[nobbyclark]

Ummm... so what does gay marriage have to do with browsing the web? FAIL

[jhuckabee]

Building a web browser requires that you employee people, some of whom may be gay. Alienating that entire group of people, and the majority of others who support them, can certainly put a damper on their motivation to keep that browser pushing along at full speed.

Definitely not FAIL, this is a big win for Mozilla and civil rights.

[davidgerard]

And ... the users. They thought they had the company swung; but there were boycotts and actually-disgusted end users happening.

[mjudge260]

it reflects an attitude that company executives have towards their employees. Companies should respect the reality that their employees do not have homogenous political views.

[joelrunyon]

It didn't sound like he expected anyone at Mozilla to have his viewpoints.

He made a private donation privately, 6 years ago.

[daveqr]

Which we only know of because someone leaked the information to a pro-gay marriage group illegally.

[davidgerard]

No, we know it because it was a political donation that had to be recorded publicly by law, with the name of his employer.

Where did you get this claim that "someone leaked the information to a pro-gay marriage group illegally"?

[davidgerard]

No, he made a public donation publicly, the public bit being required by law.

[joelrunyon]

You make it sound like he held a press conference. All donations are public by law, sure, but he made the donation as a private citizen.

[mjudge260]

I don't see how reciting a companies commercial objectives can aid your argument. FAIL