More seriously, there's the open question as to whether a career technologist is the right person for the CEO slot, especially since he appears to still be in the trenches when it comes to projects like Rust.

Beyond that, this is a cautionary tale for potential CEOs -- within reason, you can give money to politicians and money to foundations, but once you start giving money to specific political causes you're risking a firestorm, and rightfully so. While MoCo isn't exactly a Chik-Fil-A or Hobby Lobby, this is the sort of the thing that causes PR flacks to either wake up in a cold sweat (if they're employees) or start planning the color of their new Aventador (if on agency contract).

I'm glad it was made right in the end and I hope at least some of those 7 million people have changed their opinion... but I don't think we need to keep dwelling on it.

[1] Inferring what Mozilla values based on the opinions of its CEO is not particularly fair, but then again I'm not sure it's unfair either.

It's the same with politicans, what the fuck has an affair to do with their political views?

I 100% support gay marriage. I also understand they're upset. But I don't know if this is the right reaction.

edit: and now my words are being twisted. I never said being gay was a belief. what one person thinks of a proposed law is a belief.

edit edit: tolerance is not "I am OK with the gays but will never freely associate with one of them" nor is "I am tolerant of his views on gay marriage but I hate him and will never have anything to do with him".

tolerance is" I hate what you think/belive/lifestyle/god/wear but I won't hold it against you". my sister frequently nurses racists who are very rude to her. she tolerates then as gives them as good care as she gives anyone else. that is tolerance.

welcome to democracy. people have different opinion. they have different religious beliefs and different upbringing. just get along people.

I can't buy the argument that it's just his personal political opinion and that the type of inclusion that Mozilla wants to have requires a large ecosystem of diverse opinions. Perhaps on issues like income inequality, taxation, foreign policy. Hell, if this was about him being a massive gun-rights advocate, I could see myself budging on not letting it bother me like this.

Sorry, but human rights are human rights, and contributing to a effort to deny a group of people a right that everybody else enjoys based simply on their sexual orientation, gender, ethnicity, or culture is as disgusting a human behavioral trait as it comes. It needs to rooted out from our collective human identity.

I don't necessarily want to see Eich removed. His contributions to free and open source software are incredibly significant and deserve praise. However, simply pointing out Mozilla's health care policies isn't going to cut it. Without anything more significant, an apology or something, I'm just going to see Firefox and Mozilla as tarnish under a shade of bigotry. It's not a purposeful perspective, or something I will enjoy, but I can't just let this slide away like it's nothing.

Now can somebody get this political bullshit off the front page of HN? Please? Nothing productive can come from a logical and reasonable conversation with people who are, by definition, very upset. Half the posts here are "hell yeah!" and the other half are baiting arguments from others who feel impassioned by the issue. Not a good topic.

As a for instance my Aunty is vegan and is offended that I or any one else would ever eat meat. And I know eating meat is much less of an issue, but I support her right to oppose the eating of meat. She has would vote against my ability to eat meat. But my response would not be to attack her as a person but simply vote in the opposite direction.

On the other end I can see why a Jewish person living in Nazi Germany would have attached Hitler and the Nazi party at any chance they got.

But is there a middle ground?

If it's any consolation, there has yet to be a cult tech figure who is a neo-Nazi/white nationalist or anything of the sort. Or am I wrong?

The world would be a much better place if we could learn to separate the artist's work from the artist's personal deeds and opinions. Otherwise you'd probably be unable to enjoy anything made before the 20th century.

I've got friends that live an alternative life-style, and I can discuss this sanely with them. We don't have to agree on everything to be friends and we certainly don't agree on whether their lifestyle can be aligned with my religious beliefs, but we also don't make it the focal point of our relationship.

I've never said I was against the various domestic partnership rules that allow equal insurance, tax breaks and other benefits to committed partners. I'm simply not willing to use the word marriage to describe the relationship.

So when I see all the commotion about a measly $1000 donation to support proposition 8 in CA, I wonder why anyone is actually wasting their time on a protest. I don't think that Eich is filled with hatred ... I suspect he barely thinks about it at all. But why is it okay when the hatred is directed at him? Why are people so consumed by the issue that they give up vast amounts of their time and energy?

I can live without hating ... can you?

P.S. I'll admit that there are probably things and people in the world that are worth hating.

Actions have consequences. Actions have consequences.

    s/LGBT-friendly/orthodox/
    s/hateful/heretical/

common wrong argument: This is a violation of Eich's freedom of speech.

subtly wrong rebuttal: The First Amendment protects you against government infringement of free speech (including campaign donations, since money is "speech"), but it doesn't protect you against the social consequences of that speech.

While true on its surface, the reason this rebuttal is subtly wrong is that it ignores a critical distinction, which is that, as a "protected class", gays are privileged under the law. This means that you are especially vulnerable to being sued for violating their rights. As Mencius Moldbug put it in the context of McCarthyism and the anti-Communist Red Scare [1]:

"[M]ost of what we call 'McCarthyism' was a matter of 'social consequences.' Besides, the social consequences work for one and only one reason: there's an iron fist in the velvet glove. Being sued for disrespecting a privileged class—excuse me, a protected class—is not in any way a social consequence, but rather a political one."

To appreciate the asymmetry, imagine a counterfactual reality in which Eich donated against of Prop. 8 instead of for it. In this context, suppose he made a comment in the workplace about his support for gay marriage. Suppose further that some Mozilla employees, who happened to vigorously oppose gay marriage, sued on the grounds of a "hostile working environment". Such a lawsuit would have no chance of success. In contrast, in the real reality we actually live in, Eich will now have to monitor his workplace speech very carefully—one wrong word about gay marriage could be all it takes to precipitate a lawsuit against him and the Mozilla Foundation. It would be unwise to underestimate the chances of such a suit's success.

In the counterfactual universe, a pro–gay marriage Eich might still face a boycott or protests, but they would be incomparably weaker because non-gays are not a protected class. Whereas in real reality, the "social consequences" of a boycott are supported by the full power of the US Federal Government. For obvious reasons, such boycotts have a habit of succeeding.

[1]: [Technology, communism, and the Brown Scare](http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2013/09/technol...)

Can't Liberals see that Believers hold themselves to a different set of standards? It is not often personal (though unfortunately for some religious extremists it is). The only hate that is being displayed here is by the anti-religious groups and individuals.

Think of it like this. A girl is invited to a friend's birthday party. She does not attend because her father forbids her to go and won't driver her there either. She tries to explain it to her friend, but here friend hates her now because can not come. Is this fair to the girl?

Some of you will say that this case is more like the girl paying someone to disrupt the party. Again, if the girl's father was responsible as God is for believer's convictions, then should the girl be hated anyway? I suppose if you think that the girl's father only existed in her own mind (was a phantasy) then you would think this.

Still does not seem fair? Well what if it came out later that the girl planning the party was going to do something harmful to the guests. By disrupting the party, the girl who looked cruel now in hindsight looks like a hero. This knowledge of the devious girl's plan is akin to the belief and knowledge that religious people have in God.

God cannot be proven or dis-proven via science. So how do atheists know they are really correct? how do religious people? At least the religious people have a basis that does not rely on unexplained things. A God and a creation are certainly a more plausible and simple explanation to our existence then any offered by atheists.

So who are the real bigots here? From each side's perspective, it is the other. My hope is that each side will respect (not agree with) the others reasons and not show hatred toward the other. If a gay person donates to a fund pushing gay marriage, don't show hate toward them, if a religious person donates to the opposition, the same applies. This is almost sportsmanship in a way. Play hard against the opposition, but when they fall down (when they are in need of help), show them kindness, help them up and continue the competition.

What the staff does in other spheres of life, with their own time and money, is their own concern. It's a freer society, and a more pro-freedom organization, that grants individuals the widest range of actions and opinions when away from their official responsibilities.

The CEO position isn't "mascot" or "most popular" or "dear leader". (Those are cult-of-personality failure modes for a professional organization.) It's lead administrator, with specific on-the-job duties which involve essentially no electoral politicking nor meddling in employees' lives.

Saying that Mozilla does not value gay rights because of 1000 dollars, donated once, indirectly associated with Mozilla is a crazy given how much they actually spend directly on supporting the cause yearly.

I'm not saying that a care package for 1.000 dollars negates Eichs contribution. But you can't say they don't value gay rights either.

So I wouldn't really be worried about the current state of affairs. If people want to boycott then they can do that, but I doubt it will have much effect unless Eich starts going insane, in which case Google will probably cut their funding. In that case we can all start hacking on Iceweasel and forget about it. Yay for free libre open source software!

I guess it was silly of me to imagine mozilla as something larger than life/more than a run of the mill company.

I'd consider it more if Prop 8 hadn't been overturned. But as it stands, he hasn't used his personal platform to speak on the subject or use Mozilla's resources to do so. If that changes, I'll reevaluate.

Uh, integrity? If a politician won't keep probably the most solemn vow they've ever made, to the person they were most committed to in their life, in front of all the other people they care about most, why the fuck do you think they'll keep some fucking campaign promise to you and a bunch of other faceless citizens they've never met to make your lives better, instead of taking a backhander from some lobbyist to fuck you all over instead?

And if they're not going to keep their campaign promises (yeah, yeah, no need to point out the incredible naïvety of that particular "if") then why should you let them stay in a position of power that they can use to better themselves at your expense? Boot them out, get the next one in, and keep doing it until they learn the lesson that we fucking demand better.

I don't know what kind of world you want to live in, but one where we've already given up and don't even try to maintain a pretense of holding our politicians to account for their honesty isn't the one I'm going for.

It may be more emotional than logical, but I personally would find it very difficult to work for someone who would deny me the right to marriage because I'm an atheist.

If the person who had direct control over my career held discriminatory personal beliefs, I'd probably have a problem with it too.

The $1000 was a hateful spend.

That's not intolerance, that's freedom of association.

But I think you already knew that.

EDIT:

> tolerance is" I hate what you think/belive/lifestyle/god/wear but I won't hold it against you".

This is the nonsensical redefinition of "tolerance" that I notice is increasingly preached by those who realize their regressive opinions are increasingly considered unacceptable by a growing majority. It does not reflect the actual definition. It is dishonest.

Tolerance is respecting your right to have your regressive, hateful opinions. And I would never suggest that Eich does not have the right to have them. Even to donate money to those causes. But that also means I have the right to avoid using products that benefit him because I do not want to give patronage to people who would do as he does. You don't get a get-out-of-jail-free card about being reprehensible just because you really firmly believe something.

False equivalence.

A gay CEO would not (necessarily) be actively trying to take conservative muslims' rights away.

If calling out homophobia is a liability, then I'm happy to be guilty as charged.

And this isn't about a church refusing to marry someone because of their sexuality. This is about governmental rights and legal rights conferred to married couples.

Or on a more dour note: What happens if a homosexual couple moves to a state that bans that practice, and they choose to divorce?

That's why this stuff is important.

People have died for the right to speak their minds so don't live in fear of what may or may not happen.

If you have an opinion, voice it. If somebody is going to discriminate against you because of your opinion, then they are the bigot.

Don't let political correctness silence you.

I think it's easy to predict where things are going with this topic: no discrimination and equal rights for all. That has been the steady march of progress for a very long time, and it will continue onward. Of course it doesn't happen without setbacks, but we all know where things will end up eventually, simply because it's the right thing to do.

The desire to have always had the currently approved opinion is bad enough as it is, but the need to have it to comply with political correctness, or face a "liability", is worse.

Sure, it is a charged issue. But if the zeitgeist changes in twenty years to march further toward theocracy then I think I will be voicing opposition against that. :)

The appropriate middle ground is just that. You can be as religious as you want, tell me that I live in sin etc., but you don't get to force me to not be with the person I love. Similarly, I don't get to force legislation to make everyone atheist.

I do not approve of his actions, but there's plenty of other variants besides "Eich is a despicable homophobe."

Of course, outrage porn is very popular in our interconnected society these days. As for me, I'll keep using Mozilla's products and learn to draw a line between technical accomplishments and political views. Mozilla's contributions to FOSS are far too great to brush them off over something like this.

A business that discriminates against straight people is just as liable under the law as a business that discriminates against gay people. (This is not, as I understand it, currently illegal under federal law. Many states outlaw it, though.)

The problem is that you see Prop 8 as symmetrical, but it is not. Prop 8 is an attempt to remove rights from a group of people. Opposing prop 8 is not an attempt to remove rights from other people, but rather to grant them to everyone.

The proper analogy would be a hypothetical Prop 88 which seeks to ban straight marriage while allowing gay marriage. Ignoring the complete impossibility of such a thing ever going anywhere, donating money to support the passage of such a proposition would rightfully attract a great deal of negative attention.

    The only hate that is being displayed here is by the
    anti-religious groups and individuals.

    God cannot be proven or dis-proven via science. So how
    do atheists know they are really correct? how do
    religious people? At least the religious people have
    a basis that does not rely on unexplained things. A God
    and a creation are certainly a more plausible and simple
    explanation to our existence then any offered by atheists.

    So who are the real bigots here?

    Play hard against the opposition, but when they fall
    down (when they are in need of help), show them kindness,
    help them up and continue the competition.

So what is happening is certain liberals are bigoted against certain religions that have certain interpretations of their religious texts. Which is a lot different than liberals are bigoted against religion.

Awesome.

Let's boycott and protest everyone who doesn't!