[pessimizer]

Or at least the PR reasons ("do what the customers want") and the libertarian reasons ("private companies can make any decision that they want for any reason") for not wanting Eich for CEO are the old PR and libertarian reasons for firing gays.

What if your reason is that he supports the elimination of benefits for a commonly discriminated against minority class, and he's being put into a position to at least indirectly make decisions about those benefits at a company that has historically supported them?

Any way to figure out an analogy to that in discrimination against gays?

edit: That's a serious question, and if you have a serious opinion, I'd think you'd reply after downvoting.

[stcredzero]

What if your reason is that he supports the elimination of benefits for a commonly discriminated against minority class, and he's being put into a position to at least indirectly make decisions about those benefits at a company that has historically supported them?

What the record actually shows is that the policies of Mozilla, in the time he was CEO, treated well those who had cause to oppose him in his private political life.

[pessimizer]

>in the time he was CEO

You mean during that week that everybody hammered him about his anti-gay donations and then he quit? I have doubts about his ability to push substantial policy during that period, to say the least.

[stcredzero]

So, basically people were just against what he might do. (Which also has clear parallels with past justifications for firing a gay CEO.)