If Mozilla hires someone as figurehead/CEO who is incredibly divisive for any reason, and public outcry is sufficient to impair its actual mission, then they might have that CEO step down to avoid the firestorm.
Rather than becoming "the anti-gay rights company which courageously stood on its anti-gay rights principles".
Publishing Nazi tracts might be protected by the First Amendment, but you can't compel it to be protected from social disapproval.
Civil liberties. That's what all this is about. And he used his money to take civil liberties away from a group of people. That was a mistake. A costly one.
If he had funded some sort of anti-climate change thing then I'd guess there would be a similar sort of controversy. Although in that case, he would have been more ridiculed than anything else.
I'm disagreeing with Brendan on that opinion. That was $1000 - and I was thinking about donating an equivalent amount to the other cause before I learned I'm way too late. But having him step down? Now, we can have our - even good - corporations run by moral people - scratch that: by people whose most important virtue is morality. That could be good. Good for everybody. But I'm not so sure - so I'd hesitate to demand Brendan to step down.
Because he has quite a talent to be useful in other important places.
Or, alternatively - what would you think about my original question? Should we closely scrutinize executives on their beliefs across the whole spectrum? I suspect there are other important issues, besides LGBT opinions.
Cynically, it's about conforming to the views in your given industry, company, culture, or society.
The lofty way to put it is a Mozilla CEO should represent the organization's ideals of tolerance, diversity, etc.
The cynical way to put it is tribalism. Humans want people with similar beliefs around, because they are good, and believe the other side to be evil (this being one of the strongest issues). One way for ordinary people to enforce their political power is through means like this. There's no need to dress it up in terms of fundamental rights, bigotry, intolerance etc. And in the tech world, gay marriage is one of those "not OK's" to oppose. I'm sure in the Southern Baptist world, donating to Planned Parenthood, will immediately get you called for an ouster as a baby-killer. It's just that the climate in the tech world has already shifted to this point, whereas the climate in Brendan Eich's church probably has not.
It's really about what acceptable opinions. For some opinions, there are silent majorities in some areas, that are silenced in others. I'm just trying to come up with a way to understand this, that can be applied to all situations and all ideologies.
I think an opinion on gay marriage is a political view.
Additionally, I think a negative opinion on gay marriage is particularly contentious, as opposed to a view on environmental or immigration matters, because it could affects the rights of employees, and additionally it creates a toxic work environment for supporters of gay marriage.
Companies shouldn't stray into the realm of political opinion because their employees do not have homogenous political views.
1) "opinion on gay marriage is a political view"
2) "Companies shouldn't stray into the realm of political opinion because their employees do not have homogenous political views."
Employees may have - even strong - opinions against gay marriage. But they can't be homogenous?.. So they shouldn't be considered? Or being "particularly contentions (because)" makes them exempt?
Looks like a really complicated subject, don't you think?
Sorry but I have to agree with this. If the purpose of the role is to be the CEO of a company dedicated to open source software then his religion, personal beliefs, and his lifestyle choices should have no bearing on being a CEO. That includes both people who are for AND against gay marriage. We aren't supposed to discriminate on any front when hiring someone so what makes this different?
If he doesn't like gay marriage, he doesn't have to get gay married. But contributing a significant amount of money to take away that option from someone else is wrong. And to believe it's his right to take that option away is wrong.
I have a same-sex partner, Brendan is willing to work and make a real effort to take away our recognition. To unmarry our children's parents. To eliminate our shared benefits, and impair the other 1148 rights conferred by marriage.
I am not happy that my money and time might go towards his salary and to further empower his views, so it's a logical decision for me to boycott his company. Many others feel similarly.
To be fair, at any point he could have said "My views have evolved, and I no longer think it is my right to deny others marriage.". He chose not to.
Actually, in a free democracy, it is his right to go against others beliefs and to contribute campaign money to those who hold similar beliefs to himself. That's what makes this country so great.
What is different is (A) this is not a normal employee but the CEO who represents the company, (B) it is not about his personal beliefs or lifestyle choices but his public political behavior, (C) not every issue or belief is equally innocuous.
But really, (D) this caused a lot of scandal for Mozilla that runs contrary to its mission, and some internal scandal too. If it were chartered as a conservative political organization they could have laughed it off. but it's not Mozilla's purpose to play Moral Majority or Larry Flynt.
You tell me. He's out of a job because LOTS AND LOTS of people were seriously upset by his Prop 8 donation. You can decry this as the worst thing ever if you like, but it still happened and - and this is the important thing - was trivially predictable in advance, because they got a taste of it in 2012 when the donation first came to light (it reached international news coverage back then too).
So - given there's a pile of real-world data to reason from - what do you think made this different?
It's not hard to understand: replace the word "gay" with "black". Now do you see the problem?
Aside from that, much of the job of being a C-level executive is about perception and trust. People need to see you're a "good person" who is frictionlessly aligned with the company's public profile. Weird outliers, like denying gay people the right to get married, cause friction.
How about immigration opinion? Animal rights opinion? Climate change opinion? Political views?
- "Political views" is too vague to comment on.
- Immigration opinion is absolutely grounds for changing a CEO - it affects groups of people, potentially both employees and customers of any company. If the CEOs views affects them sufficiently negatively, this should surely be addressed?
- Animal rights - possibly , particularly if the company's role is animal-related.
- Climate change - as above.
All the above might not apply to a company / CEO that is not as directly "public-facing" as Mozilla, but generally for any company with a widespread reputation to uphold and an outspoken employee base, then absolutely any of the items you listed could be grounds for change.
I dunno. This seems to be an example of libertarian philosophy actually working. That is, public outcry produced a morality-motivated backlash prompting actual consequences.
That's how it's supposed to work, isn't it? If a widget-maker is a bigot, there's supposed to be a boycott while everyone moves over to his competitor so that the bigot goes out of business, right?
I agree that this shouldn't have been a controversy to begin with (though a conciliatory move in reaction to public outrage is hardly unreasonable), but isn't this a victory for libertarianism?
It is different, but it's not any less an injustice. One could even argue that it's worse in some sense.
Let me play the devil's advocate: an homosexual couple cannot conceive a child, so by giving then them the chance to adopt your somehow extending their natural rights. On the other hand restricting one's freedom of movement because one was born in the wrong country seems completely arbitrary.
Don't get me wrong, I fully support the struggle of homosexuals for equal rights, but why it's considered acceptable to maintain that non-citizens have less rights than citizens escapes me. It should be exposed as xenophobic behavior, exactly like campaigning against homosexual marriage is homophobic.
Rather than becoming "the anti-gay rights company which courageously stood on its anti-gay rights principles".
Publishing Nazi tracts might be protected by the First Amendment, but you can't compel it to be protected from social disapproval.