[Zikes]

The reaction is disproportionate to his contribution, though. His donation was quite small, and at no point did he use his status as a public figure to speak out in favor of Prop 8.

What he did was wrong, but it was not enough for us to prop him up as a sacrificial lamb in the name of equality. It would serve no common good, bringing us no closer to repealing the law, but could lead to consequences for Brendan far worse than any well-meaning blogger could conceivably intend.

Let us instead work to change his moral stance, whether by argument or by example. If tomorrow Brendan Eich were to say - and genuinely believe - that marriage is just as much a right for gays as it is for heterosexuals, then that would be a victory far sweeter than punishing him for having once believed wrongly.

[SerpentJoe]

Sacrificial lamb, what are you talking about? What kind of sacrifice would it have been for Eich to not become CEO of Mozilla? I already make that sacrifice every day.

So many commenters want to make it all about what a small donation it was, or about Brendan Eich's right to support the causes of his choice. Of course he has that right, but consider the classic analogy for this issue: if the CTO of a company made a small donation toward banning interracial marriage, how would you feel about that company? How about if that person were then promoted to CEO? I can only speak for myself but my answers are "not great" and "disgusted", respectively.

What's important here is not Brendan Eich's right to hold whatever position he wants and simultaneously whatever job he wants. He came out against equality, and Mozilla knew it, and promoted him, and specifically promoted him to CEO. This is how they weigh their priorities. If you think that marriage equality matters then you should think that this decision matters.

[strongsauce]

> The reaction is disproportionate to his contribution, though. His donation was quite small, and at no point did he use his status as a public figure to speak out in favor of Prop 8.

What difference does donating 10cents vs $10,000 to a cause make? By donating you are supporting the bill/policy/action.

> What he did was wrong, but it was not enough for us to prop him up as a sacrificial lamb in the name of equality. It would serve no common good, bringing us no closer to repealing the law, but could lead to consequences for Brendan far worse than any well-meaning blogger could conceivably intend.

The law was already struck down as unconstitutional. But it took 5 years to do so.

> Let us instead work to change his moral stance, whether by argument or by example. If tomorrow Brendan Eich were to say - and genuinely believe - that marriage is just as much a right for gays as it is for heterosexuals, then that would be a victory far sweeter than punishing him for having once believed wrongly.

I think there is some anger over how Brendan Eich responded; which is not directly admitting to anything.

I don't know if I would ask for his resignation, but he still hasn't addressed this very well. The problem seems to be that he refuses to address his stance on it. So you can't very well work with him when he doesn't even admit to donating the money, nor admit to believing that gays should not marry.

[DatBear]

>I think there is some anger over how Brendan Eich responded; which is not directly admitting to anything.

There's nothing to admit though, he didn't commit a crime, he gave money to an organization. What is there to admit?

[pbreit]

The fact that his donation was so small makes it much worse in my opinion. That indicates that the primary intent was to make a public, symbolic statement on the matter. Or he completely whiffed at thinking through the implications of his action. Both are pretty bad for someone wanting to be CEO of Mozilla. IMO.

[tzs]

> The fact that his donation was so small makes it much worse in my opinion. That indicates that the primary intent was to make a public, symbolic statement on the matter.

Making a donation is a pretty ridiculous way to try to make a public, symbolic statement on the matter. It relies on someone taking advantage of the election disclosure laws to get a list of donors, then going over the list of donors, then picking him out of the list of thousands of donors, and then calling public attention to that.

He's not the Robot Devil. If he wanted to make a public, symbolic statement on the matter, wouldn't he simply tweet, or use Facebook, or blog about it?

[pbreit]

Yeah, you're right. Really bizarre move by him given the makeup of Bay Area tech.

[DatBear]

Garnering the intent through no actual evidence... wonder how it would be if he had made a bigger donation - worse that way as well?