[bluntly_said]

I find the entire Eich scandal disheartening. A man lost his job (one he was undoubtedly qualified for) because people find it easier to heap hatred on someone they've never met, than to act with dignity and respect.

We have some serious issues in this country, and our inability to compromise or respect a person we don't agree with is frightening. Life is filled with shades of grey, compromise is not "that nice thing your kindergarten teacher told you about" it's a critical aspect of a functioning democracy. One we seem to be losing.

[Karunamon]

>because people find it easier to heap hatred on someone they've never met, than to act with dignity and respect.

Turn it around. Eich found it easier to treat millions of people he's never met as second class citizens, than to act with dignity and respect.

There are two sides to this story, and you seem to be very eager to tell the one and handwave the other for a "why can't we all just get along" platitude.

[briantakita]

> There are two sides to this story, and you seem to be very eager to tell the one and handwave the other for a "why can't we all just get along" platitude.

We should treat people with respect. Not create a sensationalist backlash. Not punish people for having their opinions & being politically active on a gray area.

Most of all, a rational discourse should take place. Not these sensationalist headlines that are designed to manipulate people's unnuanced emotions.

[Karunamon]

I'd say a fundamental portion of respect is not encoding your personal beliefs of other people's personal lives into law.

If you want to make the purely numeric argument, Eich's behavior impacted a hell of a lot more people than the backlash did.

[briantakita]

> Eich's behavior impacted a hell of a lot more people than the backlash did

The backlash affects everybody. It creates a hostile environment where your opinion can cost you your job. That coupled with ever growing levels of transparency means everybody needs to have a politically correct opinion or face consequences.

The ends do not justify the means.

Also, what does firing Eich achieve for the gay rights movement? Nothing. This is revenge politics. This is the dark side.

As Ghandi said: "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind".

[Karunamon]

>It creates a hostile environment where your opinion can cost you your job.

It would probably already cost you your job to publicly declare (let alone financially support) similar non-equality views of both blacks and women. Why is this so much worse?

Oh no, one more particular flavor of bigotry becomes socially unacceptable. However will I cope. </sarcasm>

>Also, what does firing Eich achieve for the gay rights movement?

An object lession that being bigoted against LGBTs is just as unacceptable and repugnant as being bigoted against blacks or women. Regardless of your position in life. A double standard that I, for one, am glad we are reversing.

[anonbanker]

I'd say the lesson is that, Despite evidence of overwhelming hypocricy amongst one of the biggest and most vocal supporters, LGBTQ's in the valley will form a mob and start boycotts that prove to be just as damaging and counter-productive as anything the conservatives and white power idiots can do.

Another lesson is that if I started a company in the Silicon Valley, released a combination AIDS/Cancer vaccine for free, and used the South Park Redefinition of "Faggot" (referring to insensitive harley motorcycle riders), I would destroy my company and people would boycott the cure for AIDS and Cancer.

Another lesson is that Silicon Valley is just as socially intolerant as Utah, but like most geographically-distinct cases of bigotry, the "lower class" is different. in Mississippi, it's African American crack users. in SV's case, it's anyone not 100% in-step with GLAAD. one is no better than the other.

(disclosure: I'm an lgBtq that thinks that marriage should not be a government institution. if you want tax breaks, incorporate.)

[briantakita]

Eich said he supported equality. He supported taking care of domestic partners. If you have issue with his "support" then have a respectful dialog. If he is wrong, then that will become obvious. Instead, the movement acted like a bully & does not have the moral high ground anymore.

You are conflating the state not recognizing gay marriage with a human rights issue. Not everyone agrees. Besides, the notion of marriage enforces the status quo of monogamy. I think Polyamory should also be recognized with equal benefits. Or better yet, all people should receive the benefits of a married person.

While I agree that there are equality issues with banning gay marriage, I don't think it's a human rights issue. For example, I'm single. Is it a human rights issue that I don't receive the tax benefits of being married? It's unfair, but I wouldn't say my human rights are being violated.

Support for Prop 8 doesn't necessarily mean that person is a bigot. This labeling is irrational & meant to stir up hatred. There are different reasons to support Prop 8. It's a cultural battle. However, ostracizing is a type of bullying. That behavior is wrong & needs to be called out.

I hope we can be respectful toward each other. It was not that long ago where gay rights activists were in the minority and treated with disrespect. We have an opportunity to have a more tolerant society. Let's not miss this opportunity.

[crassus]

There needs to be a Godwin's corollary for invoking racism about discussion of issues not involving racism at all. If you can't reason about a political issue without comparing your opponents to Hitler or slave owners, then you probably have a terrible opinion.

[dubfan]

> I'd say a fundamental portion of respect is not encoding your personal beliefs of other people's personal lives into law.

I keep seeing this line from gay marriage supporters. I always have to ask, what exactly is the pro-gay-marriage movement about then? It sounds to me like it's exactly what you're describing here.

Disclaimer: I support same-sex marriage.

[Karunamon]

There's a fundamental difference between recognizing that what people do with their lives is their business, and attempting to force them to stop through legislative fiat.

Nobody's forcing you to do or not do anything by allowing marriage equality. The same cannot be said of its opponents.

[dubfan]

See, the anti-gay-marriage crowd doesn't see it that way. Marriage has historically been a religious ceremony, and by legalizing gay marriage we're codifying what opponents view as an assault on their deeply-held religious beliefs. You might say they are wrong, and you're entitled to say that in our free society. Where my problem comes in is when we try to stamp out any opposing view with the trump card of "bigotry". It's a very strong label that kills any meaningful dialogue.

There seems to be this sect of the American left that prescribes that everyone follow the left-wing cultural viewpoint, while claiming to be inclusive and diverse. The cognitive dissonance is palpable.

[baddox]

There's a fundamental difference between supporting the government's authority in the realm of marriage, and supporting the government's authority to ban homosexuality itself. One can, for example, easily oppose laws which ban homosexual cohabitation, while also opposing government having any role in marriage.

[baddox]

> I'd say a fundamental portion of respect is not encoding your personal beliefs of other people's personal lives into law.

I fully believe that claim, but that's because I'm a crazy anarchist. If you're not a crazy anarchist, then you probably don't fully believe that claim.

[waterlesscloud]

And yet elsewhere in this thread you're saying a man who literally made laws negatively affecting gays should be able to keep his job because hey, the economy.

There's some serious cognitive dissonance here.

[Karunamon]

If you'd stop willfully misinterpreting my posts, you'd know that was not what I was saying at all. The whole point there was that certain things are more important than other things at certain times.

And I did say five years ago, which you conveniently omitted from your little summary here.

I am not a single issue voter.

[waterlesscloud]

But you're single issue on Eich. Who wasn't actually making laws against same sex marriage, but instead made open source software that improved the world.

[bluntly_said]

The other side of this coin is that marriage has religious significance to many people, and by forcing the definition to change, pro-gay rights groups are also codifying personal belief into law.

Both sides fucked it up. The only proper response should have been to remove all legal rights associated with marriage, and force all couples to get a civil union. Tax that instead. Churches are welcome to marry people all they desire (on both sides, gay or straight as they please according to their beliefs)

[Karunamon]

>religious significance to many people, and by forcing the definition to change, pro-gay rights groups are also codifying personal belief into law.

The establishment clause to the constitution says that religious beliefs do not get to be encoded in law. And considering I have not seen one single anti-equality argument that wasn't either religiously motivated or a gigantic mass of "appeal to tradition" fallacies, I suggest the "anti" side move to a different country where theocracy is an accepted form or government. Because this isn't one.

> The only proper response should have been to remove all legal rights associated with marriage, and force all couples to get a civil union. Tax that instead.

I'd be okay with this, but it's not a change that happens overnight. There are too many things.. insurance benefits, tax benefits, inheritances, visitation rights, etc. associated with the spousal relationship. Those will take some time to work through. In the mean time, this is a suitable band-aid.

[bluntly_said]

There already was a suitable band-aid, it was called domestic partnerships, and had the full legal rights of marriage in California.

Co-opting the word marriage in law, rather than asking for it to be removed was actively choosing to force religions to accept your personal beliefs.

That's bullying.

--

That said, I generally fall much closer on the scale to you than to the supporters of prop 8, but you have to be able to recognize and draw a line as to where your rights end. Attacking a personal donation made as part of a democratic process is not something I can condone. Particularly when the end result cost a man his job.

[AlexMax]

Sorry, but I find it incredulous that the only reason that some folks are unwilling to give LGBT folks the right to marry is because of what the state happens to call the practice.

[baddox]

Why is that hard to believe? A lot of people demonstrably oppose calling it marriage, even when homosexual couples already have the same legal rights and benefits as heterosexual couples.

[bluntly_said]

I think the issue is that as long as the state endows rights to religious practice (marriage) there is a problem.

If the state only gave rights and taxed civil unions, the churches cannot, by definition, control if other people get married. All they'd need to do is find a church willing to marry them, or start their own.

To quote from another of my posts: --- I think once the legal implications are removed, churches would lose their control over the word by default. It doesn't have meaning outside of the church at that point, and the government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" So if gay people wanted to get married, no one could stop them.

[ufmace]

I agree with this point of view, and have always been a bit skeptical of the gay marriage movement because of it. But on the other side, it sounds like Prop 8 is the exact opposite of what we're talking about - a measure to codify the definition of marriage and define it as exclusively heterosexual into the constitution. I can't think of any decent reason to support it.

[bane]

Treating people with respect also means holding their opinions up to a respectable standard. There are some opinions that are disrespectable that otherwise good people harbor. Because you respect them, those opinions are even less tolerable.

[anonbanker]

and yet, all these testimonials came out from LGBTQ*'s working at Mozilla, with Brenden Eich, saying that he treated them as equals.

Perhaps you could elaborate on when Eich said they were second-class citizens. you know, so you aren't accused of putting words in someone's mouth.

[seertaak]

As Karunamon states, no more evidence is needed than his financial support for a bigoted law, and his subsequent failure to rescind this support.

It's kind of sad that this needs to be repeated so often, but Proposition 8 was an attempt to limit the rights of a minority of the population (a minority I happen to belong to, as a bisexual man). It is an unprovoked act of aggression -- bullying, if you want.

If Eich had donated $1000 for a law seeking to prohibit marriage between Jews, would you still be asking Karunamon to "elaborate on when Eich said they were second-class citizens"?

I just want to add that I applaud Karunamon's cogent and spirited defense of LGBT rights.

[anonbanker]

So, I can interpret your reply as "no. I could not find any examples of Brendan Eich saying that gays were second-class citizens." I appreciate your agreement in this.

[seertaak]

I do agree and I think it's really swell that you appreciate my agreement.

[dfc]

I am not familiar with the asterisk variant: LGBTQ*. Initially I thought it was a italic formatting error but you have used it in a number of places in addition to lgBtq. What does the added asterisk represent? And is there any significance to the capitalization of "lgBtq"?

[anonbanker]

in recent years, most pride marches and supporting organizations have adopted the asterisk to handle the inclusiveness of all those that aren't neccessarily "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, genderQueer", but still fall under the umbrella of the movement. Recently, this has included Genderfluids, Furries and the Polyamorous as well.

I capitalized the letter in which I personally identify. though I can't capitalize the asterisk. :)

[scarmig]

I think it's just bash globbing.

[crusso]

You're demonstrating the exact problem the person to whom you were responding was discussing.

You can take a "damn them all and defeat them at all costs" stance if you want to. There's always something that "the other side" did at some point that you can avoid looking past or working with.

Grind that axe forever, I guess... but as the previous poster said, that level of intransigence is disheartening.

[aryastark]

> Eich found it easier to treat millions of people he's never met as second class citizens

You act as if Prop 8 didn't pass by 52.24% of the voting public, or by 7 million people. But no, Eich was dictator of California, enslaving millions of gays. Or whatever.

[bluntly_said]

I'm not qualified to tell the other side of the story. I don't know why Eich made that contribution. Neither do you.

It might have been family pressure, it might have honestly been that he's religious and doesn't believe the word "marriage" can be applied to same sex couple (who had Domestic partnerships available in California, which provide the same legal rights as marriage, so I find the "second class citizen" argument entirely lacking. [although now I'll wait to be attacked for simply stating that, even if you have no idea what my personal beliefs on the matter are])

Again, life is filled with shades of gray. Hell, maybe mozilla even benefited from the donation in ways that aren't clear (and they didn't want to put out in the media) You just don't fucking know. Instead you've decided this man should lose his livelyhood based on hearsay and rumor, and outrage on the internet.

That's fucking PATHETIC.

[scarmig]

We have public information. The public information is damning: he donated to an organization that ran a campaign of hateful slurs against gay people in order to permanently deny them their human rights in the California Constitution.

I guess there might be some private exonerating information, but I have a hard time imagining what it might be.

[bluntly_said]

Again, the "deny them their human rights" argument fails to pass the bullshit test.

The had domestic partnerships, they had the full legal rights marriage granted available. Prop 8's entire quibble was over the word marriage, so was the pro-gay rights movement. Both sides are trying to codify belief into law, both are wrong.

[scarmig]

So, two points.

The first is that you simply have your facts dead wrong. Domestic partnerships did not grant all the benefits of marriage. The federal government did not recognize them, and other states didn't recognize them, and other countries didn't. The only way Californians could fix that inequity was through supporting marriage.

Two: if this was such a quibble, why did Prop 8 proponents feel the need to spend tens of millions of dollars attacking gay people with dark and disturbing allegations? If it's just a matter of terminology, why be so hateful and angry about it?

And just a reminder, if you weren't there: here are some of the ads that Prop 8 supporters ran. If you think those are full of love and caring, well, I don't know what to do for you. http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/04/04/brendan_eich_s...

[r0s]

"Family" or "religious" pressure is fucking pathetic.

We're supposed to be talking about adults here, why don't you change his diapers while you're at it?

If family or community is such a strong force in our lives, maybe the systemic criminalization of those concepts for certain people is a bigger tragedy than you admit.

[Karunamon]

I'm not qualified to tell the other side of the story.

What a cop out. You're, like everyone else who disagrees with this, downplaying Eich's behavior and trying to turn activists into the "real" monsters for speaking out.

Why the double standard? Why does one man, Eich, get a pass on speaking out for his personal political beliefs (with cash), but you demonize the the (hundreds? thousands? more?) people who did nothing but say that it was unacceptable?

You want pathetic? Look at your own post. Realize what you're defending. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[briantakita]

> trying to turn activists into the "real" monsters for speaking out

If the activists act like monsters, then that needs to be called out as well. Power corrupts. Do you think the activists are immune?

[Ygg2]

Nope. Not one bit. Shitstorm like this just reinforces my people that all people are equally capable of evil and good. This time with emphasis on evil.

I don't get what does his private belief have to do with making Firefox? Seriously, what?

Also replace this scandal with person X becoming CEO and then media discovering he fucked a cat once. Do you think he'd really rise to top ranks and suddenly turn the firm into a place for cat orgies?

[dang]

You should be ashamed of yourself.

I appreciate the intensity of the issue, but personal attacks are not allowed on Hacker News.

Edit: thanks to seertaak below for pointing out that this was trivial compared to what Karunamon was responding to.

I get that it gives the wrong impression to admonish one person while ignoring something much worse. On the other hand, we (and certainly I) can't read all the comments, so there's inevitably some randomness here. I can't promise to get everything right, but I do promise to listen to correcting feedback.

[seertaak]

You really should be saying that to bluntly_said -- his/her comments are far more unhinged than Kuranamon.

e.g. "fucking PATHETIC" "yo FUCKHEAD" "FUCK YOU" "...you're a bully. A fucking FUCKHEAD bully"

Two wrongs don't make a right, but "you should be ashamed of yourself" is pretty tame compared to the above.

[dang]

Ugh. I couldn't agree more. That comment is far worse, and I've banned bluntly_said. Thank you for the heads-up.

We can't read all the comments, and I didn't see that one. Community help is indispensable here.

All: When you see a comment that is truly toxic for HN, please flag it by clicking "link" to go to the item page and then "flag" at the top.

[bluntly_said]

You understand you're the definition of a schoolyard bully, right?

I've read all my posts, several times. I'm internally consistent, and I almost always favor cautious respect over ignorant bashing.

I'm not even defending Eich, again, I don't know him. I'm stating that a social environment where a man loses a job Mozilla thought he was qualified for because of private personal beliefs and internet outrage is not only actively undemocratic, it's foolish and childish.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

> loses a job Mozilla thought he was qualified for because of private personal beliefs

Ah yes, this again. The old, "yes, his personal values seriously conflict with the employer's values[1] but hey, he can still check his opinions at the door when he comes in to work and do a good job!" gambit. My opinion is that this is transparently balderdash. The CEO represents the brand. The CEO's values matter. The CEO's values will out. People don't have firewalls in their heads between personal and professional like that.

1: Mozilla is not just a company. It is "a non-profit organization that promotes openness, innovation and participation" https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla#Values

> schoolyard bully .. internet outrage.

I would like to state that me and others expressing our opinions here in normal language does not constitute bullying, a "lynch mob" and does not compel Mozilla or any other company to do anything. Characterising it as other than free speech is incorrect.

[Karunamon]

>I'm stating that a social environment where a man loses a job Mozilla thought he was qualified for because of private personal beliefs

Private "personal beliefs" that he reached into his wallet and tried to force into law. This is the one thing that people don't seem to understand. Eich didn't just think gays were second class citizens. This isn't a "thoughtcrime" he's being pilloried for.

It was the action. The donation, coupled with his complete refusal to backtrack, explain, or apologize. Just evade and spin all day long.

I have absolutely no problem stamping Eich with "unrepentant bigot" on his forehead because he's proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that those are his beliefs. It is both unreasonable and inconsistent to give him "the benefit of the doubt" after his behavior when the donations came to light. There is no question anymore.

>actively undemocratic, it's foolish and childish.

I don't think you know what democracy means.

Publicly proclaim your allegiance to Stormfront or a group that holds similar regressive views for women, and tell me your life will remain unaffected.

[ct12]

Hey this is my first post. The word "bigot" seems to be used a lot in these post. I was curious to find out what was the exact definition of the word and found this on m-w.com: "a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc...one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance" I have a hard time believing that a guy who worked for a company as diverse as Mozilla with almost no signs of mistreating his gay or lesbian employees could be given such a strong label, again, someone who "strongly and unfairly dislikes" gays.

As someone new to this post, your comments seem to be more aligned with this definition then Eich's. For someone who seeks equality, your post seem full of "hatred and intolerance."

[bluntly_said]

No, I think you've decided that when democracy doesn't cater exactly to your personal morals, it must be wrong.

Making a donation based on private, personal beliefs is ENTIRELY the point of a democracy. The correct action is to speak out in support of your ideas, not to cast hatred on those who disagree.

Instead of sitting here arguing, you could have gone and made a 10 dollar donation to a pro-lbgt group, and done a lot more good. Instead of forcing Eich to resign, you could have used it as a rallying point to get A LOT of other like minded people to make that same 10 dollar donation. You could have chosen to voice your opinions with both words and monetary support, (like Eich did) instead of attacking the opposition. You aren't doing that.

[bluntly_said]

Let me put this another way. If your response to Eich getting promoted was to stop using Firefox, I'd support your actions.

If your response was to publicly shame him for an opinion to the point where he loses his job, you're a fucking bully.

[Karunamon]

So in other words, if you as an activist do anything that has a real impact, you're a "fucking bully", but you "support my actions" if I take meaningless, "feel good" steps.

Get real.

[jerryr]

I'm gay, and I would classify my feelings towards Eich more as fear than hatred. Eich very directly donated towards a cause that was bent on restricting my rights. Though fear often breeds hatred, I truly don't bear Eich ill will. I'm not happy to see him lose his job--on the contrary, I share your sadness that a talented, qualified man lost his job. However, I am relieved that a man who feels that I should not be allowed to marry is no longer in a very influential position at an influential company.

Now, whether or not OkCupid should have been casting stones is another matter. But that seems to have been thoroughly discussed, so I'll end this here.

[baddox]

I'm seeing a lot of disagreement over the facts of Proposition 8. Several people are saying that homosexual couples in California already had a legal partnership with all the same rights as "married" heterosexual couples.

[jerryr]

Okay, let's take the facts in question off the table and say that there are absolutely no differences between marriage and domestic partnerships besides the name. At best then, Prop 8 kept us "separate but equal". History has shown that doctrine to be discriminatory and oppressive. There's an inherent inequality in my inability to say that I'm married.

[baddox]

I don't think it's appropriate to invoke separate but equal if the only difference is the legal term used. Separate but equal was about separate physical facilities. And as far as I know, it was never illegal for any couple to claim that they were married. It's just that the official legal term would not be "marriage."

[bluntly_said]

And I think the separate but equal problem is a very compelling reason to remove rights from marriage entirely. Codifying religious beliefs into law shouldn't be accepted. Trying to redefine religious beliefs in law stirs up more controversy than it should.

Amending the law to force all couples to get the equivalent of a civil unions satisfies both camps.

Further, once marriage holds no rights, the government cannot stop a gay couple from getting married if a nice tolerant church wants to marry them (of which there are plenty). The issue is solely religious at that point. And "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."

Just like the government can't force a church to marry someone, or force a very intolerant religious community to accepting that marriage.

[bane]

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between a secular and a religious "marriage". Religious institutions have always been allowed to marry or not marry as they see fit. Quite a few religions and religious factions have provide same-sex marriages long before it was ever explicitly allowed in law.

When most people get a regular 'ol marriage, it's actually two events. Their religious marriage, as recognized by their faith, and the civil "marriage" as defined and recognized by law. You can get one without the other if you wish. Just get a religious marriage, and don't bother with the legal licensing and registration, or conversely, just get a legal marriage and don't bother with the religious aspects of it. I can't say it's always been this way, but it's basically always been this way.

The problem comes from the simply face that there's a very large body of law that required people to enter into an agreement specifically called "marriage" for those laws to apply to them. More importantly SCOTUS has recognized "marriage" as a fundamental right.

In theory, same-sex couple always had the right to get married, legally and religiously (if their religion allowed), and should have had those laws apply to them. But it was only recently when same-sex couples tried to enforce the application of those laws on themselves that the legal hypocrisy became apparent and government attempted to separate those people from their legal right.

If law had used the word "quijibo" instead of "marriage" it wouldn't have mattered any. People could have gotten religiously married, then filed for their quijibo. The word choice is irrelevant, other than the legal inertia that's already behind the word.

[baddox]

> Religious institutions have always been allowed to marry or not marry as they see fit.

Correct me if I'm reading this wrong [0], but it seem that a New Jersey court ruled in 2012 that a religious facility could not deny usage to homosexual couple for civil union ceremonies. From my quick Googling, it seems this is a big concern for Christian groups in the US, but I don't know how credible their concern is.

[0] http://www.adfmedia.org/files/OGCMA-BernsteinRuling.pdf

Edit: with a bit more Googling, it seems fairly common for state governments to prohibit discriminating based on sexual orientation for the sale of goods and services, which would (I assume) apply to churches being used for ceremonies. There have also been court cases involving wedding cakes, flowers, and photography.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-orders-colorado-bakery-cater-...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/28/gay-wedding-flowers...

Proposed city law in Kansas: http://www.hutchgov.com/egov/docs/1332537777_170654.pdf

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/30/nj-rules-against-ch...

[pessimizer]

I'm entirely against state marriage, religious or otherwise. If you want to pool your finances, form a joint partnership - and feel free to do it with anybody willing to sign the documents. If you want to figure out who gets to visit someone in the hospital, use something else.

Let Jeremy Irons marry his son.

[jerryr]

I completely agree with that idea. I'd be all in favor of separating a legal partnership from a religious marriage.

[ufmace]

From everything I've read, he voluntarily stepped down, without any pressure exerted on him by anyone above him or who otherwise has direct power over him. Has anybody seen any indication otherwise?

In this case, I'm more inclined to see it as a good move overall. He isn't a backroom coder or language designer or something, whose opinions and PR profile don't really matter. As CEO, his whole job is to lead, set the direction of the company, and be its public face. This issue, and his handling of it, seem to show that he isn't really cut out for the job and shouldn't be doing it. It was probably a mistake to take it in the first place, but I don't think he could have a good career just moving to a lower position at the company now.

I will say that I respect him more for stepping down on his own, and for not pulling some bullshit PR move like apologizing or making a token donation to some pro-LGBT cause. That always seemed so slimy to me - like saying "I probably still believe what I always believed, but I will kowtow to the PC gods and make a PR move to save my job without ever actually standing up for what I believe."

[r0s]

> people find it easier to heap hatred on someone they've never met, than to act with dignity and respect.

Please explain how criminalizing gay marriage is somehow different from this claim.

Compromise or abstraction away from the root issue to serve some hazy point about moral uncertainty is dishonest.

[azinman2]

OR... You could recognize that his action stands directly against the values of Mozilla and will only lead to less diversity at the top of Mozilla, which even further runs against it's values. Not to mention his politically impotent non-appology appology, where he neither stood up for a separation of personal views nor identified his reasoning and how it has or hadn't changed.

[zobzu]

i don't get that sort of thinking. nobody even suspected he made this donation until someone digged through the records. he founded mozilla among his peers for fucks sake. FOUNDED.

he was there for the manifesto. He was there when Mozilla compensated lgbt couples and the law/taxes didn't. He was there helping them daily.

And all of a sudden, he's fucking satan because his personal views on marriage were different. Views which he never let into his professional world.

And for the other side: because he's not as strong as some, he resigned. So that must be bad too. it must be mozilla who fired him and thus don't accept diversity.

Are you all fucking nuts?

[dubfan]

You might find this essay by Jonathan Rauch to be interesting reading: http://reason.com/archives/1993/04/01/the-truth-hurts-the-hu...

The book this was derived from, "Kindly Inquisitors", was recently reissued, and what a timely reissue!

[rimantas]

Would your attitude be the same if the issue was not same sex, but interracial marriage?