[Beliavsky]

From the article: "We have employees with a wide diversity of views. Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public."

Clearly people with socially conservative views are not welcome at Mozilla.

[_t5yy]

"any opinion is ok, as long as you're not conservative" I used to get this constantly in HS and now in college. This type of thinking is extremely toxic and I think can be very damaging for an institutions reputation. Mozilla is no longer about "openness" it's now about a much more generic liberal world view.

[dopamean]

I'm sure they don't literally mean any view is accepted. Should they keep a CEO who liked to throw around racial epithets because "that's his view and we're about openness?" By donating to an anti gay marriage group he was actively working against openness and they decided that they're not quite open enough to support that.

[_t5yy]

You're correct, nobody is suggesting that a clansman or a neo nazi run mozilla. That said, 34% of americans oppose SSM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marr...). 34% is a large minority, not a fringe element.

[kylemaxwell]

Bullshit. Any opinion is okay but if you are actively working to remove existing rights from other people, you can expect opprobrium. This applies especially when leading an organization with values like Mozilla's.

[_t5yy]

"Removing existing rights"? two years before that, this "right" never existed. For a right to be enshrined it has to survive, a majority of californians voted to approve prop 8...

[hackinthebochs]

>but if you are actively working to remove existing rights from other people

How is opposing redefining marriage (in the context of law) working to remove existing rights of people? Its framed in terms of removing rights/civil rights because it suits the cause. But this characterization is not supported by a dispassionate reading of the issue here.

[wpietri]

Untrue. If you read Judge Walker's decision against Prop 8, or the recent judgment against the Michigan Marriage Amendment, you'll see that both Prop 8 and the MMA failed because they violate the 14th Amendment's grant of equal protection: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

In particular, both Prop 8 and the MMA failed to meet the Rational Basis test: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review

That is, both courts found that there was no rational basis for keeping gay people from getting married. The rationales offered by proponents didn't measure up.

[fakeanon]

>All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Proposition 8: Section I. Title

        This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act."

    Section 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution, to read:

        Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Which part of this denies equal protection to someone under the laws?

[wpietri]

The part where gay people are treated as not as good as straight people. The state has a legitimate interest in promoting marriage. Basically, because families. If you want to exclude gay people from that, you can't just presume they're inferior. You have to demonstrate it.

[oberto]

Untrue. Courts have also upheld many Prop 8-like measures in other states - see Nebraska's Initative 216, which the Eighth Circuit ruled was acceptable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_for_Equal_Protection_v...). So the courts disagree, and you cannot simply cherry-pick the "right" cases where the preferred side wins, to say that courts (who are always right) support you.

And ultimately, the courts are decided by majority vote, by being appointed by politicians that citizens vote for. A Supreme Court in Russia may find a rational basis for opposing gay marriage, and then write that in an opinion.

[wpietri]

As far as I know, no recent court has found that there is a rational basis for anti-gay-marriage laws. The Nebraska decision hauled up a 1972 decision, back before much of the science was in. And the entire point of Prop 8 in specific was to strip a right from gay people by amending the CA State Constitution, so I'm going to stand by my assertion that marriage redefinition is not what's going on here. Indeed, it's Prop 8 that explicitly redefined marriage here.

[hackinthebochs]

I voted for gay marriage in the last election in my state, but honestly that rationale seems extremely strained. Yes, government has a legitimate interest in defining marriage as it confers certain benefits to certain people. The "rational basis" test should not be one that questions the validity of the exclusions/inclusions within the law, but rather if the government has a legitimate interest in law in question. It should not have been the burden of the proponents to prove that the government had a rational basis for excluding gays from marriage.

[wpietri]

If you think that's the case, then work to appeal the 14th amendment, which grants all people, including gay and lesbian ones, equal protection before the law.

Seriously, go and read the decision on Prop 8, or the recent one on the Michigan Marriage Amendment. Both are clear and readable explanations of why gay people start out equal, and if you want to make laws against them, you have to prove that there's a rational basis for the state to do so.

[TheCoelacanth]

Gay marriage was legal in California until Prop 8, so Prop 8 removed some people's right to marry.

[clavalle]

Rights are not granted.

Laws merely define approach to Rights.

[hackinthebochs]

I don't believe in natural rights. I believe all rights worth writing down are granted.

[clavalle]

That suggests some authority is granting your Rights.

What authority would that be?

[chrisdevereux]

Any opinion is ok as long as you don't support slavery. There is always a range of opinions that people consider acceptable.

[bmj]

The issue here is that one side believes this is a civil rights issue, while the other side believes this to be a cultural issue. For the former, this is about repression, but for the latter it is about the moral fabric of culture. The latter is considered a political issue (like, say, prohibition), but the former is about human rights, which many believe raises the issue about the level of "mere" politics.

[jroseattle]

> people with socially conservative views

The fallacy of this statement is that it conflates a citizen's unilateral restriction of freedom on another citizen as a "view".

Don't fall for the argument due to soft labeling of what amounts to anything but equality.

[pkulak]

Actions bother me, not beliefs. And this guy donated $1000 to help hurt other people. That makes me angry, and it makes me not like any corporation he's head of. When that corporation cares what its customers think of them, they'll make a change in leadership. I don't know why everyone is making more of this than it is.

[bluthru]

This is classic "Stop oppressing my oppression!"

If you don't want to be treated differently for treating people differently, you can't treat people differently.

[devindotcom]

You know what, maybe they're not. Having a philosophy of progressivism is a valid policy, and as long as you're not denying someone a job specifically because of their race, creed, party, skin color, disability, etc, it's fine. In this case, the man appears to be an unrepentant bigot whose ideas are not in line with much of the company.

[vidarh]

Do you have any evidence of that? There's a wide gap between "ordinary employees", and a CEO position that includes responsibility for diversity and ensuring a workplace free of discrimination, as well as the public perception of the organization.

There are many views that can easily be reconciled with other roles that are very hard to reconcile with those responsibilities.

[jakejake]

There is a touch of irony in being inclusive. You can't allow people who have exclusive views into your group!

[danudey]

People with socially-conservative views are one thing. People who've donated significant cash sums to remove rights from a small percentage of the population for no practical reason is not a 'socially-conservative view', it's a discriminatory action.

[aray]

I think Eich as the CTO directly refutes that statement. It's not even clear whether he's just going back to being CTO, or leaving entirely.

[lnlyplnt]

it was fine as long as nobody noticed. They didn't stick to their guns once he was at the top.

[Aloisius]

You can have socially conservative views. You cross a line when you actively engage in oppressing other people because of your views.

[mjburgess]

Throughout this saga, and with religiously motivated bigotry in general there has been a politicization of the language and the issue as though it were not a moral concern, merely something a "social conservative" and a "social liberal" can disagree about with mutual tolerance.

This isnt whether taxation is 38% or 35% this is whether people of a different sexual orientation are to be treated as people. I have very little patience with spineless calls for "respect" for those who which to preserve institutional disrespect.

Tolerance is over-rated and has done very little for any one.