Now you're whining that public opinion works the other way. Doesn't matter if it's fair or not, it's how it works. Here's a discussion of boycotts of companies that donate to Planned Parenthood:
But OKCupid isn't the market, they have no power over Mozilla.As they (and OkCupid) made clear: he had to be persecuted and driven from employment because he held "hateful views" contrary to their views.
OK, I live in the racist and homophobic South. I'm not sure what your point is.Poppycock. I have worked the majority of my life for people who support the denial of my liberties. I (I'm white) have worked for bigoted and sexist black city managers, feminist bosses, and affirmative action (hire by your race) mongers. It has been one of the 'privileges' of working for 17 years in a deep blue California City near Berkeley, controlled by and run by a black majority city civil service and City Council, that has bathed me in the views of every anti-liberty (and anti-white) nostrum imaginable.
It's just a fact of life that the CEO IS the face of the company and his or her personal views are rightly or wrongly associated with those of the company they head. It comes with the job and it doesn't matter whether you think it should or not. It just does. No one would argue that it shouldn't matter if the CEO of Mozilla donated to a cause to reinstate mixed race marriage bans, even if his company by all accounts treated blacks just fine in the workplace before he was appointed CEO. It would be nearly unthinkable for such a person to have an executive position and no board anywhere would elevate him to CEO. So this issue isn't about whether we should hold the person or company accountable for personal views, you just think holding anyone accountable for their opposition to gay marriage bans is unfair.None the less, we don't persecute bosses for their private views nor for their private life - regardless of what 'executive' position they hold (at least, not since McCarthy). We don't make them sign gay-marriage loyalty oaths, try to humiliate them publicly, or politic to get them fired for a donation to a state ballot initiative.
I'd just say that to some gay couples, this is a big deal. You're saying to them - it's NOT a big deal - get over it. That's not how it works.
That's just not true - there was intense internal pressure against him in Mozilla. And what he apparently did do was support their employment rights, but on his off time he worked against them obtaining rights to marriage, and wanted that denial of rights enshrined in the Constitution of California. The latter was and is important to gays. It's not to you. Well, when your constituents include a great number of gays, don't be surprised that when you oppose them being able to obtain fundamental (in their view) rights, they'll object and if there is an option in the market, they will often choose companies more aligned with their values. It's life in the market.Be reminded, everyone at Mozilla agrees that Eich was completely supportive of employees of every race, sex, and sexual orientation. Nothing in his work conduct evenly remotely suggested the vicious demonization of him as a human being...unless, of course, more than 1/2 of California voters are also "demons". (Continued)
And you're failing to distinguish between "demonization of him as a human being" versus "opposed him as the public face of Mozilla." There is a difference. His opposition to SSM was known no later than 2012. He remained CTO....
Advance America » Blog Archive » VICTORY AT THE STATE HOUSE!
AFA of Indiana was also at the bill signing. You can google them if you want their views on SSM, and their support of this bill.Churches, Christian businesses and individuals deserve protection from those who support homosexual marriages and those who support government recognition and approval of gender identity (men who dress as women). SB 101 will help provide the protection!
And as someone else pointed out above, when Utah passed their version of this bill, they engaged with the LGBT community and wrote into the law protections for them in employment and housing, and there was little controversy when that bill passed. Obviously, Utah refused to include measures that would address some of the other "hard" issues, like when does a restaurant have to host a reception for a SSM or when does a florist have to provide services etc. But there was a compromise.
Indiana did none of that. The business community warned them of the message they were sending, they gave opponents the finger, and are unsurprisingly paying a price. Boo hooo.....