist racist right-wing evangelical.






(Damn, I am breaking my own rule about posting on this sh*t)

[Goeroeboeroe]

I don't understand why people find it so difficult to see the difference between a CEO and 'just somebody', when it comes to the public face of an organization.
Above charles052 says he sees homosexuality as a sin. I completely disagree, but I have not the slightest problem with him/her writing this here. But I would have a problem with him/her being CEO of some company that's supposed to support equal rights etc. for everybody.
Personally I think every kind of marriage is a very weird phenomenon, but if you have a hetero marriage, than you should also have gay etc. marriage.
With my views I would be completely implausible as CEO of some kind of religious organization that's against gay marriage. That would be the same thing, but opposite.
There was an environmental protection organization I was a member of. That organization was against some big project. The press woman of that organization then became a city council member for a party that was in favor of that same project. For me a reason to stop my membership. One person, two completely opposite views? Impossible for me to trust somebody like that. or the organization that has someone like that as public face .
What I mean to say: for me this has nothing to do with the subject of gay marriage, but with a CEO in private actively promoting views that are radically opposite to what he's supposed to promote in his job. I would have exactly the same problem if he had actively promoted closed software as a private person.

[whatthefunk]

But I would have a problem with him/her being CEO of some company that's supposed to support equal rights etc. for everybody.

Since when is Mozilla about anything but promoting free software and internet freedoms? I just read through the Mozilla Manifesto and I read nothing about equal rights.

[dequire]

and not realizing that there would be at least a minor backlash from some segments of the LGBT community (so-called gay mafia)

...bingo. Hell hath no fury like a politically-correct activist.

[Goeroeboeroe]

@whattefunk: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Code_of_Conduct/Draft
It's still a draft, but the chance that it changes a lot before becoming final is very small. This code is for 'community members', but the CEO of the company itself certainly is a community member.
Especially the second part 'Mozilla Leadership Code of Conduct' is interesting.

[whatthefunk]

@whattefunk: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Code_of_Conduct/Draft
It's still a draft, but the chance that it changes a lot before becoming final is very small. This code is for 'community members', but the CEO of the company itself certainly is a community member.
Especially the second part 'Mozilla Leadership Code of Conduct' is interesting.

I see nothing in there saying that a leader cant have, many years ago, expressed an opinion.