Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Some Mozilla Employees Demand New CEO Step Down

timothy posted about 4 months ago | from the why-you-don't-say dept.

Businesses 824

_xeno_ (155264) writes "Mozilla recently named a new CEO, Brendan Eich, and as commentators in that article noted, there could be some backlash over his private contributions to political campaigns. Well, it turns out that they were correct, and despite a statement from Brendan Eich pledging to continue Mozilla's inclusiveness, some Mozilla employees are calling for him to step down. Should private beliefs be enough to prevent someone from heading a project they helped found?"

cancel ×

824 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Instantly fired. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46596635)

At my company, if you start making comments like that, pack your shit.

Tarzan need antecedent (4, Insightful)

Millennium (2451) | about 4 months ago | (#46596719)

What do you mean by "that"? Whose comments are you talking about?

Re:Tarzan need antecedent (5, Funny)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | about 4 months ago | (#46596947)

When he said Pluto wasn't a real planet. Some countries put you to death for that shit.

Re:Tarzan need antecedent (4, Insightful)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about 4 months ago | (#46596977)

Pretty sure AC means the Tweets from the rank and file saying the new boss should to step down. It's fair to expect some blowback for that, but the new boss also needs to understand if he's toxic to the people who will be making him succeed or fail as well.

Re:Tarzan need antecedent (4, Insightful)

epyT-R (613989) | about 4 months ago | (#46597111)

or maybe those people need to grow spines and realize that work is not the same thing as a party, where they get to choose who they associate with. As long as he treats them no differently than other employees, the problem lies squarely with the complainers.

Re: Instantly fired. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46596875)

It's fun that you get downvoted by people that have the same wrong priorities and radical ideology than these employees.

Re: Instantly fired. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46597227)

Preferring equality is "radical ideology"?

No (4, Insightful)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 4 months ago | (#46596649)

The employees should make sure the door doesn't hit them on the ass on their way out. Modern day McCarthy's.

Re:No (5, Insightful)

msauve (701917) | about 4 months ago | (#46596773)

If employees can justify asking the boss to leave because of his personal beliefs, then they should respect the opposite and support the boss when he similarly asks them to leave for theirs.

Re:No (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46596953)

They already do, people get fired for off duty actions all the time when they become too public.

Re:No (1)

machineghost (622031) | about 4 months ago | (#46596985)

That logic totally holds up; after all, the responsibilities of the CEO of a company are identical to the average employee in that company, right?

Re:No (3, Insightful)

msauve (701917) | about 4 months ago | (#46597203)

Yes, they have similar responsibilities to their employer (to make a bona fide effort do do the work they were hired for), and also similar rights to their own personal beliefs.

Re:No (2, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | about 4 months ago | (#46597011)

The boss doesn't ask employees to leave. The employee just gets to work one day and find their desk on the front lawn.

Re:No (5, Insightful)

almitydave (2452422) | about 4 months ago | (#46596777)

Well, employment law prevents discriminatory hiring/firing practices (based on religious and many other factors), and if the guy is qualified for the role, his beliefs and political advocacy are irrelevant, as are those of the employees who disagree with those beliefs. People who preach tolerance need to be tolerant, and if he practices what he preaches in his linked blog post, there shouldn't be a problem.

We've had blacklisting based on political associations before, and I thought we all agreed it's a bad thing?

Re:No (5, Insightful)

unixisc (2429386) | about 4 months ago | (#46596859)

It is always conditionally agreed. People agree that blacklisting based on political associations is a bad thing, except when it comes to blacklisting people that they disagree with

Re:No (0)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 4 months ago | (#46597127)

Well I can hardly blame them in this case as it was over gay rights.

Mundane politic issues, sure, don't be a fussbudget, but not ones of existence.

However, Mozilla would be in the right, legally, to fire these guys -- publicly associating yourself with a company and making loud political statements is not your purview. No, you don't get to do that. You get to do that only without associating yourself with (someone else's stuff).

At the same time, good luck doing that as the PR backlash would be tremendous. So they are in practice safe. Probably.

Re:No (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46597189)

Yeah can't forget the dark days of the red scare when studio technicians asked actors and directors to voluntarily stop working right?

Re:No (5, Interesting)

machineghost (622031) | about 4 months ago | (#46596957)

We've had blacklisting based on political associations before, and I thought we all agreed it's a bad thing?

Yeah, we all agreed it's bad. Like remember when the world blacklisted apartheid South Africa and its supporters? That was terrible wasn't it?

Re:No (3, Insightful)

DaHat (247651) | about 4 months ago | (#46596961)

Correct, remember the other side though.

While employment law prohibits (not prevents) discriminatory hiring/firing practices... some of these employees have likely crossed a line outside of any kind of protection... in that they are effectively being insubordinate of the current management and in most cases is a fire-able offense.

Just like in a civil war, if you are unable to stay neutral, best choose your side carefully, because if you back the wrong side you will probably be in a world of pain when it's all done.

No.... (5, Funny)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 4 months ago | (#46596651)

Not sure about private beliefs being enough reason but that whole Javascript thing?

Hell YES.

That has inflicted more pain on the web than anything else INCLUDING the BLINK tag!

Re:No.... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46596763)

Javascript is demonstrably, after C, the most elegant & useful programming language.
Faggots should be killed just for this, they hinder man's progress with their filth.

Re:No.... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46596873)

Sorry but anything with dynamic typing is complete rubbish.

Re:No.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46596995)

That's true. But, sadly, the world is filled with morons who think that Java was actually a good idea, and that anything that doesn't work like Java is crap.

Re:No.... (4, Insightful)

Lazere (2809091) | about 4 months ago | (#46596929)

Woah there sparky. We all know Javascript is bad, but comparing it to the blink tag? That's just offensive.

Re:No.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46596979)

Offensive to the blink tag, which actually works without having to write multiple versions of it.

Re:No.... (1)

Krishnoid (984597) | about 4 months ago | (#46597193)

I believe there's pretty much a single person [gnu.org] who has the "right" to cast a stone in this whole situation.

It wasn't just private opinion. (0)

The Other White Meat (59114) | about 4 months ago | (#46596655)

He actively and publicly contributed to and campaigned for an amendment to take rights away from others. His conduct is most certainly fair game.

Re:It wasn't just private opinion. (5, Insightful)

cold fjord (826450) | about 4 months ago | (#46596797)

That conduct was not connected to his job. But if you want to start penalizing private political activity not connected to the job, that can cut the other way too. ACLU members? Fired. GLAAD members? Fired. Get the drift? Are you sure you want to go there?

Re:It wasn't just private opinion. (3, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 4 months ago | (#46596869)

That conduct was not connected to his job. But if you want to start penalizing private political activity not connected to the job

But it is related to the job: He is the public face of Mozilla. As the CEO, his behavior reflects on Mozilla.

Re:It wasn't just private opinion. (4, Insightful)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 4 months ago | (#46596963)

It is related to their jobs. As movie directors and writers they are credited by name. They are the public face of MGM. Their behavior reflects on the studio and it is reasonable to blacklist communists.

Re:It wasn't just private opinion. (4, Insightful)

christianT (604736) | about 4 months ago | (#46597033)

A company's products are the public face of a company, not the CEO. Until this whole debacle I hadn't a clue who the CEO of Mozilla is or ever has been. What I knew of Mozilla was that they made a pretty darn good web browser among other things. The CEO is there to make sure they keep making a good browser and that the employees are taken care of. If the browser goes to crap or the employees are being mistreated, then he should be ousted.

Re:It wasn't just private opinion. (5, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about 4 months ago | (#46597041)

How is his stance related to the job, other than it is unpopular?

If that is all that you care about (popular opinions of the left) , which seems to the point, then it WILL cut both ways. This is the tyranny that the left opposes except when it benefits them. Think about it this way, what if the NRA said that the CEO of Startbucks should be fired for his comments about people with guns (CC permits) not being welcomed at Starbucks? I mean, THAT does affect Starbucks, but is also SIMPLY a political belief, having nothing to do with coffee and crumpets.

The left LOVES to mix their business with political beliefs. Had Right Wingers known that they support suppression of speech, I'm sure that would have done so earlier.

Libertarians don't give a shit as long as people get the job they were hired to do, done.

Re:It wasn't just private opinion. (3, Insightful)

harrkev (623093) | about 4 months ago | (#46597179)

How is his stance related to the job, other than it is unpopular?

Proposition 8 passed with 52.24% of the voters voting FOR it. Please define "unpopular." Perhaps it is just that the people against Prop 8 were a lot more vocal?

Something of note: (1)

alostpacket (1972110) | about 4 months ago | (#46597171)

Not sure about behavior, but as a 501c3, Mozilla is not allowed to donate to candidates and has limits on lobbying. But I do not know what exactly the limits are.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki... [wikisource.org]

Something in there...

The lobbying ceiling amount for any organization for any taxable year is 150 percent of the lobbying nontaxable amount for such organization for such taxable year, determined under section 4911.

Hopefully someone has a greater interest in deciphering that.^ It does not seem related to anything decided in Citizens v United as far as I can tell.

Re:It wasn't just private opinion. (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about 4 months ago | (#46596879)

Mod up - insightful!

Re:It wasn't just private opinion. (1, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | about 4 months ago | (#46597049)

The employees FIRED the CEO. What an odd company!

Hey wait! They ASKED him to step down and have no actual ability to fire him.

Re:It wasn't just private opinion. (3, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 4 months ago | (#46597059)

tit for tat, I say.

more and more, companies are invading your home life and privacy. you want this job, here, piss in a bottle since you are guilty unless you prove otherwise.

what a person may choose to do at home while off-work is their business. right? well, companies don't seem to think so. they want to invade your lifestyle choices and penalize you for it.

well, same here! we have every right to inspect the CEO's personality and character and if its not 'in line' with our core beliefs, sure, send him packing!

when companies stop invading our home life styles, we will stop asking the c-levels about theirs.

fair is fair.

I'd rather not be fired for my beliefs (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46596911)

So why fire him? If I were to donate money in favor of Prop 8 or against it I would like to keep my job.

Re:I'd rather not be fired for my beliefs (4, Insightful)

cbhacking (979169) | about 4 months ago | (#46597151)

"Asked to step down" != "fired". He was promoted from inside the company, and they feel that he shouldn't have been.

Oh, and if you don't want your political contributions to become a big deal in the workplace, I have a couple recommendations:
1) Don't become a CEO. The CEO represents the company. The policies of a new CEO are assumed, with reason, to be the intended policies of the company. People care about that stuff, in ways that they're never going to care about one AC on Slashdot.
2) Don't do it publicly! A few thousand dollars quietly donated to one cause or another isn't generally going to alter anybody's opinion of you, because they won't know. A few thousand dollars publicly and visibly donated to a very controversial, discriminatory cause? Well, that's going to grab some attention. It still won't make headlines though, unless people have reason to believe you're in a position to discriminate against others going forward. See #1...

Re:It wasn't just private opinion. (3, Insightful)

Quila (201335) | about 4 months ago | (#46596935)

So when Michael Bloomberg was CEO of Bloomberg LP, or Steve Case head of AOL, they should have been forced to step down because they "actively and publicly contributed to and campaigned for" taking away gun rights from the people. Right?

Re:It wasn't just private opinion. (3, Insightful)

DaHat (247651) | about 4 months ago | (#46597157)

The reason why the attacks are unidirectional is because gay marriage

I wasn't talking just about same sex marriage... why are you?

or the larger issue of gay rights

At last check... gay individuals had the same rights as straight ones... and while sometimes those rights may not line up with preferences (ie right to marry someone of the opposite sex where desire is to marry someone of the same sex), the right remains the same regardless... you purposely try to pain the issue as something more than its not.

is a human rights issue.

Again... you prove my point of intolerance from the left... and that one need only call something a 'human rights' or 'civil rights' issue until you make enough people agree through education & politics... or fear mongering and blacklisting.

Guess which you are supporting?

All you need to do is look back across history to figure out if the side that protects, or the side that attacks, human rights is the "right" side.

History tends to be written by the victors... yet up until just two years ago, the President of the United States claimed to be against same-sex marriage... does that mean up until then he should have been viewed as a homophobic and anti-gay bigot? No? Interesting the continued double standard... or do you think history will record it that way?

2 men or 2 women getting married has the same impact on your life as a black man marrying a white woman.

You assume I care about either, your point?

There is no reason to not allow that.

Again... do you have a point? It's been clear for some time which way the tide was going... yet the issue is less today about the 'right' to marry someone of the same sex, but of the compulsion to force others to recognize it... and no, I don't mean at the court house, but of even a florist or baker being able to say they do not agree with the union and cannot provide services for such an event.

The only justification people have for not supporting gay rights is because of their own prejudice.

Yet the prejudices of those who see prejudices everywhere are emboldened to lash out against anyone they deem as not being sufficiently supportive of the current cause celeb... as we see in this case here.

Intolerance of perceived intolerance is still bigotry... and if anything, those who are calling for the stepping down of Eich are proving the (lack) of quality of their characters as they cannot handle the idea of working for someone who may have once disagreed with them.

Re:It wasn't just private opinion. (3, Insightful)

DaHat (247651) | about 4 months ago | (#46597199)

Ug... posted the wrong reply above... instead I meant to ask/say...

Bigger question... where is the campaign to have President Obama step down as he was against same sex marriage when he ran for national office back in 2008 (and previously)... and only more recently 'evolved' on the issue.

Shouldn't a (former?) bigot like him be compelled to resign for his previous sins?

Re:It wasn't just private opinion. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46597163)

only because you think that marriage is a 'right'. It's not.

Not private (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46596673)

They're not private beliefs when you use them as a motivation to fund initiatives based on those beliefs.

Re:Not private (0)

unixisc (2429386) | about 4 months ago | (#46596897)

They are rights, nonetheless!

Re:Not private (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46597095)

Until the government comes in and tries to jail him for those contributions his rights are irrelevant.

Filthy suka' (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46596703)

Are there that many sodomites? Javascript is the most elegant/practical programming language, after C.
Just dispose of the faggots, more prospective. Hateful colorful unholy maggots...
--
Sheshbazzar

First amendment only applies to our friends (5, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | about 4 months ago | (#46596737)

First, I'm absolutely 100% against Prop 8. I'm not gay; I just don't think I should have a say in the relationship between two consenting adults.

That said, I'm absolutely 100% for Eich's right to have an opinion I disagree with. If he were acting on his opinion in an official capacity, sure, release the dogs of PR war. But if he maintains a nondiscriminatory policy, even if he may personally not like it, then that's about all you have the right to ask of him.

Remember, sometime it'll be our turn to have an unpopular opinion. Would it be OK for our companies to fire us for them, even if we don't bring them into our workplaces? That's not a society I'd like to live in.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends (5, Insightful)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | about 4 months ago | (#46596765)

No one is threatening to fire Eich. The employees disagree with his position and are asking him to step down. It is their right to do so. It is his right to choose not to do so. If he doesn't, it is their right to quit. No one's rights are being infringed upon in this particular situation. Employees disagree with his views towards gay marriage, and so they don't want to work for him. That sounds reasonable to me.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends (4, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | about 4 months ago | (#46596823)

I agree. I was answering the question in the summary, "should private beliefs be enough to prevent someone from heading a project they helped found?"

Of course not. Unless those beliefs become workplace actions, they should not affect someone's employment.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends (0, Troll)

sjames (1099) | about 4 months ago | (#46597085)

It could be argued that his public support for stripping rights from homosexuals might have a chilling effect on any gay employees. Perhaps even a hostile work environment.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends (3, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | about 4 months ago | (#46597125)

It could be argued, yes, but down that path lies madness: "my boss campaigned heavily for Obama. I don't believe he will treat me, an open Republican, fairly."

Again, I disagree with Eich. I'm am not defending his (to me) awful opinions. But I've known plenty of people with shitty opinions who nonetheless treated those around them with dignity and respect. If he acts on his beliefs, then it's time to react.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends (1)

DaHat (247651) | about 4 months ago | (#46596883)

The employees disagree with his position and are asking him to step down. It is their right to do so.

They are also taking a great risk in doing so.

In some companies, what these employees are doing would be considered insubordination and could easily get them fired for cause... if Eich doesn't do so, he will demonstrate rather well that he is the bigger person.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends (2)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | about 4 months ago | (#46597061)

Insubordination is willfully disobeying a superior. Assuming these people are still doing their jobs, asking the CEO to step down is not insubordination.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends (1)

almitydave (2452422) | about 4 months ago | (#46596919)

It doesn't sound reasonable to me. Do you agree with every political, philosophical, or religious opinion of all your superiors? Do you refuse to work for anyone who disagrees with you? Do you ask everyone above or below you in the hierarchy to step down if they hold an opinion you don't like?

I understand that gay marriage is a contentious issue right now, and it's far from settled (and probably won't ever be). People on every side of it need to extend toward their ideological opponents the same courtesies they expect themselves - that's how it has to work in a free and equitable society.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends (3, Insightful)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | about 4 months ago | (#46597019)

Do you agree with every political, philosophical, or religious opinion of all your superiors?

From what I've heard expressed, generally yes, I do.

Do you refuse to work for anyone who disagrees with you?

If it is an issue that is important enough to me, sure. For example, if I am interviewing with a company and I find out that the CEO is actively supporting a campaign to restrict the human rights of a large class of people, then that would be enough to get me to not want to enrich that person.

Do you ask everyone above or below you in the hierarchy to step down if they hold an opinion you don't like?

Just a simple difference in opinion? No, I wouldn't, but I don't think we're talking about a simple difference of opinion here.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends (0)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 4 months ago | (#46597143)

and it's far from settled (and probably won't ever be)

they said that about women's right to vote and the right to marry even if it crosses religions or colors.

those who are against the right of free individuals to seek out their own happiness in a relationship WILL find themselves on the wrong side of history, just like those who thought it was 'against god' to let blacks and whites marry.

this is not debatable. its equal rights and we should not be spending so much time on such a simple and obvious thing.

its only non-obvious to those brainwashed by religion. and FUCK THEM! their views are usually on the wrong side of history, as well!

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | about 4 months ago | (#46597201)

I think it'll reach the same level of "settled" as interracial marriage. A few holdouts will still bitch about it or turn up their noses, but everyone else will wonder what the big deal was about and get on with their own lives.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends (-1, Offtopic)

DaHat (247651) | about 4 months ago | (#46596829)

Remember, sometime it'll be our turn to have an unpopular opinion.

Unlikely... in such a case you simply need to call your 'unpopular opinion' a 'civil rights issue', repeat ad nauseam until you get your way.

Don't forget, just this week we had a case before the Supreme Court over the question over whether the government has the authority to compel private individuals to violate their religious beliefs and directly pay for medications which in their views (rightly or wrongly) cause abortions.

Somehow... birth control (which was already widely available prior to Obamacare) is now a civil right to receive for free and from your employer.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends (3, Informative)

hondo77 (324058) | about 4 months ago | (#46597075)

Somehow... birth control (which was already widely available prior to Obamacare) is now a civil right to receive for free and from your employer.

No. A couple of businesses want to be exempted from part of a federal law because they claim their religion forbids it. Birth control being a civil right isn't even remotely the issue.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends (2)

machineghost (622031) | about 4 months ago | (#46596861)

So what if that unpopular opinion was that blacks are dirty monkey people who are inferior to the glorious white man ... but he promises not to discriminate against anyone? Does he still have the "right" to run the company despite his "unpopular opinion"?

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | about 4 months ago | (#46596969)

Yes, although he should anticipate being watched like a freaking hawk for any transgressions. According to The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [archives.gov] :

Today, according to the U. S. Government Manual of 1998-99, the EEOC enforces laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age in hiring, promoting, firing, setting wages, testing, training, apprenticeship, and all other terms and conditions of employment. Race, color, sex, creed, and age are now protected classes.

Ironically, your straw man's right to be a racist prick is protected by the law. Note that he has no right to bring his prejudices into the workplace.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends (2)

Lazere (2809091) | about 4 months ago | (#46596999)

Yes, he does. And you have the right not to work for or use any of the products of that company. As long as he isn't actually discriminating against anybody, no laws are being broken. I may not agree with the position, but it's not my business as long as he doesn't discriminate.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46596951)

That said, I'm absolutely 100% for Eich's right to have an opinion I disagree with

You and the declaration of human rights. This kind of puts the whole thing in a different light.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends (1)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about 4 months ago | (#46597025)

Would it be OK for our companies to fire us for them, even if we don't bring them into our workplaces?

Perfectly legal in many places already. First Amendment applies to the government, not private employers.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | about 4 months ago | (#46597173)

According to the EEOC, that's not even remotely OK, even for private employers.

Re:First amendment only applies to our friends (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 4 months ago | (#46597097)

they already fire us for views or ideas that the corpspeak gods don't like.

they ask us to pea in a bottle before they let us start a new job. this is mostly due to conservative views held by c-levels in such companies. its them forcing their views on us!

why can't we turn it around?

as soon as they stop invading our privacy, we could stop inquiring about theirs.

but as it stands right now, companies do 'background checks' at various levels and even credit history checks. they look all over your history for reasons to dismiss you or reject hiring you.

the c-levels should be held to the same standard, or even higher.

Talking Points (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46596741)

Have you ever uttered this phrase with sincerity?
"what an employee does outside of work hours is nobody's business"

Re:Talking Points (1)

blue9steel (2758287) | about 4 months ago | (#46597131)

Sure, just not by an employer.

We'll be inclusive, honest!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46596747)

Just some will be more included than others.....

No (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46596749)

If you are so opposed to this guy's viewpoints that you can't stand to work in the same organization with him, the problem's yours, not his. He's not the one demanding you resign because he doesn't agree with yoru views, you are.

You intolerant clod.

The double standard at work (5, Insightful)

DaHat (247651) | about 4 months ago | (#46596755)

Prop 8 has been a contentious issue for many, and is now largely resolved... yet those who ultimately won are still not happy.

It is interesting to see how those who supported it (even through a simple donation) are now targets for personal and professional attacks such as this... yet this kind of intolerance for the views of other peoples opinions & donations, does seem to be rather unidirectional, but then that is the typical 'tolerance' that the left in this country believes in.

Re:The double standard at work (5, Insightful)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | about 4 months ago | (#46596867)

The reason why the attacks are unidirectional is because gay marriage, or the larger issue of gay rights, is a human rights issue. All you need to do is look back across history to figure out if the side that protects, or the side that attacks, human rights is the "right" side. It's pretty obvious. In the future, people opposed to gay rights today are going to be seen similarly to those who fought against civil rights in the 60s. 2 men or 2 women getting married has the same impact on your life as a black man marrying a white woman. There is no reason to not allow that. The only justification people have for not supporting gay rights is because of their own prejudice.

Re:The double standard at work (0)

cold fjord (826450) | about 4 months ago | (#46597007)

It's pretty obvious. In the future, people opposed to gay rights today are going to be seen similarly to those who fought against civil rights in the 60s.

You didn't mention which "60s" you're referring to, the 1860s or the 1960s. I have little doubt you're thinking of the 1960s, but the future is an uncertain thing. They may be seen like the people in the 1850s and 1860s that opposed the right of other Americans to own slaves, a right reflected in the Constitution itself, opposing a right that was popular in some areas but ultimately a bad idea. When you're referring to "prejudice," make sure to consider your own.

Re:The double standard at work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46597031)

I think the underlying issue is WHY people are opposed to gay marriage:

1. It's against their beliefs yet is taught as moral in public schools
2. Business must serve and support gay issues or be sued

Those are the two main issues. If the govt just stayed out of it at school and a business could say, "No, I do not want to photograph a gay wedding," then you'd see that most christians don't even care if gays go and get married. Can't a photographer say they don't want to photograph a nudist wedding? Is that bigotry too?

It's the shove it down everyone else's throats that causes the uproar. It's not about civil rights. The civil rights argument is used to make it hard to argue against. Get it out of schools and let parents teach their own kids as they please and you'd see this issue disappear and states adopt gay civil weddings. As a tech, I can tell a porno company that I won't admin their systems because of their business type. Am I a bigot too?

Where does it end?

Re:The double standard at work (4, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about 4 months ago | (#46597159)

Gay marriage isn't about rights, it is about benefits granted by government. Nothing more, nothing less.

Most gay people oppose Polygamy, even though that is exactly the same issue, government deciding who can and who can't be "married" (Defining Marriage). Why do they oppose polygamy (polyandry, other plural marriages)? Historically, there is much more evidence of polygamy and even polyandry being "legal" forms of marriage than homosexual marriages.

Here is my view, as a Libertarian: Government has no right to define what is or what isn't marriage. Period. Individuals are the only people with rights, therefore, marriage is simply a contract between two people. And at that point, it is no longer something that government has a say in. The opponents of gay marriage, made the mistake all along of suggesting that it was a right for only Heterosexual people. It isn't a right, it is a contract, and a sacred one at that (religious). If the Muslims and Mormons want to define marriage to have their polygamy, then that is who defines marriage for them.

Re:The double standard at work (1)

DaHat (247651) | about 4 months ago | (#46597181)

Ug... posted my reply to the wrong comment... now again to the right place...

The reason why the attacks are unidirectional is because gay marriage

I wasn't talking just about same sex marriage... why are you?

or the larger issue of gay rights

At last check... gay individuals had the same rights as straight ones... and while sometimes those rights may not line up with preferences (ie right to marry someone of the opposite sex where desire is to marry someone of the same sex), the right remains the same regardless... you purposely try to pain the issue as something more than its not.

is a human rights issue.

Again... you prove my point of intolerance from the left... and that one need only call something a 'human rights' or 'civil rights' issue until you make enough people agree through education & politics... or fear mongering and blacklisting.

Guess which you are supporting?

All you need to do is look back across history to figure out if the side that protects, or the side that attacks, human rights is the "right" side.

History tends to be written by the victors... yet up until just two years ago, the President of the United States claimed to be against same-sex marriage... does that mean up until then he should have been viewed as a homophobic and anti-gay bigot? No? Interesting the continued double standard... or do you think history will record it that way?

2 men or 2 women getting married has the same impact on your life as a black man marrying a white woman.

You assume I care about either, your point?

There is no reason to not allow that.

Again... do you have a point? It's been clear for some time which way the tide was going... yet the issue is less today about the 'right' to marry someone of the same sex, but of the compulsion to force others to recognize it... and no, I don't mean at the court house, but of even a florist or baker being able to say they do not agree with the union and cannot provide services for such an event.

The only justification people have for not supporting gay rights is because of their own prejudice.

Yet the prejudices of those who see prejudices everywhere are emboldened to lash out against anyone they deem as not being sufficiently supportive of the current cause celeb... as we see in this case here.

Intolerance of perceived intolerance is still bigotry... and if anything, those who are calling for the stepping down of Eich are proving the (lack) of quality of their characters as they cannot handle the idea of working for someone who may have once disagreed with them.

Re:The double standard at work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46596887)

YOU'RE a case-in-point!

Re:The double standard at work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46596973)

Posting anonymously, to avoid my Karma getting sunk to Poor.

Prop 8 was a slam dunk vote in which CA clearly voted in one direction, despite being pro Democrat since Reagan stopped being president. However, what the losers couldn't win at the ballot box, they contested in court, and won. End result - people's will overturned by a few activist judges.

Elsewhere in America, courts overturn initiatives outlawing Shariah provisions from becoming a parallel law. It will be amusingly ironic when Jihadis start implementing Shariah and dropping gays from high towers - something that is sanctioned under Islamic law.

Re:The double standard at work (2)

mendax (114116) | about 4 months ago | (#46597107)

End result - people's will overturned by a few activist judges.

Wrong. It was overturned because Prop. 8 was clearly unconstitutional. Study civil rights law as I have and you'll understand. These are the facts: Marriage may be considered by some people as a holy thing but as far as the government is concerned, it's nothing more than a civil contract. When the government prohibits certain persons from entering into such a contract simply because of their sexual orientation or gender without there being a rational reason for that prohibition, it's unconstitutional because it's then considered to be arbitrary. There is no good reason for that prohibition that makes any sense. The excuses used by religious conservatives in the past have been shown to be crap. Gay marriage is almost a fait accompli in the U.S. and there is very little anyone can do about it.

Prop 8 was a slam dunk vote in which CA clearly voted in one direction, despite being pro Democrat since Reagan stopped being president.

Incidentally, recent polls show that California voters would not pass an initiative like Prop. 8 today and that a majority support gay marriage.

Remember when Eich became the CEO of Mozilla? (5, Insightful)

thevirtualcat (1071504) | about 4 months ago | (#46596803)

I do. It was a pivotal day in the history of the organization.

His first action as the CEO was to immediately fire anyone who was in any way, shape or form connected to the GBLT community and issue a public statement that says "Fags should use Chrome or IE. Google and Microsoft like you perverts for some reason, but we don't want any of that here." Within a week, he had diverted a substantial portions of Mozilla's revenue to anti-GBLT orgnizations and publicly backed candidates who actively oppose gay rights. There were unsubtantiated rumors he would be working to remove code contributed by GBLT developers from Firefox, but those turned out to be just rumors.

Oh wait, no. That didn't happen.

He gave some money to a cause he supports a few years ago that a lot of people disagree with (including me) and didn't apologize for it.

But I can see how it's easy to get those two things confused.

Re:Remember when Eich became the CEO of Mozilla? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46597055)

> Oh wait, no. That didn't happen.

If that happens Mozilla need to pay several hundred of millions to those who got affected. So, of course, it won't happen. Please stop trying to picture Eich as a saint for the evilness he is not allowed to do.

Tolerance and reason at it's finest (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46596825)

"Hey, there is this guy, he has been around for pretty much forever, contributed more than half the goddamn planet, but he donated for Prop 8, what was outlawed anyway, he must be the spawn of Satan! He must step back, stop existing, or we boycott our single biggest hope for a better web and anyone who works there and isn't Eric!"
Those Ars commenters are batsh*t insane, mixing personal feelings and professional stuff. Also, gotta love the comments where he is compared to Hitler or the KKK. It isn't even a different different order of magnitude anymore...

Eich should man up (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46596851)

And tell those fags to shut the fuck up or quit. Twitter should also ban these homos for organizing such a disgusting circlejerk against mozilla.

If the employees don't like it they should leave . (0)

JohnnyConservative (1611795) | about 4 months ago | (#46596871)

If the employees don't like it they should leave. Move to the nearest socialist, communist, etc. country of their choice, at their own expense. They are obviously not happy in our country!!!

I think one thing we've glossed over (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46596909)

Should private beliefs be enough to prevent someone from heading a project they helped found?"

When your project becomes a corporation you lose the rights of project founder and sadly bend to capitalism of your investors
Mozilla is an open source product that is now made by a for profit corporation.

Not going to happen (1)

rsborg (111459) | about 4 months ago | (#46596939)

Regardless of the merits of Eich's actions, or the merits of those calling for his ouster, the fact remains that all that's going to happen is that there will be a kerfuffle and Eich will either ignore it or make some pro-LGBT concession and then things will continue on, the same way things have been going.

Does anyone doubt that the Eich is capable of handling the job? I don't hear that anywhere. Perhaps this whole thing is to focus away from the fact that he may not be the best person to head Mozilla (and remove other candidates from the spotlight by hogging all the attention)? That's a bit CT [1], but I've been accused of worse kinds of thoughtcrime.

[1] http://acronyms.thefreediction... [thefreedictionary.com]

Will these people also stop using Javascript? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46596949)

He's responsible for that, too.

Re:Will these people also stop using Javascript? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46597183)

I think a ton of developers would drop JavaScript in a heartbeat if it weren't locked into the web's infrastructure right now. Gay or Straight.

And, for the counterpoints (5, Informative)

chefmonkey (140671) | about 4 months ago | (#46596983)

A homosexual Mozilla employee's take on the topic: http://subfictional.com/2014/0... [subfictional.com]
A statement from Mitch Baker, Mozilla chairperson: https://blog.lizardwrangler.co... [lizardwrangler.com]
A statement from Brendan himself: https://brendaneich.com/2014/0... [brendaneich.com]
An official Mozilla statement on its policy regarding employee and contributor diversity: https://blog.mozilla.org/press... [mozilla.org]

I'll invoke Godwin's law (0)

ugen (93902) | about 4 months ago | (#46597043)

What if that CEO just "gave some money years ago" to Nazis? Now as CEO he is promising to promote "inclusive policies" . Would Jewish people working for this company be justified in asking him to step down?

See, it *is* about the kind of belief that is being dealt with.

In any case, CEO has a right to his opinion and employees have a right to theirs. They are *asking* for him to step down. That's what free speech is for. They can ask, and he can do as he sees fit.

Why don't you quit! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46597053)

How about those people quit instead. If your not happy about somebody's personal life, then quit. Mind your own damn business and do your job. People are way to nosy in everybody else s affairs. Take that time and reflect upon yourself instead.

Social 'Justice' (4, Insightful)

epyT-R (613989) | about 4 months ago | (#46597057)

So basically, because this guy doesn't enthusiastically cheer for and support gays at every opportunity, he deserves the boot? Doesn't he have a right to express and support his values, too? As an atheist, I think religion is nuts, but the same rights that allow these gay employees to voice their displeasure in the first place, without being booted themselves, should protect him as well. There is no 'controversy' here.

Marriage, religion, and gay rights should have nothing to do with running a software company, which is what he was hired to do. Let him do it. If he sucks at it, then fire him. If he does a good job, then reward him. Part of being an employee is that sometimes you have to work with people you don't like, and this applies equally to him as well as to these gay employees. Apparently, these professional victims think that life lesson should not apply to them, only to their political enemies. Their crocodile tears on twitter do not impress, either, as they are acting like he victimized them just by taking the job at Mozilla. That's bullshit.

Workplaces should be amoral, apolitical places. You were hired to do a job, so was he. Do your jobs well and there'll be no time for stupid political wrangling from any side.

Take it easy, they're just _asking_ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46597073)

Should private beliefs be enough to prevent someone from heading a project they helped found?

C'mon, there's "prevent" and then there's PREVENT. These people are merely asking him to step down.

It's not like they're spending money to buy a radical new law to expand the government's role into using FORCE to make him "step" down (I think making someone step down is technically called "pushing" or "tripping," but hey, whatever).

(My favorite part of these kinds of issues is that the go-running-to-mommy-government team call themselves "conservatives." That's just awesome. Every day, I try to amuse someone with silly irony, but sometimes reality makes all my efforts seem so inadequate.)

public actions != private beliefs. Chavez, Phelps (0)

raymorris (2726007) | about 4 months ago | (#46597121)

> Should private beliefs be enough to prevent someone from heading a project they helped found?"

Public actions aren't private beliefs. Hugo Chavez, Fred Phelps, or Jane Fonda would be very bad choices as business leaders because they come with a ton of bad PR. A month or so ago Slashdot had story about a small group of Apple shareholders proposing that the company not "waste" money on inefficient attempts to be^H^H appear "green". Over 97% of the shareholders rejected the proposal, preferring to reduce profits by spending money on some solar-electric crap. If the owners want Apple to be a tree-hugging company, they should be able to do that - they are the owners, it's their money. For that reason, they would take that into account in a CEO. That's fine, they are paying the CEO, and should be able to hire one who believes in the mission. The mission, at least at Apple, isn't just about money, it's also about politics.

As another example, Chik-Fil-A's mission is about really good chicken, yes, but it's also about creating a wholesome environment for the employees. For example, all Chik-Fil-A employees have Sunday off to spend with their families. That hurts "the bottom line", but Chik-Fil-A believes the real bottom line is something more important than money. Therefore, to accomplish their mission, they wouldn't put Gene Simmons or Lady gaga on their board of directors.

You should never do anything that helps anyone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46597165)

be against you in any way. It is like buying the ammo for someone who is gunning for you.
And you have to do everything you can to expose who and what they are.

Personal Beliefs vs Discriminatory Actions (0)

JenovaSynthesis (528503) | about 4 months ago | (#46597187)

Brendan Eich is NOT being asked to step down because of "personal beliefs" so let's drop that BS right now. He crossed the line by donating money to actively strip away rights of individuals which is a whole different ball game. But it comes down to this even though most people won't admit it... It's still socially acceptable to be homophobic. If he had given money to the KKK or something this would not be an issue. But because it is still ok to bash gays and make/keep them second class citizens it's still a "debate"

Uhh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46597191)

.... huh? We'll tolerate you as long as you believe what we believe?

Utter insanity, like targeting a Google employee at THEIR PRIVATE RESIDENCE in Berkeley.

If you thought Nazism and North Korea were bad - just wait until you get on the bad side the political correctness police and the gay mafioso.

You'll wish all your children were gay and your house was painted like a rainbow for crossing a bunch of morally superior homos on a mission.

Like Supporting Segregation in the 1950s (2, Insightful)

Bob9113 (14996) | about 4 months ago | (#46597217)

Should private beliefs be enough to prevent someone from heading a project they helped found?

No, but he didn't keep his beliefs private, he tried to turn them into law. And that still doesn't mean he can't head the project, it just means a lot of people may walk away from it, and Mozilla.org needs to consider that.

Is the backlash itself justified? Well, to some, including myself, it is a bit like supporting segregation in the 1950s. Right now, it is a mainstream political view to believe that gay people should not have equal rights. There's a hundred thousand years of evolution behind that belief, and it is not realistic to expect everyone to switch that internal belief off at the drop of a hat -- no more than it was possible for people in the 1950s to instantly accept equal treatment of black people.

But what good people did do in the 1950s was stop expressing their prejudice. They stopped supporting segregation, and stopped saying that they found it to be an acceptable practice. Most of them still had that deep internal programming. Most people still have it to some extent today. Hundreds of thousands of years of "different looking means dangerous" genetic programming isn't going to go away overnight. But we have reached a point where we treat those beliefs as flawed baser instincts, like the desire to hit a person over the head and steal their BMW. We repress those feelings because we believe in being better than that.

We have reached a point in our society where prejudicial treatment of black people is no longer accepted. We will reach that point with gay people too, and Mozilla will be as embarrassed of having an unrepentant bigot for a CEO as Walt Disney Corp is of Walt's anti-Semitism. It is not that Mozilla should be forbidden from doing so, it is just a question of showing good judgment.

Mozilla, tell Eich to figure it out and recant his position. It's OK to be unable to overcome your baser instincts; that is a reality of being a flawed human. I'll admit that my instinctive reaction to the idea of gay sex is not pleasant. But it is not OK to express prejudicial beliefs or to support prejudicial laws.

"private" beliefs? (0)

50000BTU_barbecue (588132) | about 4 months ago | (#46597219)

That seems to be a luxury for the 1% these days. If you have nothing to be afraid of, you should have nothing to hide, right?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>