[intslack]

>had Eich been a white supremacist

In this first part, you equate white supremacists with what I assume would be "homophobic bigots," implying that there's concrete evidence of Eich being such a "homophobic bigot." When there's not.

[Patrick_Devine]

... other than giving $1,000 to support Prop 8 and denying people the right to get married.

[intslack]

That's not concrete evidence, sorry. Your logic is faulty:

1) You're equating his monetary support for Prop 8 as evidence of homophobic bigotry, which by itself it is not.

It's quite obvious that Eich is deeply religious: the herd mentality in those circles is that because same-sex couples can’t produce biological children together, they shouldn't be recognized as marriages.

This is rational if you see the institution of marriage as a state-recognized union between that's only between a man and a woman, which has long social and cultural roots. The same can not be said for bans on interracial marriages which are just backed by racism, and not objective facts.

Ultimately, assuming that these are Eich's views (which is very likely,) they are ignorant because they focus too much on sex and too little on the idea of commitment and love.

What they aren't: grounds for throwing around labels like "homophobic bigot," as there are many who empathize with those who are discriminated against, abused, disowned, lynched and executed because of their expression of gender identity. They see nothing wrong with homosexuals, but rather take issue with marriage as an institution being redefined.

Haven't seen any evidence that Eich opposes civil partnerships. I want nothing to do with marriage personally and would much rather a civil partnership for my relationship, but dissolving the state-recognized institution of marriage completely is very messy.

So redefining marriage is the best choice, lest we have separate but equal legal frameworks: marriages for heterosexual couples and civil unions for homosexual couples as well as heterosexual couples who want nothing to do with marriage but want the benefits it brings.

2) You're comparing Eich to the KKK which executed thousands of people, which is a disgusting comparison but you may just be historically ignorant.

Eich was pressured to resign just because he wouldn't parrot empty words about how he's "evolved" on the issue in the court of public opinion, like President Obama has.

And we're worse off for it, because he was the most qualified to lead Mozilla.

[zimpenfish]

He may have been the most technically qualified to lead Mozilla but he's definitely lacking in, most obviously, PR and shitstorm handling.

[Patrick_Devine]

Actually, if you read back through the comments, you were the person who used the term "homophobic bigot", and nowhere did I equate Eich to being a white supremacist or part of the KKK. I used it as an example for how people would react given the KKK's stance on human rights.

Our first amendment rights in this county give us the freedom of speech, but they also give us the freedom of religion. And, by extension, the freedom from religion. Eich's personal views on gay marriage shouldn't trump the rights of anyone else, and him donating to a cause which denies people their rights seriously calls into question his judgement and whether he is fit to be the leader of an organization which espouses liberal ideals.

I'll give you another analogy. If Prop 8 were to deny the rights of black people getting married, and Eich had donated $1,000 to support it, would you still feel the same way?

[intslack]

I asked you if you were equating Eich with homophobic bigots, and you confirmed that you did.

And no, I wouldn't feel the same way. As I said in that post, there's no biological basis or objective fact for refusing to accept interracial marriages. They're only justified by racism. There is however, a biological reason that Eich and others might not accept same-sex marriages.

It's a rational, yet very ignorant view. The point is that opposing same-sex marriage is definitely not the same when you do a direct comparison to interracial marriage bans.

Either way: the damage is done, the bridges were burned, and it's clear that you're among those who just want to be outraged about this group of people's ignorance instead of reaching out to them and striving for dialog, so there's no point in having this conversation.