Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich steps down following same-sex marriage uproar

[Nobina]

*ughh* it's going to be a pain uninstalling Firefox.
But what can you do? This company is now hypocritical - proclaiming diversity of opinion but ONLY if you have the right views.

You're gonna uninstall Firefox because someone that works there doesn't approve same sex marriage? Are you kidding me? You might as well sell your PC cause and phone because people that work for those compains might be against it too.

 

[stewi0001]

*ughh* it's going to be a pain uninstalling Firefox.
But what can you do? This company is now hypocritical - proclaiming diversity of opinion but ONLY if you have the right views.

You're gonna uninstall Firefox because someone that works there doesn't approve same sex marriage? Are you kidding me? You might as well sell your PC cause and phone because people that work for those compains might be against it too.

No, he's uninstalling it because the guy got pressured out of the position because he disagreed with same sex marriage.

 

[Guest]

Isn't it amazing what a small, yet loud and whiny group of people can do?

Even if you simply aren't "with them", you are against them. I've experienced this after being drawn out for opinion after trying to mind my own business ( I don't hate anyone ). If it doesn't align with EXACTLY what they want, you are some sort of evil Hitler and should be publicly tarred / feathered / put on YouTube.

 

[Guest]

For every animal copy of Firefox you petty vegans hipsters save uninstall, I'm going to eat install three!

 

[Guest]

Even the people who say they are tolerant will take away the rights of others.

Giving the right to LGBT to marry does NOT take away the rights of others, this is a typical fallacy.

Also the founding fathers knew that inevitably, there would be times when the majority would withhold rights from a minority, their system of checks and balances including the Supreme Court were meant to alleviate this problem.

A quote from Thomas Jefferson:

All . . . will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect and to violate would be oppression.

 

[Guest]

While my beliefs may differ from your's in regards to Prop 8, the fact that Mozilla required him to step down for something he did 6 years ago is, to me at least, ridiculous. It was 6 years ago. It's not like you were blind sided with him doing this after you hired/promoted him.

And if it wasn't a big enough deal when you hired/promoted him, why the hell is it a big deal now??

I understand Mozilla is a company and companies have to worry about PR. But for crying out loud don't be the prison b*tch when things like this happen. Say you don't intend to offend anyone and his personal views are not those shared by the company as a whole but this is the choice we've based on what we believe to be in the best corporate interest of the company.

Haven't much cared for FF lately anyway.

 

[Guest]

Support for gay marriage is becoming stronger with a recent 2013 Gallup poll showing that 53% of Americans are in favor of the law recognizing their marriage. http://www.gallup.com/poll/162398/sex-marriage-support-solidifies-above.aspx

But I agree that Mozilla probably shouldn't have hired him or rather promoted him to CEO when they knew his beliefs were not in concord with the company's. That would have saved them a lot of trouble.

 

[davislane1]

It will be interesting to see what happens to Mozilla's marketshare moving forward, given the publicity this has received.

What they don't seem to understand is that playing politics with popular issues is a double edge sword. As an earlier guest pointed out, management should have examined the PR implications of hiring Eich prior to making the decision. If his support of Prop 8 can reasonably seen as damaging Mozilla's image, his ejection on the basis of holding a contrary viewpoint is equally as damaging. After all, voting numbers on this issue clearly demonstrate a larger segment of the population does not support same-sex marriage. In short, you alienate a large portion of your customer base either way you cut the cake.

This in mind, the employee who initially took this Prop 8 issue to social media and turned it into a story should be fired. If you're willing to generate negative press for your firm just to make a public political statement, or you aren't intelligent enough to understand the PR risks of social media, you're a liability. As advisable as this would be for Mozilla (even though it too carries PR risks), I doubt it'll happen. To paraphrase an old saying, they've already burned the witch.

 

[Guest]

To all of those bitching, moaning and complaining about Mozilla on this man's opinion on Prop 8 you all seriously need to learn from history.

Most importantly learn from this quote:

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. - Voltaire


Now personally I think Prop 8 and all other pathetic BS like it is insulting to a very large % of the population. However while I disagree with this man's apparent opinion on this subject I am a firm believer in what I quoted above.. since it either applies to all or it applies to none.

Sad that so many others fail miserably at understanding that especially in the US when that is in essence your 1st amendment.

Now go hide your heads in shame for your total failure in this case.

 

[Guest]

It will be interesting to see what happens to Mozilla's marketshare moving forward, given the publicity this has received.

What they don't seem to understand is that playing politics with popular issues is a double edge sword. As an earlier guest pointed out, management should have examined the PR implications of hiring Eich prior to making the decision. If his support of Prop 8 can reasonably seen as damaging Mozilla's image, his ejection on the basis of holding a contrary viewpoint is equally as damaging. After all, voting numbers on this issue clearly demonstrate a larger segment of the population does not support same-sex marriage. In short, you alienate a large portion of your customer base either way you cut the cake.

This in mind, the employee who initially took this Prop 8 issue to social media and turned it into a story should be fired. If you're willing to generate negative press for your firm just to make a public political statement, or you aren't intelligent enough to understand the PR risks of social media, you're a liability. As advisable as this would be for Mozilla (even though it too carries PR risks), I doubt it'll happen. To paraphrase an old saying, they've already burned the witch.

Indeed but once again those #'s show how blindly arrogant so many are while trying to force their choice / POV on others and their total FAILURE to understand even the 1st amendment.

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. - Voltaire "

 

[Guest]

I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

Well, this country at least...

 

[Guest]

"Nobina said:


*ughh* it's going to be a pain uninstalling Firefox.


But what can you do? This company is now hypocritical - proclaiming diversity of opinion but ONLY if you have the right views.



You're gonna uninstall Firefox because someone that works there doesn't approve same sex marriage? Are you kidding me? You might as well sell your PC cause and phone because people that work for those compains might be against it too."




It's called integrity, get some.

 

[Guest]

I'll uninstall firefox if there were solid evidence when using their browser could change my sexual orientation into a homosexual..

 

[Guest]

"no tolerance for intolerance."
No, actually. If he were Muslim, and said "the Koran condemns homosexuality, so I support a ban on gay marriage" would you be totally cool with firing him? If so, that makes you a religious bigot. If he quotes Bible scripture to support his position, is that any different? What if he just thinks "ew, gross" as his reasoning? If you even for a moment think the answer should be different, then you are not being "intolerant of intolerance," you are being a tyrant enforcing conformity with your position, running on feelings (hatred and bigotry), not logic or principle.

 

[cliffordcooley]

you are being a tyrant enforcing conformity with your position, running on feelings (hatred and bigotry), not logic or principle.

I am enforcing conformity with nature! Same sex is not natural, it is a sickness in the minds of society! But since I am being forced to allow free will, I can not hang them up by the nearest tree. Now tell me their freedom is being revoked!

 

[viperfl]

Even the people who say they are tolerant will take away the rights of others.

Giving the right to LGBT to marry does NOT take away the rights of others, this is a typical fallacy.

Also the founding fathers knew that inevitably, there would be times when the majority would withhold rights from a minority, their system of checks and balances including the Supreme Court were meant to alleviate this problem.

A quote from Thomas Jefferson:

All . . . will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect and to violate would be oppression.

What your quoting is Thomas Jefferson's first inaugural address from

Even the people who say they are tolerant will take away the rights of others.

Giving the right to LGBT to marry does NOT take away the rights of others, this is a typical fallacy.

Also the founding fathers knew that inevitably, there would be times when the majority would withhold rights from a minority, their system of checks and balances including the Supreme Court were meant to alleviate this problem.

A quote from Thomas Jefferson:

All . . . will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect and to violate would be oppression.

What your quoting is Thomas Jefferson's first inaugural address. What he was talking about was that even though there was difference of opinion, that the Constitution was the common goal. That even if your the majority or the minority, everyone has equal rights.

So according to Thomas Jefferson, even though Eich has a difference of opinion, he still has equal rights under the Constitution. He has a right to think freely under the Constitution without fear of persecution. To say somehow that marriage is a right, that's another fallacy. Marriage is not a right, it's a privilege granted to you by the government.

 

[cliffordcooley]

Marriage is not a right, it's a privilege granted to you by the government.

That is where you are wrong. Marriage predates governmental control.

 

[Guest]

But actually you are being intolerant yourself by by not being tolerant of others "views" when they are different from your own. So you are really the intolerant person.

 

[RustyTech]

I am enforcing conformity with nature! Same sex is not natural, it is a sickness in the minds of society! But since I am being forced to allow free will, I can not hang them up by the nearest tree. Now tell me their freedom is being revoked!

I lol'd

 

[lna2000]

The Nazi's now wear Gay armbands.

 

[Guest]

I think that many of the posters here don't realize how much they expose of themselves, by posting their hate of others. It is pretty sad if you have to hate in order to make yourself feel good.

 

[davislane1]

I am enforcing conformity with nature! Same sex is not natural, it is a sickness in the minds of society! But since I am being forced to allow free will, I can not hang them up by the nearest tree. Now tell me their freedom is being revoked!

I used to use the nature argument myself, but that's been thoroughly debunked by observations in other species as well as genetics research. As such, I think we should put this form of nature argument to bed and take the scientifically demonstrable position that homosexuality is, in fact, a genetic disorder.

Doing so serves three purposes. First, you can invoke the authority of Science® to support the position. Second, classifying it as a genetic disorder forces any opponent worth his salt to abandon rhetorical arguments and actually debate the issue. Third, using Science® to defend a contrary position is a cardinal sin in all political circles, often causing victims to slip into a state of total belligerence. Thus, you kill three birds with a single stone. It is incredibly utilitarian!

The Nazi's now wear Gay armbands.

The forum recognizes that Godwin's law has been observed. The counter is reset to 0.

 

[Guest]

Sorry guys, but he did this to himself. He donated money to keep a whole swath of people from having civil rights. If the group of people had been black or Jewish or women, no one would be advocating for his right to free speech that is free from people calling him out on his bigoted views.

 

[SNGX1275]

The forum recognizes that Godwin's law has been observed. The counter is reset to 0.

It actually happened a bit earlier (post #53 by a Guest) than that post you were quoting.

 

[rub900]

"No tolerance in intolerance."

That is easily the best way to view this. People are getting upset because they think Mozilla is being hypocritcal and not allowing differeing views, but intolerance should not be seen as acceptable this day and age. I find it very striking at how many people get upset over this issue. Those intolerant of homosexual marriage are on the wrong side of history.

Just like all the people who said and still say African American should not have rights. I don't care what people think. Telling a group of people they should have less rights because your God said so is wrong and stupid period.