Mozilla CEO resigns following Prop 8 support criticism

Story here

--------

Thoughts?

probably for the best if employees at mozilla didn't want him as CEO

Stupidest $1000 ever spent

i may be alone in this but i don't think this deserved a resignation.

The gayness rises.

While I disagree entirely with his views I will say that he is free to have them.

That said, Considering the majority of Mozilla Employees wanted him gone and that he stepped down rather then were fired, which I would've point at being a rotten act simply because he has the views he has, Then I have issue with this.

Hope him the best in whatever job he gets next.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you're free of consequences.

Mozilla probably didn't want him to tarnish their brand and image. Probably wouldn't want a racist CEO either.

I like chrome better

me too..

but it's Mozarella CEO right to choose if he not support LGBT .......... Just like LGBT right not support St. Patrick's day parade.

Sometimes minority groups like LGBT, Blacks, Vegetarians, Atheist fanatics, anti-catholic fanatics, pro-choice groups... need to shake up a little bit ... or shake up more ...... and stop thinking that the world is against them

Freedom of speech generally doesn't imply just things that socially acceptable.

Of course not, Even so there are degrees of the consequences being acceptable and not.

"Eich had not done much to really distance himself from his past views on gay marriage and LGBT issues, which likely didn’t help his chances of sticking it out at Mozilla."

eh. I guess that's the major problem here. Meh

Except it seems many at Mozilla didn't want him around and it looks like his personal views were at odds with the official position of Mozilla as a company

what does Freedom of Speech have to do with anything

Any who determines what's acceptable and what isn't?

I would assume society determines that.

For instance I think a good portion of people would say that it's an unacceptable consequence if someone hit somebody on the head with a hammer if they disagreed on their political views. While many would say it's acceptable if someone loudly objected to their political views and only did that.

It's a matter of personal opinion and consensus of society as a whole.

We aren't talking about attempted murder here.

The CEO is free to express his opinion as he sees fit, but people are also free to voice their opposition of his opinion as they see fit. If this means calling for his resignation and boycotting his product, they're as free to do that as he is to say what he pleases.

As I said, freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from the consequences of that speech. If that is unacceptable to you, then I guess you figure freedom of speech only goes one way.

Whether this should have happened or it shouldnt , there is a worthwhile lesson in this story which is to know your audience.

Conservatives launch boycott of Mozilla after gays press CEO to quit

Conservative activist Ben Shapiro is leading up an online charge of fellow political compadres to boycott the browser Firefox — an outraged response to the Mozilla chief’s departure from his CEO role due to gay rights’ protests.

Former CEO Brendan Eich, who’s been with Mozilla since its creation and actually helped found the company’s charitable offshoot foundation in 1998, announced this week he’s stepping down from the role over a flap generated by a $1,000 donation he made to a California campaign that sought to ban same-sex marriage in the state.

More here: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/4/conservatives-launch-boycott-mozilla-after-gays-pr/

lmao

Ben Shapiro is a clown

I thought most conservatives used IE. Just sayin' ;)

He should have chosen to become a banker instead...

I under no circumstance said people weren't to voice their opposition to his opinion and views, I'm also pondering on where you are drawing the conclusion that I am saying that freedom of speech is to protect you from consequences when I've said quite the opposite. Anyone are free to say whatever they want but must accept there are consequences to what is said. Be it others voicing their opposition or opinion against you.

I'll admit I am puzzled on why you've drawn such a conclusion as you initially mentioned the subject above and then asked me who decided what was a acceptable consequence, upon which I gave you an example where physical violence would likely be viewed as a unacceptable response while voicing their opposition is an acceptable response by the general public or Society as a whole.

So I'll have to assume that You've either misunderstood me and that hopefully I've clarified we view this in a similar manner, or you're deliberatly trying to spark a debate or even argument on something we both agree on for some strange reason.

I'm not sure why freedom of speech is even being brought up in the first place. You do not have freedom of speech in private property or when privately employed. This is not a freedom of speech issue whatsoever.

Whether you agree or disagree with his opinion, firing him was wrong. The man had every right to his opinion, nothing he said or did was homophobic or offensive in the slightest. If gays want freedom than they need to start respecting the freedom of others too. Tolerance for only those you agree with is not tolerance at all. What if this was reversed? With the CEO supporting gay marriage and he was forced to resign? These same people would be crying fowl like the hypocrites they are.

Those talking about consequences of free speech are right, but only half right. While one is not free from the consequences of their actions, it is different here as the CEO did not say or do anything offensive. Disagreeing with someone is offensive now? It is ironic how, at one time one would be fired if they were found out to be gay. Now the tables have turned and the gays have become militant and are going on witch hunts against those who don't share their world views. It is ironically fascist.

I think this gay blogger summed it up best: http://youngcons.com/gay-blogger-andrew-sullivan-is-furious-that-the-gay-community-forced-mozilla-ceo-to-step-down/

He wasn't fired

@lostrib:

Forced/pressured to resign/step down. Basically being fired in the unofficial Politically Correct way.

So the fact that Mozilla employees weren't happy about him and asked him to step down, or that his personal views and actions were at odds wit those of Mozilla, weren't good enough reasons for him to step down?

It's ridiculous.

That's his opinion and freedom of speech, and ultimately his opinion is written in the Bible which means he's right (I also agree with him), and why should the minority of weirdos force him out of his career?

@Cyberdot: freedom of speech is irrelevant here

The government didn't come after him, the other people at the company just didn't want to be associated with those particular viewpoints. That's a right they also have.

Think of it another way, what if the CEO had expressed agreement with extremist groups like the KKK or the West Borough Baptist Church? Should the other people at the company have no way of expressing that he only speaks for himself?

hahahaha

Take a civics class sometime if you actually want to know what freedom of speech means

Troll?

Can we get Obama to resign because he didn't support gay marriage at a point in time either.

Nope.

It's my opinion. #dealwithit

Lol!

lol at people saying freedom of speech is irrelevant here. The man made a contribution to a legitimate noncriminal and nonviolent organization, regardless of its partisan or ideological ground. What do the employees of Mozilla have to do with it? In what way does it concern them as employees of Mozilla? Should an employee of any business or any member of a publicly recognized body lose his own individuality and sovereignty as a condition for allowing him to belong to that said business or body? This is inline with denying someone employment because he's not an LGBT proponent par excellence. In short that's discrimination, plain and simple. You're free to call it "positive discrimination" or "expedient discrimination", but at the end of the day this is discrimination. I just read the article again and I can't see how anyone could claim this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Consider the following excerpts:

"Employees within Mozilla were among those who opposed his new role, and OkCupid mounted a very public campaign on its site earlier this week to voice its collective disapproval of Eich and his stance. Mozilla had previously issued a blog post stating for the record that as an organization, it stands in support of LGBT equality."

If Mozilla made it clear that as an organization its unequivocally a supporter of LGBT equality, what business does it have with the stance of one of its employee on the matter?

"Eich had not done much to really distance himself from his past views on gay marriage and LGBT issues, which likely didn’t help his chances of sticking it out at Mozilla."

Why should he have done anything to distance himself from lawful and nonviolent views he once held in the first place?

"Mozilla’s strong statement in favor of equality today reflects where corporate America is: inclusive, safe, and welcoming to all."

There's so much irony in that statement in relation to the event at hand that it almost reads as an oxymoron.

I guess freedom of speech is all fine and dandy when it agrees with the established opinion on any given matter. Such folly. I myself am not too fond of conservatives and I think I made that rather clear on several occasions here, but I'm glad that they're boycotting Mozilla. So much for " we don't want him to hurt our business" lol

What he said too.

Supporters of LBGT rights should learn to be more tolerant of intolerance.

Making fun of gays should be punishable by stoning. I mean seriously... just pick on the fatties instead or something.

Would you be saying the same thing if he was an open racist and supporter of the KKK?

"The man made a contribution to a legitimate noncriminal and nonviolent organization, regardless of its partisan or ideological ground."

I think this is clear enough for anyone to understand; only if they intended to understand upon starting to read my post that is.

So that's a yes? Just to be more clear the KKK no longer exists as a single organisation, it's made of multiple unconnected groups. Some criminal some not.

You're pushing your idiocy and stupidity to its absolute limit. I'm one step away from moving you to the "chuckle and ignore" list.

What ever happened to you saying you'll stay away from topics about homosexuality? And what is wrong with my question, are you ok with racism as much as you are with homophobia, yes or no.

We're not discussing homosexuality here, I'm quite appalled at your reading comprehension skills.

We are talking about a man who represents a company resigning because he lost support from his workers, mainly for his attitude towards homosexuals tarnishing the brand name.

So yes my question is entirely on topic. You say that you shouldn't be allowed to be fired for being openly homophobic, does the same apply for people who are openly racist? If you allow one you must allow the other.

It would be like saying you were against immigration anyway this whole debacle is a sad day for free speech and ironically has had the opposite effect from intended.

Then people like you don't understand what free speech means. Mozilla exercised their right to free speech by pressuring him to resign.