[DanielStraight]

Brendan Eich has now publicly committed to...

1. Include LGBT individuals in making decisions regarding discrimination and inclusivity.

2. Continue health benefits for same-sex partners.

3. Uphold anti-discrimination policies.

4. Create new initiatives to reach out to those who feel marginalized.

5. Support an initialize for bringing under-represented people (including LGBT individuals) into tech.

And apparently he is committing to all these things despite holding a personal belief that marriage should be restricted to heterosexual couples.

I admit my perspective on this may be limited due to being a white, heterosexual male, but...

Why is having Brendan Eich's personal approval more important than having his support? Why does it matter what he believes internally if all his external actions are supportive?

We use products and services from numerous tech companies every day, never even asking how their CEOs feel about LGBT issues or what actions they take to be inclusive. But now people are upset because one of the few CEOs to make such a strong public statement of support for LGBT issues (I can't think of another one who has even made any statement at all) doesn't personally support homosexual marriages? It's bizarre. Why is silence (from other CEOs) better than a stated willingness to support people even if he disagrees with what they are doing personally?

[ebiester]

It's not logical -- and none of it pretend it is.

All I can say is that when one grows up having been physically, emotionally, verbally, and spiritually harassed for a greater part of one's life, these little things end up bringing up the whole ball of shit.

It short circuits logic, but it's a common human trait. Some Jewish people still won't buy Volkswagon cars, for example, and I remember hearing WWII Veterans who wouldn't buy anything from Japan.

Pain has a long, long memory.

[DanielStraight]

This is an argument I can understand. Thank you.

[rogerbinns]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of...

> According to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are 1,138 statutory provisions[1] in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. These rights were a key issue in the debate over federal recognition of same-sex marriage.

For 2012 he proactively spent good money to ensure LGBT should not get those benefits, rights and privileges. That is why people are upset with this and find it hard to let it slide or be a personal matter.

[cpeterso]

Prop 8 was in 2008, not 2012.

[rogerbinns]

My mistake and too late to edit now. Thanks for the correction.

[m0a0t0]

Because he actively went out to limit peoples rights. Those who are silent on the matter are not actively harming LGBT people and I think it would be known if the companies were not inclusive.

In the world of businesses (and even Mozilla) it's generally wise not to take people at face value and let their actions do their talking. So far the only action is a negative and so he is judged in the way he is.

I would also note that he does not really offer an apology for his actions, only "sorrow at having caused pain" which sounds like the bare minimum he could get away with

[macu]

> So far the only action is a negative

It's not his only action, although it may be the only action people are interested in, or the only action that we remember because it has drawn so much attention. I would be interested in a more comprehensive history of Brendan's life.