• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mozilla’s CEO steps down amid gay marriage furor[W:577]

eohrnberger said:
Forcing someone to resign is a bit more than engaging in freedom of expression, isn't it? Granted, the man made his own decision, but to what extent was he forced into a position where he had to make that decision?
Click to expand...

So, if he'd slaughtered a puppy on live television, I have to keep buying his product or I am "forcing" him out of a job?
Or is this just the outcome of my freedom of expression and a lot of other peoples' freedom of expression?

Are boycotts seriously some sort of unwarranted use of force in your opinion?
 
eohrnberger said:
Forcing a theoretical position on someone to make your argument? Hmm. How legitimate is that really? There are an infinite number of other positions other than the 2 you mentioned, so the world isn't black and white as you are trying to draw it. The man isn't here to define it for himself. All we can say is that we don't know his position on the matter.
Click to expand...

I'm not forcing a position on the CEO. He donated money to Prop 8. Here's the text of the CONSTITUTIONAL Amendment up for vote:

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
Click to expand...

The PURPOSE was to prohibit the state from recognizing SSM, limit or strip rights from LGBT, maintain their relationships in perpetual second class status. What was up for a vote was people's rights, his employees' rights, his suppliers' and business partners' rights, not some non-binding resolution.

I still stand by my position, and I'm here to discuss it, in that the LBGT lobby, by behaving the way that they are, are in fact engaging in that which they criticize of others.
Click to expand...

In a way they are, I suppose. But when you say the LGBT concerns are "petty and vindictive" you are asserting that their rights are petty. Would you believe that if your own rights to marry were up for a vote? How about your rights to own a gun? You're just saying that stripping others of rights, or limiting THEIR rights, is 'petty' to you, which is probably true because you have nothing at stake. THEY do, and understandably have a different opinion.
 
Deuce said:
So, if he'd slaughtered a puppy on live television, I have to keep buying his product or I am "forcing" him out of a job?
Or is this just the outcome of my freedom of expression and a lot of other peoples' freedom of expression?

Are boycotts seriously some sort of unwarranted use of force in your opinion?
Click to expand...

So much for free speech.:peace

The Hounding Of A Heretic « The Dish
 
Deuce said:
Feel free to answer the question yourself:

Is a boycott an unwarranted use of force? Is a boycott violation of free speech?
Click to expand...

Only when liberals are the ones boycotting. :peace
 
Deuce said:
Feel free to answer the question yourself:

Is a boycott an unwarranted use of force? Is a boycott violation of free speech?
Click to expand...
Depends how far it is taken. A boycott alone, as I understand it, is no more than an exercise of freedom of choice.

So, no to the second.
 
Deuce said:
Hahahahah. Read the first amendment and let me know where it says I am prohibited from participating in a boycott.
Click to expand...

When imposed to silence another it is a violation ethically if not legally. It is the behavior of Salem witch hunters.:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
When imposed to silence another it is a violation ethically if not legally. It is the behavior of Salem witch hunters.:peace
Click to expand...

Already made my signature.
 
The Mark said:
Depends how far it is taken. A boycott alone, as I understand it, is no more than an exercise of freedom of choice.

So, no to the second.
Click to expand...

Great! Now, which part of this Mozilla situation goes too far?
 
Deuce said:
Great! Now, which part of this Mozilla situation goes too far?
Click to expand...
Umm...unless I'm mistaken, all they did was fire a CEO who made them look like assholes.

Completely reasonable, no violation of any rights whatsoever.
 
Deuce said:
Already made my signature.
Click to expand...

In the words of Andrew Sullivan:

Will he now be forced to walk through the streets in shame? Why not the stocks? The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us.

:peace
 
Deuce said:
So, if he'd slaughtered a puppy on live television, I have to keep buying his product or I am "forcing" him out of a job?
Or is this just the outcome of my freedom of expression and a lot of other peoples' freedom of expression?

Are boycotts seriously some sort of unwarranted use of force in your opinion?
Click to expand...

No, consumers make their own decisions.

I was thinking more so of the employees and their internal revolt. Sure, they can speak out publicly of they like, but airing the companies dirty laundry in public is probably not the best choice if there is an internal channel available. Why take the chance on damaging the brand of the company that is your livelihood? Not sure that makes sense, at least to me.

By all accounts, he was a qualified, experienced, one of the web's technical pioneers, and one of the founders of Mozilla. Some of his contributions to the Internet and web browsing are present in every browser. A valuable asset to the company I would think, yet forced out, and probably against his wishes, for what I observe as a small amount of money to a cause that's already been defeated in California. That would to be where the vindictive part comes in, and I'd say pointlessly vindictive, as it's already been decided, so what's the point?

If you want the measure of the man, which may be an insight into his position, all you have to do is read his blog entry from March 26th:
I am deeply honored and humbled by the CEO role. I’m also grateful for the messages of support. At the same time, I know there are concerns about my commitment to fostering equality and welcome for LGBT individuals at Mozilla. I hope to lay those concerns to rest, first by making a set of commitments to you. More important, I want to lay them to rest by actions and results.
A number of Mozillians, including LGBT individuals and allies, have stepped forward to offer guidance and assistance in this. I cannot thank you enough, and I ask for your ongoing help to make Mozilla a place of equality and welcome for all. Here are my commitments, and here’s what you can expect:

  • Active commitment to equality in everything we do, from employment to events to community-building.
  • Working with LGBT communities and allies, to listen and learn what does and doesn’t make Mozilla supportive and welcoming.
  • My ongoing commitment to our Community Participation Guidelines, our inclusive health benefits, our anti-discrimination policies, and the spirit that underlies all of these.
  • My personal commitment to work on new initiatives to reach out to those who feel excluded or who have been marginalized in ways that makes their contributing to Mozilla and to open source difficult. More on this last item below.
. . . .
I am committed to ensuring that Mozilla is, and will remain, a place that includes and supports everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, age, race, ethnicity, economic status, or religion.
Click to expand...
Inclusiveness at Mozilla | Brendan Eich

Are these the words of someone who deserves to be fired from his job? Someone worthy of the vindictiveness that he received?

I ask again. Is this not an example of the LGBT community and their supporters performing exactly as intolerant and bigoted as the people they criticize? What's next? A non-LBGT litmus test for all prospective employees? Is that where we are really heading?
 
JasperL said:
I'm not forcing a position on the CEO. He donated money to Prop 8. Here's the text of the CONSTITUTIONAL Amendment up for vote:



The PURPOSE was to prohibit the state from recognizing SSM, limit or strip rights from LGBT, maintain their relationships in perpetual second class status. What was up for a vote was people's rights, his employees' rights, his suppliers' and business partners' rights, not some non-binding resolution.
Click to expand...

How is it that punishing him for his right to express himself is justified in your mind?

JasperL said:
In a way they are, I suppose. But when you say the LGBT concerns are "petty and vindictive" you are asserting that their rights are petty. Would you believe that if your own rights to marry were up for a vote? How about your rights to own a gun? You're just saying that stripping others of rights, or limiting THEIR rights, is 'petty' to you, which is probably true because you have nothing at stake. THEY do, and understandably have a different opinion.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not equating the community's behavior and their rights. Those are two separate things. The community is free to exercise their rights and it wouldn't matter if Eich was CEO or not. LGBT rights would not damaged in the least if would have stayed as CEO.
 
So being pro-traditional marriage is now sufficient to get you fired?
 
eohrnberger said:
So being pro-traditional marriage is now sufficient to get you fired?
Click to expand...
If it makes the company you work for look bad, definitely.

I should say that it was not his opinion that got him kicked out, but rather the actions he took based on those opinions.
 
The Mark said:
If it makes the company you work for look bad, definitely.

I should say that it was not his opinion that got him kicked out, but rather the actions he took based on those opinions.
Click to expand...

Disgusting intolerance kicked him out.:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
Disgusting intolerance kicked him out.:peace
Click to expand...
Well I haven't read the article in the OP, but it sure didn't sound like that....

Edit: Now I have read it.

He wasn't fired, but "stepped down".

And from where I'm sitting, it seems like perfectly reasonable "intolerance" on the part of Mozilla. They would probably lose a decent chunk of their business if they kept him on.


Look at it this way....if a religious charity fired their top administrator because he openly supported gay marriage, going against the religion of the charity, would you find that unreasonable?
 
Last edited:
Kobie said:
So in other words, freedom of speech is freedom from consequence? I can get up on a soapbox at work and scream "I HATE BLACK PEOPLE" and if I were fired, it would be infringing on my freedom of speech?
Click to expand...

Not even remotely comparable. Having a political position that you support outside of work is not the same as shouting it in people's ears at your workplace.

What are the first four words of the First Amendment?
Click to expand...

The U.S. Constitution limits the government, but the rights themselves are inviolable by all. If you had any grasp of the law you might know that. Of course, most self-proclaimed "liberals" nowadays do not really give a **** about the Constitution unless it can be misinterpreted in a way that favors their position. BTW, I think you mean the first five words, not four.

Deuce said:
So, if he'd slaughtered a puppy on live television
Click to expand...

That kind of thing is illegal in most states if I recall correctly, unlike donating money to a political campaign.
 
The Mark said:
Well I haven't read the article in the OP, but it sure didn't sound like that....
Click to expand...

In the words of Andrew Sullivan:

Will he now be forced to walk through the streets in shame? Why not the stocks? The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us.:peace
 
The Mark said:
If it makes the company you work for look bad, definitely.

I should say that it was not his opinion that got him kicked out, but rather the actions he took based on those opinions.
Click to expand...

By all accounts that I've heard on this, as well as the man's blog posting, it doesn't seem like he was taking any actions that made the company look or perform badly.

Now granted, we are operating on limited information, as I dare say none of us actually worked at Mozilla and experienced his actions and performance there.

SOCTUS recently rules that political contributions are a form of free speech. By punishing Eich for him exercising his free speech, are we no better than other people that suppress other's free speech?
 
eohrnberger said:
By all accounts that I've heard on this, as well as the man's blog posting, it doesn't seem like he was taking any actions that made the company look or perform badly.

Now granted, we are operating on limited information, as I dare say none of us actually worked at Mozilla and experienced his actions and performance there.

SOCTUS recently rules that political contributions are a form of free speech. By punishing Eich for him exercising his free speech, are we no better than other people that suppress other's free speech?
Click to expand...

I don't consider holding your CEO, as a representative of your company, to a higher standard than you might hold your customer support employees...unreasonable.

His job is to increase profits, basically...this was counter to that.

You might argue that Mozilla's customers are stifling his free speech with their free speech. These things happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom