It's not ridiculous at all. Where we spend our time and energy matters. I cannot imagine the frustration I would feel being gay and working at Mozilla knowing that the new CEO donated money to block the opportunity for me to be married to my longtime partner. I just don't think that it would be possible to continue work like nothing was wrong after that.
Just keep raising that bar, soon it will be that they cannot donate to a certain political party, attend a church you don't like, eat at an establishment you don't like, and on and on and on.
All because you want to feel offended. Fine feel offended and suck it up. If it has an effect on your work based on what other do legally in their free time its your problem not theirs. This world isn't about having everything we want.
I get your rationale, and where this conversation goes towards infinity but I don't think most people take it to that extent although that is always the 'fearful' rebuttal. I don't want to feel offended, but it just seems like it would be hard to promote a "culture of inclusiveness" as the CEO given prior actions.
"Soon"? All of those have long been sufficient criteria for some, and there's no "raising the bar" going on.
Some people will chose an establishment just because the owner is, or isn't, member of a specific church. An LGBT organization is unlikely to hire someone who walks in to the interview carrying a Chik-Fil-A lunch, or support another LGBT organization whose leader does the same.
People express their offense and outrage all the time, about all sorts of issues. Sometimes it gets traction. Most times it doesn't.
The bar moves around, certainly, but that doesn't mean it ratchets higher. Few now call for boycotts of communist owned organizations and black-lists of communists like they did during the red scares.
Ideally, probably. But as humans I don't believe we can always leave 100% of us at the door, and it seems unrealistic to switch from one human to another just because our physical space changes.
People who are opposed to homosexuality and gay marriage can simply not be homosexual and not get a gay marriage. They can literally throw their hands up in the air and say "I don't want any part of this topic" and go on with their life, ignoring it. Just like how somebody who isn't for interracial marriage can simply marry a person of their own race, or somebody who isn't for marriage at all can simply not get married.
Gay people don't have that luxury, because the issue being discussed concerns their actual personal rights. Wether it's gay marriage, adoption or anti-soddomy laws, it's things that affect them no matter if they want to be part of the debate or not. They cannot throw up their arms and go on with their life, because they can now not get married, not adopt children, and so on.
It's easy to say that they should keep their private life out of politics, but politics has forced their private life into the spotlight.
First, please re-read what the HN guidelines say about not complaining when you're downvoted.
Second, you are mistaken. Your comments' negative scores are because users, not moderators, downvoted you. Moderators don't have special downvoting powers.
Full Definition of BIGOT
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
People need to check themselves in the mirror with their use of language. Voting in a lawful election and supporting lawful candidates or ballot issues does not in any way resemble the definition of a Bigot.
However, the hate going on here...based on such flimsy evidence...actually looks a lot closer to meeting the threshold test. It is obstinant and intolerant and disproportionate.
: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)
Full Definition of BIGOT
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
I'm still not sure why he feels so strongly about being inclusive of his employees when he felt it necessary to help fund a bill that would do the exact opposite to millions of people in California (including his employees).
There is no grey scale here. Either you think that people (regardless of their sexual orientation) are equal, or you don't. You don't get to pick who to assign rights to based on if they work for your company or not.
At this point, every time I see him say "everyone at mozilla is treated fairly" it's obvious that he just doesn't want to commit career suicide while also remaining a bigot.
There have been several succesfull cases of "special interest politics" in civil rights before. Abolition of serfdom and slavery, anti-segregation, universal suffrage to name a few.
Many of those were considered to be against the "natural order of things" too. Are you sure you want to take the side you seem to be taking?
Equal rights and protections for all under the law are not special interest politics, unless you are working under the guise that homosexuality is something someone chooses.
Marriage is a special interest class (A). The debate is whether or not to expand special interest class (A) to include other special interst classes (Z) (ie, make it larger A'=A+Z). Merely voting to include yourself in the privledge class does not make you some sort of prophet of truth and justice.
People are not bigots because they disagree with your special interest politics.
And that's not what people are saying here. Eich is a bigot because he fits the definition of the term: "A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked."
As expressed in his support of statutory measures to accomplish those ends.
>There is no grey scale here. Either you think that people (regardless of their sexual orientation) are equal, or you don't. You don't get to pick who to assign rights to based on if they work for your company or not.
Mozilla isn't in charge of whether its employees can get married. The equal rights Mozilla grants them would be for things like health insurance, presumably, not marriage. So maybe for Eich, it's not about whether they work for the company or not; maybe he thinks gays should have equal rights to services, but not to the ceremony of marriage.
Be careful because I think by ceremony you are painting a picture that he isn't allowing gay weddings to happen, Prop 8 unless I"m mistaken was all about who can get married in the eyes of the state, no?
> This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act."
> Section 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution, to read:
> Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
The wording was enough to be declared unconstitutional due to its violation of the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. I don't think there's been any legal precedent set beyond that, but it's conceivably broad enough to apply to any jurisdiction or any organization operating within the state, not just the state government.
>Prop 8 unless I"m mistaken was all about who can get married in the eyes of the state, no?
And that's exactly the problem. State governments are sanctioning what are really civil unions but calling them marriages. The obvious answer is that everyone should have civil unions through their state government, and marriage should be reserved for one's church (if one so wishes and has a church -- I don't).
However, since that's not happening, it's clear to me that we have to recognize state marriages as de facto civil unions, and as such support everyone's right to participate. Since (to me) everyone should have the right
But the easy answer would have been to move "marriage" as such to the care of churches, leaving only civil unions in the care of state governments.
Yup, I think I totally agree. It seems there's an issue with wording and that the state is marketing something it doesn't actually do ('wed' people), where they actually just provide a paper that pronounces legal union.
But that wasn't the question. The question was whether it was a consistent position for someone to oppose gay marriage, but not discriminate as an employer.
You know, people may have different 'concepts' of marriage and that is why they may be led to think that it makes no sense (in their conception) to create 'same-sex marriage'. I do not think this turns them into bigots, simply they have a different idea of what marriage 'is' and what it means in a society.
Calling people 'bigots' is not adding anything to the discussion and is just making your statements look unreasonable (as if you had no real 'idea' backing your defense of 'same-sex marriage' and you had to turn to expletives).
Calling a thing what it is is accurate. If that name is pejorative that makes those to whom that term applies, and their supporters, uncomfortable, so much the better.
There is no grey scale here. Either you think that people (regardless of their beliefs) are equal, or you don't.
Some people believe in god, some don't. Some people believe in death penalty, some don't. Hell, Jews and Muslims believe in mutilating their infant sons!
Banning one belief, just because you don't like it, is a very dangerous slippery slope.
>I'm still not sure why he feels so strongly about being inclusive of his employees when he felt it necessary to help fund a bill that would do the exact opposite to millions of people in California (including his employees).
For one, he never said he is against treating gays equally in the workplace (or elsewhere). Only that they should not be married -- something which is irrelevant to the workplace.
Some people take his stance on gay marriage to mean "he hates gays", which doesn't really follow. Actually the reverse could also be true: you could support gay marriage (on principle, as a civil rights issue) and personally hate gays.
>There is no grey scale here. Either you think that people (regardless of their sexual orientation) are equal, or you don't. You don't get to pick who to assign rights to based on if they work for your company or not.
Well, the rights of people in the confines of a company have nothing to do with marriage (except maybe marital leave?). So it's not like he's contradicting himself on anything.
It's also not like he would prevent people to marry outside the workplace. If you remember he helped fund a BILL (emphasis mine). That is, he went with the law, not against it. If the law allows it, he doesn't have a say anymore.
"If you had the opportunity to donate to a Proposition 8 cause today, would you do so?"
"I hadn't thought about that. It seems that's a dead issue. I don't want to answer hypotheticals."
I think that response speaks for itself.
While I don't feel comfortable lynching someone based on contextually irrelevant beliefs, most of us see gay rights as an issue principally comparable to issues of slavery and suffrage. It's the denying of rights to "other people" for dubious reasons.
Hypothetically, if the CEO of another tech company was revealed to have political interests in slavery, would we feel the need to tip-toe so carefully?
"Most of us" may be a bit of an overstatement, despite what the polls say (because the polls did not ask whether people saw it as comparable to slavery and suffrage).
It may seem I am cherry-picking your words, but as you are taking a stance based on his words, I think we are entitled to do the same with yours.
I meant "most of us" within the context of a reasonably intelligent tech community like Hacker News. I accept that this is an assumption, but I stand by it.
I don't have any objective data. It is an inference gleaned from the balance of reactions towards the issue. I admit it is plausible that many people holding the opposing view may choose to remain silent, however I contend that speaks to their ability to defend their stance intellectually.
(The most compelling argument I've heard against gay marriage is "Eew." Colour me unimpressed.)
He still said "most" within the sub-group of reasonably intelligent people, not "all". You may disagree with that claim, but one person not fitting into "most" means nothing.
As I said, you may disagree with the claim. I wasn't even personally supporting the claim in that comment, merely pointing out that it's possible for a.) the claim to be true and b.) Eich is intelligent - they aren't mutually exclusive based on his claim.
Brendan Eich is very intelligent. He just happens to be wrong on this issue, in my opinion.
I self pick based on my own assessment of intellectual honesty and rigor. I have no doubt that our society will be considered similarly unenlightened a hundred years from now -- all we can hope for is some sympathy points for integrity and progress.
>While I don't feel comfortable lynching someone based on contextually irrelevant beliefs, most of us see gay rights as an issue principally comparable to issues of slavery and suffrage. It's the denying of rights to "other people" for dubious reasons.
Only "being free" and "choosing your government" is a right, whereas mariage is a made-up custom, and as such it has historical connections to certain morals and can also be seen as a religious related practice for some.
>If the CEO of another tech company was revealed to have political interests in slavery, would we feel the need to tip-toe so carefully?
If states still had slavery (in the same way states prohibit gay marriage), then yes, we would. Far from being a solved issue, it was something put on vote. If it's one vote, then it's undemocratic to demonize one side of the ballot.
Furthermore, if you're so fired up about civil issues, how about a few that are important to me: the death penalty and gun control. Should a CEO be fired for being pro/against those?
How come a gay man's right to marriage (an antiquated institution if I ever saw one, and a kitchy fair with tons of made up customs for straight and gay men alike) is more important than a 15 year old kids right not to be institutionally murdered in TX, or some other state?
Seems to me some issues have better marketing, and people just go with the flock to the acceptable crusades, and if they have to lynch one or two that are against the flow in the process, so be it.
(I'm not one of the people who has downvoted you.)
My personal feeling - speaking as a gay man and therefore somewhat personally linked, but also as somebody who has not once suffered bullying or mistreatment because of it - is that there are two crucial reasons gay marriage should be legalised, and neither are to do with "made up customs".
Firstly the legal side: inheritance law, hospital visitation rights, insurance, etc. etc.
Secondly, the impact it has on how people view homosexuality. A step towards equality is a step towards not seeing gay kids bullied, gay teens killing themselves, gay adults being harassed in the work place, etc. And that's a huge deal in my opinion.
I think both of your points are important, but in an ideal world, I would go in a slightly different direction, and a bit further. First, I think that marriage is actually two distinct concepts - religious and legal. Since marriage was originally defined by religion, I don't see a problem if religion retains the right of defining marriage - a union between a man and a woman.
Legally, however, gay marriage doesn't solve all the problems. Ideally, "civil unions", granting all the rights above, would be allowed between any number of mutually-consensual partners - e.g. Mormon polygamy, Hippy communes, ... This would also bring additional recognition and acceptance to these people.
Marriage defined as a voluntary expression of love and commitment between equals is very, very, very modern.
It wasn't long ago that marriage was also widely accepted as an asset for parents to sell. It was relatively recent that monogamy wasn't assumed, and that the maximum number in such unions was two.
I mean, the original point was that marriage was originally a religious concept (which is, AFAIK, incorrect). Whether the motivation for the union is love or material interests is a different issue, though it is also an interesting point.
Sure, I agree with you on all points. That doesn't mean that marriage equality doesn't solve any issues. It solves one. Solving one problem is exponentially better than solving zero.
As for Mormon polygamy and hippy communes -- absolutely! As long as it is willing, consenting adults, I am all for it! But, right now, lets take this small step.
> Since marriage was originally defined by religion
I don't think this is true, and anyway it's completely irrelevant. The post-1950s definition of marriage is a result of secular progress, and was definitely not defined by religion.
> I don't see a problem if religion retains the right of defining marriage - a union between a man and a woman.
I see a huge problem, which is that "religion" isn't an entity. If you want religion to have the right to define marriage, you must allow pro-gay churches to define it the way they see fit, too.
(I should add that as an atheist, I would fully support laws limiting religious weddings to a union between a man and a woman. I'm not interested in dragging religions kicking and screaming into the 21st century.)
TL;DR: Of he can be (and IMHO should be) criticized, he is on the wrong side of history. He made a public statement (money as speech), and now the community can (and will) hold him accountable for it.
The bottom line is -- being homophobic is starting to reach the same point in popular culture as racism and sexism. Our society as a whole is becoming far less tolerant of such nonsense, being against gay marriage is treated like being against interracial marriage. Even 61% of young Republican leaning 18-29 year olds are in favor of marriage equality.
It follows a similar trend to interracial marriage (slow start, then a rapid increase in acceptance). In 1986, less than 35% of American's "approved" of interracial marriage. A mere 5 years later, the number was about 50% .. and 20 years later that vast majority approve of interracial marriage, with more than 30% having a family member involved in an interracial relationship.
That is when it hits home for people, when a friend of family member comes out (today, being in love with the same sex... in the 80s, being in love with another race) -- it becomes personal, and when it becomes personal, you can no longer abstract 'those' people -- now it is your friend, your sister, your cousin, the best man at your wedding, etc.
You can rail against marriage being crap (it is, I agree) -- but that isn't the point. If you are against marriage, I am with you 100% -- lets get rid of it as a government regulated institution! But, if it is around, it has to be an option for all. I think it is far too close to religion to be certified by government, but that ship has sailed long ago... gotta work within reality.
Also, undemocratic to demonize one side of the vote, are you kidding? That is the oldest democratic tradition!
As for why it gets more "marketing" than the death penalty and gun control. It gets more "marketing" than the death penalty because it touches more peoples lives. It gets FAR less "marketing" than gun control, gun control just has lots of marketing on both sides, a massive constitutional question, and is not trending towards consensus... marriage equality unequivocally is trending towards consensus... it will be a decided issue before it ever has the "marketing" of gun control.
While I am freaking ranting... this quote is idiocy "Beliefs that are protected, that include political and religious speech, are generally not something that can be held against even a CEO." -- NO. Just NO. If you believe something that society finds laughable or horrible (Lizard people run the world, X race is superior, Z are bad at math, the Holocaust didn't happen, etc)... and you support it out loud, with money, in public. Of COURSE it can be held against you -- you don't have a goddamn right to that job, and part of your job is to be the face of the company.
Slavery had economical consequences that aren't present in the current debate. Slaves weren't just being denied rights, but they were being exploited for a profit.
Visitation rights, marriage & tax benefits are relevant concerns in this debate but comparing it to slavery really glosses over how terrible slavery actually was.
I see it as the painfully slow march of human progress. Genocide was worse than slavery, which was worse than internment, which was worse than misogyny, which was worse than segregation, which was worse than anti-miscegenation, which was worse than marriage inequality (as you could be jailed for it in certain states.)
Marriage inequality is certainly not as bad as slavery, but it is definitely the prevailing major civil rights issue of our time, at least in the US.
And once it's resolved, there will be a new rights issue that commands a majority of interest: whether that be transgender rights, immigrant rights, or something else.
To say that other things were worse, and diminish the importance of current issues, is to diminish the great march of progress we are currently enjoying.
I'm not that things were worse & this isn't important. That's not what the parent commenter said or what I was refuting. He compared it directly to slavery & that comparison / analogy is a poor one.
As you said, The money was a major motivating factor in the slave trade, and it is not in the marriage equality battle. The money is not a motivating factor in preventing marriage equality. The shared major motivating factor is arguable, 'hate'.
There aren't huge plantations at stake, make no mistake there is big money involved. Social security, inheritance, and real-estate are just a few of the issues making sure gays are leaving billions on the table. Ultimately, the currently enforced laws favor the majority; straight people.
Marriage equality is sub issue of a massive human rights epidemic which we aren't directly addressing in this thread. The current CEO actively supports organizations which make the epidemic all the more dire for people in many areas of the world. While gays in the US enjoy relative freedom, it is illegal and punishable by death to be gay in 15 countries, and just illegal with life sentence in a dozen more.
During every major recent genocide, gays where almost always highly targeted for killing in the most heinous ways; just to name a few; during US slavery, WW II, and African Apartheid. Just as slavery continues around the world, so does the merciless torture and killing of gays. While we can pull a segment of American history and say with impunity, 'definitely more blacks died in miserable conditions with horrible treatment and torture', gays have had a worldwide and human history long story that nearly matches the brutality, just not the shear numbers.
While our politicians argue about where gay wedding can take place, this is just one of the final chapters in a very long story about a fight just to exist. To characterize this issue as just a visitation rights, marriage and tax benefits issue, as you say, 'really glosses over how terrible [homophobia through out history] actually was.'
"We have a strong Indonesian community. We're developing Firefox OS to go into market there. I have people there on the other side of this particular issue."
He clearly still sees this as just being two sides of a coin, like a choice between Pepsi or Coke.
It's tolerable when you have a sincere personal belief ... however misguided it may be, but it's quite another when you donate money and vote to take away someone else's rights to their own beliefs, actions, equality and dignity through the force of law.
What I hate most about this whole situation is that the only action I can take is to step away from all Mozilla products, which in turn hurts all Mozilla employees, the majority of which I fully respect and support.
But as CEO, he's the public face and voice of the entire company, and I can't respectfully support a company that would elect a bigot to lead their entire organization.
>He clearly still sees this as just being two sides of a coin, like a choice between Pepsi or Coke.
Well, Indonesians do too. Do they, as a society have that right? Or perhaps only what the US decides is a right should be enforced?
How about things that other societies have abolished already, like the death penalty or the world's biggest incarceration rate (predominantly on blacks)?
> How about things that other societies have abolished already, like the death penalty or the world's biggest incarceration rate (predominantly on blacks)?
>I'm not really sure which right, but probably no.
To decide how they want their society shaped, including what rights they grant to whatever minority.
Apparently some people in other countries think they should run other people's countries for them and bring them their democracy and their moral code. As if they weren't one of the last countries to abolish slavery, or enforce Jim Crow laws that continue (masked) until this day. Or as if they didn't consider homosexuality mental illness until a few decades ago.
It seems that whatever some countries have decided for themselves (no matter how late they are to the party) should be enforced to everybody else.
As for other stuff, which they are still backwards (e.g the death penalty, lack of gun control, stand your ground laws etc) those are OK, since they are doing it.
>Yes, let's play oppression olympics
Better than playing: "whatever I decide is OK, is OK, everybody else must follow my lead. Oh, and I get to do whatever I want myself".
> Well, Indonesians do too. Do they, as a society have that right?
They have a right to their opinions and personal beliefs. They do not have a moral right to enforce discrimination against consenting adults that are doing no harm to others. They enforce their position through the force of state, like Iran does when they execute their gays, but that does not make it right.
I'd rather our government wasn't in the business of granting special rights to couples that decide to cohabitate. But since they are, I expect it to be equally available to all couples, regardless of their sexual orientation.
> How about things that other societies have abolished already, like the death penalty or the world's biggest incarceration rate (predominantly on blacks)?
I'm against both of those things as well. I'm also against the drug war, the massive income inequality gap, software patents, trade law that is allowed when it benefits corporations (outsourcing) and artificially restricted (via DMCA) when it doesn't (importing and region coding), and many, many other things.
I personally feel more strongly about the rights of same-sex couples to marry than I do about not executing a convicted murderer (especially once you adjust for how many are affected by each issue), but I would certainly consider it a negative if Eich were to come out in support of capital punishment.
I think a whole lot more people would be upset if Eich donated to maintaining the disproportionate incarceration rate in place on African Americans.
...
Does everything have to devolve into slippery slopes? Taking away marriage rights from same-sex couples is fundamentally and unequivocally wrong. Eich is legally allowed to discriminate against them through law, for now. Just as we are legally allowed to protest his appointment to CEO of Mozilla.
>I personally feel more strongly about the rights of same-sex couples to marry than I do about not executing a convicted murderer (especially once you adjust for how many are affected by each issue)
"How many are affected"? How about "how MUCH they are affected"?
A CEO could say "support our troops" and donate to that (which leads to tens or hundrends of thousands of deaths, invansions etc), and noone bats an eyes. But another is against gay marriage and everybody loses their minds.
>Does everything have to devolve into slippery slopes?
A slippery slope would be "if you do X, X*N will happen". I didn't say anything like that.
What I said is: there are tons of controversial issues -- from gay marriage, to the death penalty, to incarceration rates, to gun control, to supportig wars etc.
If you are against people for only one of those causes, while letting others with different opinions on other causes alone, then you are actually discriminating against them.
If you want to be consistent you can't just "prosecute" CEOs who backed a bill against gay marriage. Except if you think, and I cannot even fathom how one would, that that's the definining issue and everything else is secondary.
I agree with you mostly. However, we must understand [the benefits granted via] marriage is not a right, but a privilege. Right's can't be granted or given, privilege's can. And as fast as the legal privileges of marriage are given to couples, they can be taken away too.
There was a reason at some point that government/society felt it important enough to grant privileges to couples consisting of a one male and one female that agreed to combine assets and liabilities. What was the reason? My guess is to encourage offspring and stable families. If that is the reason, does it still work and apply today? That's the question we should be asking.
Everyone is focused on just extending the status quo by granting marriage benefits to more people rather than first asking if having the benefits makes sense and/or what's the purpose and is it working?
Applying what's happening with the marriage discussion to the illegal substance arena, without taking a moment to pause and reflect, we'd be clamoring for extending and banning alcohol and more substances instead of considering repealing bans on some/other drugs (marijuana in particular).
I got the impression Eich doesn't appreciate "public face of the company" angle at all.
I have no doubt Linus Torvalds will accept (and have accepted) patches from "straight", LGBT, anti-LGBT, white, black, white supremacist, capitalist, communist, anti-communist, 9/11 truther, birther, etc. as long as patches are technically sound.
Similarly, it seems Eich thinks (and I agree) Mozilla should accept patches from bigots. It does not mean Mozilla should elect a bigot as CEO, but I can imagine how such distinction can be lost on someone.
Conflation of Proposition 8 with racism/slavery is a bit rich considering that black Americans disproportionally voted for Proposition 8.
But I suppose it's useful to drag out the racism comparison to demonize Brendan Eich, although you don't want to stretch the metaphor too far since it might make people wonder how "inclusive" the American technology industry is of black people, "old" people (i.e., older than 35) etc.
> Hypothetically, if the CEO of another tech company was revealed to have political interests in slavery, would we feel the need to tip-toe so carefully?
Well, knowing what we know about working conditions at FoxConn and so forth, I don't see huge amounts of developers boycotting iOS.
Which, if anything, is a far more serious issue than this. I mean, does anybody seriously expect - under the Eich regime - Mozilla itself to start advocating against gay marriage? Are new versions of Firefox going to block gay-interest websites?
The notion is patently ludicrous - to my knowledge, Eich has never even vocalised his opposition to gay marriage. That $1,000 donation was unknown for four years. Since then, we have had these rather gnomic, evasive statements (which, I agree, means he still holds those opinions). And $1,000 is a bit stingy - a brief glance at the relevant records[0] reveals several six-figure donations.
I'm a card-carrying leftie pinko, I believe that people should be able to shag/date/marry whomever they wish regardless of their genital plumbing, and I despise things like Prop 8. If Brendan Eich still holds these opinions, I'm happy to call him a bigot. But let's get a grip. Prop 8 didn't pass because some hacker donated a grand to the campaign. It passed because a lot of people share those opinions, and because there are - unfortunately - far more vocal and better organised advocates for them. Until someone can demonstrate that Eich will have a demonstrably more pernicious effect on the struggle for gay equality now that he has a more prominent c-level job title at Mozilla than last month, I'm going to call this a storm in a teacup - a distraction from the fight for LGBT equality in fact, a symptom of the social media world's tendency to reduce politics to hounding celebrities for one reason or another.
Since you're not arguing against it, you seem to be accepting the FoxConn/slavery link and then saying we shouldn't boycott because it'd be too difficult.
That would be quite an unusual thing to say - that even heinous companies shouldn't be boycotted if the inconvenience is large - so I must have misunderstood.
I would certainly consider it if Apple -weren't- making huge efforts in that direction with their Supplier Responsibility program (which no other tech company that uses Foxconn appears to even have, much less be devoting resources to.)
There are plenty of gays who argue against gay marriage and a vociferous number who are for it. It's called debate. Some against argue that gay marriage is homophobic.
(Might be paywalled but the arguments can be found elsewhere on the web - though I would not expect you to search for them.)
"We have profound reservations about same sex marriage not just because of the harm it does to a vital heterosexual institution but also because we reject the implication that in order to be equal and respected homosexuals should conform to heterosexual norms and be in effect the same as heterosexuals. In this sense we believe same sex marriage to be homophobic – it demands recognition for gay relationships but at the price of submitting those relationships to heterosexual definition. This serves neither homosexuals nor heterosexuals."
>Hypothetically, if the CEO of another tech company was revealed to have political interests in slavery, would we feel the need to tip-toe so carefully?
First, I would ask if that interest influences his job. If that's not the case, it doesn't concern the broad public. At the very least not in combination with his status as CEO. And that's it. Everything further is a witch hunt.
>While I don't feel comfortable lynching someone based on contextually irrelevant beliefs
You say the words but somehow you manage to do the exact opposite.
>I intend to demonstrate with meaningful action my commitment to a Mozilla that lives up to its ideals, including that of being an open and inclusive community.
I believe that, until proven wrong. So how about judging him by his actions as a CEO? Instead of a private donation? IMO its the only correct thing.
That was point one.
The second one I want to make is about elephants and blind people. Elephants are big– so big that blind people are only able to perceive a part of them. So they all disagree about what the elephant is. And gay marriage is an elephant and opinions are elephant parts. I doubt this elephant has just two parts labelled "Equality For Everyone" and "Hate And Bigotry". Please don't make the error of boiling down a complex issue to two sides.
What's complex about allowing gay marriage? Sure, you've got some tax law wording to fiddle with, maybe, and the definition of "partner" probably needs changing in a few ordinances but how is it complex? Even the UK (and we're pretty useless most of the time) has managed to allow it with civilisation collapsing.
The complex part is that a lot of people have a lot of different opinions on it. Now I don't know most of them, because I have no personal interest in it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_marriage has a few...), but dismissing every argument made against same-sex-marriage in one broad swipe is refusing to take every other point of view into consideration.
People have lots of different opinions on things but government hasn't ground to a halt (except when yours does but I don't think that's policy paralysis.)
Saying "there's many sides to the story" is a lame excuse that people (especially politicians) use to avoid making decisions.
>Saying "there's many sides to the story" is a lame excuse that people (especially politicians) use to avoid making decisions.
That might be true, but it's also true that making decisions based on a strongly opinionated argument led to literal witch hunts. With burning and everything involved. (And OS-flamewars, these are even worse). I guess the best option is to find a healthy balance between choosing a side and considering conflicting points of view.
In this case, I think there are some angles of view that might be contra-marriage but not hateful. That's all I wanted to say– I don't think Eich is a bigot, his reason might be different than the one that a a lot of people placed in his mouth.
I agree with you there - in that I don't think he's a bigot in the general sense of the word - he's misguided (IMHO, natch) in voting for Prop 8 but probably not actually homophobic (he might be - it's not possible to tell from this single action.)
But if you're going to be the CEO of a very public organisation, things like this (or, say, shooting an elephant, hiring hula girls for trade show, using racial epithets, whatever) will bite you badly in the ass and you really need a good narrative beyond "the lurkers[1] support me".
Could? I think it's already hurting it, at least to a small extent.
Some users are already boycotting and some web pages (okcupid?) are displaying a message to Firefox users.
I think Eich could be a great CEO (I like engineers as CEO's), but maybe Mozilla should listen to the community and set an example of how FLOSS companies should function in the 21st century.
A community poll would be really interesting to see.
Eich seems like a lovely chap, I didn't really know about his donation. That sadly qualifies him as a homophobe, once thing is disagreeing with gay marriage, another is actively donating the cause to ban it.
On the other hand, I find some of the reaction silly. OKCupid for instance. Firefox is the work of hundreds of people, taking a brush and striking them all off isn't right. What best is that this is left to Mozilla, let them handle this.
> That sadly qualifies him as a homophobe, once thing is disagreeing with gay marriage, another is actively donating the cause to ban it.
All the difference is in how much you value your money. I'm not sure if it makes him a homophobe, really, or somebody taking his interpretation of religious texts (assuming that's the reason) too seriously.
That said, the current witch hunt leaves me uncomfortable.
The point of social and moral suasion is to make clear to people that certain actions are not accepted or tolerated by the community, and that holding to them will hurt you.
In the case of OKCupid, I strongly suspect that their preferred outcome would be for Eich to be replaced with someone qualified for the position who doesn't go out of their way to extend personal resources to those who support quashing the rights of others. Not to bury the Firefox browser.
Extending the message to those who use Firefox is one way to do this.
Inclusiveness is an interesting question. Does it include the solid majorities in nations where getting married and having kids not only go together but are how one prepares for retirement? In such countries, same-sex marriage is not an issue and can't be raised until other things change. The relationship between sexuality, marriage, and reproduction is different, and I reject the "human rights" argument which says basically we must push everyone on the planet to accept modern American cultural structures regarding sexuality.
So I wonder. What does inclusiveness even mean when it comes to a global effort like most open source software is today? How does the scale affect it? Certainly Eich's donation is non-inclusive relative to the US, but it is more inclusive globally than Google's efforts to push their agenda globally.
And how can one have inclusiveness when political dissent is punished?
Yes, which is why I think that Eich was wrong, because this was a California initiative.
But it is still less offensive than the racist white-mans-burden approach Google is taking with this issue globally, assuming he resided in California (if, OTOH, he resided in Washington State or anywhere else, it would be similarly bad).
I would also totally take issue with the idea that homophobia is the norm and this is why SSM is not recognized in most countries. The fact is that marriage, reproduction, sexuality, and retirement are tied together differently in most countries than they are in the US today, and consequently I don't think that modern American definitions of homophobia are very relevant in most of the world. To hold the idea that everyone should strive to have kids they can retire with to be homophobic stretches the definition beyond the breaking point, but that's the basis in almost all of the world. As social security declines as a retirement option, maybe it will come back in the US, but it isn't where we are now.
Similarly in much of the world, abortion is not seen as a human right for similar reasons. Where sexuality, reproduction, marriage, and retirement are closely bound, many of these issues are very, very different, and this is why treating divisive issues as human rights is very, very wrong.
BTW, this is exactly why the question of inclusiveness matters in global, large open source projects.
The normal state of human relations is that most societies historically and today emphasize unchosen parent/child relationships more than chosen friend and spouse relationships. This is done for functional reasons -- it allows families instead of businesses and governments to take on the primary role of caring for the elderly, and it essentially forces marriage and having children to be the norm. It also makes dissolution of marriage much harder because intergenerational obligations get messy when children are expected to care for divorced retiree parents, particularly when they remarry.
In other words, traditional marriage, as it existed a hundred years ago in the US, was a more or less permament union which assured that most folks would have children who would care for them in their old age, and both sexuality and reproduction were subservient to that goal. This is still the model in the rest of the world.
Many countries have been moving away from that model to one where government and corporations bear the primary responsibility of providing for the elderly. In such a model, yes, same-sex marriage makes sense. But if you make same-sex marriage a human right, you essentially say that no society which treats children as the optimal source of support for retirees has a right to exist. That is orders of magnitudes more intolerant than contributing $1000 to Prop 8, because you are setting up large numbers of cultural and economic differences as human rights violations. Sure, neither same-sex marriage nor child protective services are possible in a society where children are expected to be the normal source of retirement support but that doesn't make the lack of either into human rights violations. You have to look at issues in context.
So again, what does it mean to be inclusive in a global open source project? Does it mean excluding, as I think you want to, anyone who believes the optimal arrangement is for people to get married, have kids, have household businesses, and retire with their kids? Because if so, you have just alienated most cultures in the world, and that's "inclusive" only of wealthy, privileged white folks.
Eich doesn't seem interested in shaping Mozilla's value to be anti-LGBT.
I am an atheist, but I am okay with theistic CEOs as long as they don't try to shape the company's value to be theistic. I do have a problem if CEO wants company-wide religious ceremony.
What about a theistic colleague who would fund a campaign against atheistic marriage? (More appropriate analogy would be someone who would fund the goal of establishing a national religion.) Will I refuse to work with such colleagues?
If the position is to be against someone-who-would-fund-blah as a CEO, but okay as a colleague, this doesn't seem to help depriving the campaign blah from being funded (as long as someone didn't plan to increase donation from increased remuneration as a CEO). If the position is to be against someone-who-would-fund-blah both as a CEO and a colleague, I am not sure I support that position.
The main point being, while setting company-wide policy is greatly helped by being CEO, funding campaigns is less so.
There were. People held their noses because techies are often disturbingly weird but this is tolerated as long as they're productive and as long as they don't explode too badly in public. And Eich is a genius techie.
>he disagreed with the assertion that being opposed to gay-marriage rights is equivalent to being sexist or racist
Well of course, no one ever proudly confesses to being a bigot, homophobe, sexist or racist.
"No, supporting Apartheid does not make me racist, I don't hate blacks, some of my best friends are black. I just believe blacks and whites better live in different quarters"
He implicitly confirms his 2008 view. He says being against inclusiveness actually is inclusiveness. He says he's the best Mozilla CEO. He says that much of Mozilla comes from Indonesia, where LGBT discrimination[1] seems to be much more accepted.
I can't help but associate Firefox with Mozilla and Mozilla with it's head, Mr. Eich. I wish I could only see the great people that stand behind Mozilla, but atm when I look at the Firefox logo, I see the homophobe :(
While we're at it, there's good old Vic Gundotra at Google. He wrote in 2005
What about the people in the company who DON”T believe this is a human rights issue? What about those people who believe homosexuality is a moral/social issue? Should Ballmer just say these people are wrong? That “Microsoft the corporation” has decided to take a stance on this social issue?....
Should a CEO pick sides on an issue that is so divisive? Does being "inclusive" and "diverse" suddenly stop when it involves views that are different than the ones we hold?....
I argue this is just exactly the same wrong you accuse the religious leader of. You claim the preacher went beyond his walls. Well since when did a CEO have the right to go well beyond his walls?....
Social change should be initiated, and decided, outside the scope of corporations.
Whether Eich stays or goes, every person who values their career will hesitate in future to donate to, or publicly support, anti-LGBT causes. I don't know if that is an intentional goal of his public pillorying, but it will certainly be its most effective outcome.
In the grand scheme of things, our evidence that Brendan Eich is a raging homophobe comes down to one 6 year old donation of $1000. Not a pattern of actions at work, but one political action.
I support gay marriage today, but a decade ago, I didn't. I'm a bit ashamed to admit that. It took a lot of time and a lot of incremental phases for me to come around from someone who was openly opposed, to someone who tolerated, and finally fairly recently to someone who actively supports gay relationships and marriage. I'm still working on trying to bring my parents around to my point of view. They espouse viewpoints I frankly find offensive today and I can nearly guarantee that in the past they've donated more than $1000 to organizations that oppose gay marriage. But I by no means think they're "bad people". Eich is of my parents' generation, and I believe that empathy will eventually win most of them over, not ultimatums.
To me, Mozilla has become an unfair target of convenience. A lot of people are understandably still upset about Prop 8 and similar movements. But I think people have chosen to open fire at Mozilla simply because it's a lot harder to try to engage marriage equality opponents directly as people in a public way.
Clearly, it has worked to put the issue out in front, but I don't think it's fair or ultimately productive. What's the endgame here? We can let the siege continue against Mozilla, one of the few major players who really stands behind the user. Maybe Eich will step down, and who knows what happens to Mozilla. Maybe we'll get an insincere change of heart. But that's just a victory for mob intimidation. I suppose maybe just maybe we'll get a sincere reversal from Eich. He certainly seems sensitive to the pain he's caused. But even if this happens, I don't know that the end would justify the means.
"We're talking about a total of roughly $10,000 of donations over a period of 19 years, between 1991 and 2010. The man isn't being vilified over one donation."
You are deliberately taking that quote out of context to make a stronger point. Eich gave money multiple times to particular candidates. Those candidates may be opposed to homosexual marriage, but that in no way implies that Eich's donation was for the purpose of blocking homosexual marriage. Eich could have liked them for other reasons and not even known, or cared about, their stance on marriage.
Eich repeatedly uses the Mozilla Foundation as a shield to protect himself, saying that Mozilla is being threatened, when it is he who is the cause of these actions against Mozilla. He is showing that he has no qualms about using the foundation to protect himself.
There is no longer a question that the man is a homophobe who believes in using state power to enforce religious persecution on a specific minority group. He says, "This group of people can't do this religious thing because it offends me, and the state must prevent them from doing it." And, he voted for it with his wallet, and affirmed that vote with this interview.
Marriage is a religious institution. My personal opinion is that the state has no business being involved in marriage, including for reasons of taxes and other special privileges. There are good historical reasons for these laws, but they are no longer valid and we will need to change them, and can do so without harm to any particular group (except for those who want to enforce their own beliefs upon others, which is sadly common.)
CEO is a very particular position. It's the moral and character leadership role of a company, and having a homophobe in this position is a serious problem. For me, an intolerable problem.
131 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 150 ms ] threadAll because you want to feel offended. Fine feel offended and suck it up. If it has an effect on your work based on what other do legally in their free time its your problem not theirs. This world isn't about having everything we want.
Some people will chose an establishment just because the owner is, or isn't, member of a specific church. An LGBT organization is unlikely to hire someone who walks in to the interview carrying a Chik-Fil-A lunch, or support another LGBT organization whose leader does the same.
Here's a case of boycotting a store chain because the owners (not the corporation) supported a politician: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Joaquin-Castr...
People express their offense and outrage all the time, about all sorts of issues. Sometimes it gets traction. Most times it doesn't.
The bar moves around, certainly, but that doesn't mean it ratchets higher. Few now call for boycotts of communist owned organizations and black-lists of communists like they did during the red scares.
Wouldn't it be better if political opinions like that stayed private, so that people can work with each other?
Gay people don't have that luxury, because the issue being discussed concerns their actual personal rights. Wether it's gay marriage, adoption or anti-soddomy laws, it's things that affect them no matter if they want to be part of the debate or not. They cannot throw up their arms and go on with their life, because they can now not get married, not adopt children, and so on.
It's easy to say that they should keep their private life out of politics, but politics has forced their private life into the spotlight.
Second, you are mistaken. Your comments' negative scores are because users, not moderators, downvoted you. Moderators don't have special downvoting powers.
People need to check themselves in the mirror with their use of language. Voting in a lawful election and supporting lawful candidates or ballot issues does not in any way resemble the definition of a Bigot.
However, the hate going on here...based on such flimsy evidence...actually looks a lot closer to meeting the threshold test. It is obstinant and intolerant and disproportionate.
Cue the Irony.
"a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)"
He refuses to accept gay people as equals. He things gay marriage is an abomination to his religion. That's hateful if you ask me.
big·ot noun \ˈbi-gət\
: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)
Full Definition of BIGOT : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
There is no grey scale here. Either you think that people (regardless of their sexual orientation) are equal, or you don't. You don't get to pick who to assign rights to based on if they work for your company or not.
At this point, every time I see him say "everyone at mozilla is treated fairly" it's obvious that he just doesn't want to commit career suicide while also remaining a bigot.
Please take this garbage elsewhere.
People are not bigots because they disagree with your special interest politics.
Many of those were considered to be against the "natural order of things" too. Are you sure you want to take the side you seem to be taking?
But, I assume, you aren't that dumb.
Now some disagree that it should be "of the opposite sex" and instead want it to be: Everyone is allowed to marry one person.
Soon the next special interest will come along and want it to be: Everyone is allowed to marry one or more persons.
And that's not what people are saying here. Eich is a bigot because he fits the definition of the term: "A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked."
As expressed in his support of statutory measures to accomplish those ends.
See also: Overton Window, moral relativism, Presentism, the Historian's Fallacy, and Chronological Snobbery.
Morals and ethics are not immutable.
Mozilla isn't in charge of whether its employees can get married. The equal rights Mozilla grants them would be for things like health insurance, presumably, not marriage. So maybe for Eich, it's not about whether they work for the company or not; maybe he thinks gays should have equal rights to services, but not to the ceremony of marriage.
Be careful because I think by ceremony you are painting a picture that he isn't allowing gay weddings to happen, Prop 8 unless I"m mistaken was all about who can get married in the eyes of the state, no?
> Section I. Title
> This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act."
> Section 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution, to read:
> Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
The wording was enough to be declared unconstitutional due to its violation of the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. I don't think there's been any legal precedent set beyond that, but it's conceivably broad enough to apply to any jurisdiction or any organization operating within the state, not just the state government.
And that's exactly the problem. State governments are sanctioning what are really civil unions but calling them marriages. The obvious answer is that everyone should have civil unions through their state government, and marriage should be reserved for one's church (if one so wishes and has a church -- I don't).
However, since that's not happening, it's clear to me that we have to recognize state marriages as de facto civil unions, and as such support everyone's right to participate. Since (to me) everyone should have the right
But the easy answer would have been to move "marriage" as such to the care of churches, leaving only civil unions in the care of state governments.
Calling people 'bigots' is not adding anything to the discussion and is just making your statements look unreasonable (as if you had no real 'idea' backing your defense of 'same-sex marriage' and you had to turn to expletives).
Eich should fall on his sword.
Some people believe in god, some don't. Some people believe in death penalty, some don't. Hell, Jews and Muslims believe in mutilating their infant sons!
Banning one belief, just because you don't like it, is a very dangerous slippery slope.
For one, he never said he is against treating gays equally in the workplace (or elsewhere). Only that they should not be married -- something which is irrelevant to the workplace.
Some people take his stance on gay marriage to mean "he hates gays", which doesn't really follow. Actually the reverse could also be true: you could support gay marriage (on principle, as a civil rights issue) and personally hate gays.
>There is no grey scale here. Either you think that people (regardless of their sexual orientation) are equal, or you don't. You don't get to pick who to assign rights to based on if they work for your company or not.
Well, the rights of people in the confines of a company have nothing to do with marriage (except maybe marital leave?). So it's not like he's contradicting himself on anything.
It's also not like he would prevent people to marry outside the workplace. If you remember he helped fund a BILL (emphasis mine). That is, he went with the law, not against it. If the law allows it, he doesn't have a say anymore.
"I hadn't thought about that. It seems that's a dead issue. I don't want to answer hypotheticals."
I think that response speaks for itself.
While I don't feel comfortable lynching someone based on contextually irrelevant beliefs, most of us see gay rights as an issue principally comparable to issues of slavery and suffrage. It's the denying of rights to "other people" for dubious reasons.
Hypothetically, if the CEO of another tech company was revealed to have political interests in slavery, would we feel the need to tip-toe so carefully?
It may seem I am cherry-picking your words, but as you are taking a stance based on his words, I think we are entitled to do the same with yours.
Hence?
In the era of big data I am forced to say that you really need to back that assumption.
(The most compelling argument I've heard against gay marriage is "Eew." Colour me unimpressed.)
I self pick based on my own assessment of intellectual honesty and rigor. I have no doubt that our society will be considered similarly unenlightened a hundred years from now -- all we can hope for is some sympathy points for integrity and progress.
Only "being free" and "choosing your government" is a right, whereas mariage is a made-up custom, and as such it has historical connections to certain morals and can also be seen as a religious related practice for some.
>If the CEO of another tech company was revealed to have political interests in slavery, would we feel the need to tip-toe so carefully?
If states still had slavery (in the same way states prohibit gay marriage), then yes, we would. Far from being a solved issue, it was something put on vote. If it's one vote, then it's undemocratic to demonize one side of the ballot.
Furthermore, if you're so fired up about civil issues, how about a few that are important to me: the death penalty and gun control. Should a CEO be fired for being pro/against those?
How come a gay man's right to marriage (an antiquated institution if I ever saw one, and a kitchy fair with tons of made up customs for straight and gay men alike) is more important than a 15 year old kids right not to be institutionally murdered in TX, or some other state?
Seems to me some issues have better marketing, and people just go with the flock to the acceptable crusades, and if they have to lynch one or two that are against the flow in the process, so be it.
My personal feeling - speaking as a gay man and therefore somewhat personally linked, but also as somebody who has not once suffered bullying or mistreatment because of it - is that there are two crucial reasons gay marriage should be legalised, and neither are to do with "made up customs".
Firstly the legal side: inheritance law, hospital visitation rights, insurance, etc. etc.
Secondly, the impact it has on how people view homosexuality. A step towards equality is a step towards not seeing gay kids bullied, gay teens killing themselves, gay adults being harassed in the work place, etc. And that's a huge deal in my opinion.
Legally, however, gay marriage doesn't solve all the problems. Ideally, "civil unions", granting all the rights above, would be allowed between any number of mutually-consensual partners - e.g. Mormon polygamy, Hippy communes, ... This would also bring additional recognition and acceptance to these people.
This is not actually true. Marriage is a very very old concept.
It wasn't long ago that marriage was also widely accepted as an asset for parents to sell. It was relatively recent that monogamy wasn't assumed, and that the maximum number in such unions was two.
As for Mormon polygamy and hippy communes -- absolutely! As long as it is willing, consenting adults, I am all for it! But, right now, lets take this small step.
I don't think this is true, and anyway it's completely irrelevant. The post-1950s definition of marriage is a result of secular progress, and was definitely not defined by religion.
> I don't see a problem if religion retains the right of defining marriage - a union between a man and a woman.
I see a huge problem, which is that "religion" isn't an entity. If you want religion to have the right to define marriage, you must allow pro-gay churches to define it the way they see fit, too.
(I should add that as an atheist, I would fully support laws limiting religious weddings to a union between a man and a woman. I'm not interested in dragging religions kicking and screaming into the 21st century.)
The bottom line is -- being homophobic is starting to reach the same point in popular culture as racism and sexism. Our society as a whole is becoming far less tolerant of such nonsense, being against gay marriage is treated like being against interracial marriage. Even 61% of young Republican leaning 18-29 year olds are in favor of marriage equality.
It follows a similar trend to interracial marriage (slow start, then a rapid increase in acceptance). In 1986, less than 35% of American's "approved" of interracial marriage. A mere 5 years later, the number was about 50% .. and 20 years later that vast majority approve of interracial marriage, with more than 30% having a family member involved in an interracial relationship.
That is when it hits home for people, when a friend of family member comes out (today, being in love with the same sex... in the 80s, being in love with another race) -- it becomes personal, and when it becomes personal, you can no longer abstract 'those' people -- now it is your friend, your sister, your cousin, the best man at your wedding, etc.
You can rail against marriage being crap (it is, I agree) -- but that isn't the point. If you are against marriage, I am with you 100% -- lets get rid of it as a government regulated institution! But, if it is around, it has to be an option for all. I think it is far too close to religion to be certified by government, but that ship has sailed long ago... gotta work within reality.
Also, undemocratic to demonize one side of the vote, are you kidding? That is the oldest democratic tradition!
As for why it gets more "marketing" than the death penalty and gun control. It gets more "marketing" than the death penalty because it touches more peoples lives. It gets FAR less "marketing" than gun control, gun control just has lots of marketing on both sides, a massive constitutional question, and is not trending towards consensus... marriage equality unequivocally is trending towards consensus... it will be a decided issue before it ever has the "marketing" of gun control.
While I am freaking ranting... this quote is idiocy "Beliefs that are protected, that include political and religious speech, are generally not something that can be held against even a CEO." -- NO. Just NO. If you believe something that society finds laughable or horrible (Lizard people run the world, X race is superior, Z are bad at math, the Holocaust didn't happen, etc)... and you support it out loud, with money, in public. Of COURSE it can be held against you -- you don't have a goddamn right to that job, and part of your job is to be the face of the company.
/rant
Visitation rights, marriage & tax benefits are relevant concerns in this debate but comparing it to slavery really glosses over how terrible slavery actually was.
Marriage inequality is certainly not as bad as slavery, but it is definitely the prevailing major civil rights issue of our time, at least in the US.
And once it's resolved, there will be a new rights issue that commands a majority of interest: whether that be transgender rights, immigrant rights, or something else.
To say that other things were worse, and diminish the importance of current issues, is to diminish the great march of progress we are currently enjoying.
There aren't huge plantations at stake, make no mistake there is big money involved. Social security, inheritance, and real-estate are just a few of the issues making sure gays are leaving billions on the table. Ultimately, the currently enforced laws favor the majority; straight people.
Marriage equality is sub issue of a massive human rights epidemic which we aren't directly addressing in this thread. The current CEO actively supports organizations which make the epidemic all the more dire for people in many areas of the world. While gays in the US enjoy relative freedom, it is illegal and punishable by death to be gay in 15 countries, and just illegal with life sentence in a dozen more.
During every major recent genocide, gays where almost always highly targeted for killing in the most heinous ways; just to name a few; during US slavery, WW II, and African Apartheid. Just as slavery continues around the world, so does the merciless torture and killing of gays. While we can pull a segment of American history and say with impunity, 'definitely more blacks died in miserable conditions with horrible treatment and torture', gays have had a worldwide and human history long story that nearly matches the brutality, just not the shear numbers.
While our politicians argue about where gay wedding can take place, this is just one of the final chapters in a very long story about a fight just to exist. To characterize this issue as just a visitation rights, marriage and tax benefits issue, as you say, 'really glosses over how terrible [homophobia through out history] actually was.'
"We have a strong Indonesian community. We're developing Firefox OS to go into market there. I have people there on the other side of this particular issue."
He clearly still sees this as just being two sides of a coin, like a choice between Pepsi or Coke.
It's tolerable when you have a sincere personal belief ... however misguided it may be, but it's quite another when you donate money and vote to take away someone else's rights to their own beliefs, actions, equality and dignity through the force of law.
What I hate most about this whole situation is that the only action I can take is to step away from all Mozilla products, which in turn hurts all Mozilla employees, the majority of which I fully respect and support.
But as CEO, he's the public face and voice of the entire company, and I can't respectfully support a company that would elect a bigot to lead their entire organization.
Well, Indonesians do too. Do they, as a society have that right? Or perhaps only what the US decides is a right should be enforced?
How about things that other societies have abolished already, like the death penalty or the world's biggest incarceration rate (predominantly on blacks)?
I'm not really sure which right, but probably no.
> How about things that other societies have abolished already, like the death penalty or the world's biggest incarceration rate (predominantly on blacks)?
Yes, let's play oppression olympics.
To decide how they want their society shaped, including what rights they grant to whatever minority.
Apparently some people in other countries think they should run other people's countries for them and bring them their democracy and their moral code. As if they weren't one of the last countries to abolish slavery, or enforce Jim Crow laws that continue (masked) until this day. Or as if they didn't consider homosexuality mental illness until a few decades ago.
It seems that whatever some countries have decided for themselves (no matter how late they are to the party) should be enforced to everybody else.
As for other stuff, which they are still backwards (e.g the death penalty, lack of gun control, stand your ground laws etc) those are OK, since they are doing it.
>Yes, let's play oppression olympics
Better than playing: "whatever I decide is OK, is OK, everybody else must follow my lead. Oh, and I get to do whatever I want myself".
They have a right to their opinions and personal beliefs. They do not have a moral right to enforce discrimination against consenting adults that are doing no harm to others. They enforce their position through the force of state, like Iran does when they execute their gays, but that does not make it right.
I'd rather our government wasn't in the business of granting special rights to couples that decide to cohabitate. But since they are, I expect it to be equally available to all couples, regardless of their sexual orientation.
> How about things that other societies have abolished already, like the death penalty or the world's biggest incarceration rate (predominantly on blacks)?
I'm against both of those things as well. I'm also against the drug war, the massive income inequality gap, software patents, trade law that is allowed when it benefits corporations (outsourcing) and artificially restricted (via DMCA) when it doesn't (importing and region coding), and many, many other things.
I personally feel more strongly about the rights of same-sex couples to marry than I do about not executing a convicted murderer (especially once you adjust for how many are affected by each issue), but I would certainly consider it a negative if Eich were to come out in support of capital punishment.
I think a whole lot more people would be upset if Eich donated to maintaining the disproportionate incarceration rate in place on African Americans.
...
Does everything have to devolve into slippery slopes? Taking away marriage rights from same-sex couples is fundamentally and unequivocally wrong. Eich is legally allowed to discriminate against them through law, for now. Just as we are legally allowed to protest his appointment to CEO of Mozilla.
"How many are affected"? How about "how MUCH they are affected"?
And what about those waiting in death row (or executed) only to be found innocent later (including those not so lucky to have a re-trial or a dedicated defense team): http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/The_Innocent_and_the...
A CEO could say "support our troops" and donate to that (which leads to tens or hundrends of thousands of deaths, invansions etc), and noone bats an eyes. But another is against gay marriage and everybody loses their minds.
>Does everything have to devolve into slippery slopes?
A slippery slope would be "if you do X, X*N will happen". I didn't say anything like that.
What I said is: there are tons of controversial issues -- from gay marriage, to the death penalty, to incarceration rates, to gun control, to supportig wars etc.
If you are against people for only one of those causes, while letting others with different opinions on other causes alone, then you are actually discriminating against them.
If you want to be consistent you can't just "prosecute" CEOs who backed a bill against gay marriage. Except if you think, and I cannot even fathom how one would, that that's the definining issue and everything else is secondary.
There was a reason at some point that government/society felt it important enough to grant privileges to couples consisting of a one male and one female that agreed to combine assets and liabilities. What was the reason? My guess is to encourage offspring and stable families. If that is the reason, does it still work and apply today? That's the question we should be asking.
Applying what's happening with the marriage discussion to the illegal substance arena, without taking a moment to pause and reflect, we'd be clamoring for extending and banning alcohol and more substances instead of considering repealing bans on some/other drugs (marijuana in particular).
I have no doubt Linus Torvalds will accept (and have accepted) patches from "straight", LGBT, anti-LGBT, white, black, white supremacist, capitalist, communist, anti-communist, 9/11 truther, birther, etc. as long as patches are technically sound.
Similarly, it seems Eich thinks (and I agree) Mozilla should accept patches from bigots. It does not mean Mozilla should elect a bigot as CEO, but I can imagine how such distinction can be lost on someone.
But I suppose it's useful to drag out the racism comparison to demonize Brendan Eich, although you don't want to stretch the metaphor too far since it might make people wonder how "inclusive" the American technology industry is of black people, "old" people (i.e., older than 35) etc.
There are many ironies to be found and enough hypocrisy to go around, but none constitute a compelling counterargument.
Well, knowing what we know about working conditions at FoxConn and so forth, I don't see huge amounts of developers boycotting iOS.
Which, if anything, is a far more serious issue than this. I mean, does anybody seriously expect - under the Eich regime - Mozilla itself to start advocating against gay marriage? Are new versions of Firefox going to block gay-interest websites?
The notion is patently ludicrous - to my knowledge, Eich has never even vocalised his opposition to gay marriage. That $1,000 donation was unknown for four years. Since then, we have had these rather gnomic, evasive statements (which, I agree, means he still holds those opinions). And $1,000 is a bit stingy - a brief glance at the relevant records[0] reveals several six-figure donations.
I'm a card-carrying leftie pinko, I believe that people should be able to shag/date/marry whomever they wish regardless of their genital plumbing, and I despise things like Prop 8. If Brendan Eich still holds these opinions, I'm happy to call him a bigot. But let's get a grip. Prop 8 didn't pass because some hacker donated a grand to the campaign. It passed because a lot of people share those opinions, and because there are - unfortunately - far more vocal and better organised advocates for them. Until someone can demonstrate that Eich will have a demonstrably more pernicious effect on the struggle for gay equality now that he has a more prominent c-level job title at Mozilla than last month, I'm going to call this a storm in a teacup - a distraction from the fight for LGBT equality in fact, a symptom of the social media world's tendency to reduce politics to hounding celebrities for one reason or another.
[0] http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx...
As if every other phone on the market are made by affluent white English-speaking college graduates.
Oh, and remember that FoxConn make other things too -- for example, the PS3, PS4, 360, XBone, Wii and WiiU. We'll have to boycott those platforms too.
That would be quite an unusual thing to say - that even heinous companies shouldn't be boycotted if the inconvenience is large - so I must have misunderstood.
I would certainly consider it if Apple -weren't- making huge efforts in that direction with their Supplier Responsibility program (which no other tech company that uses Foxconn appears to even have, much less be devoting resources to.)
There are plenty of gays who argue against gay marriage and a vociferous number who are for it. It's called debate. Some against argue that gay marriage is homophobic.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/02/same-sex-ma...
(Might be paywalled but the arguments can be found elsewhere on the web - though I would not expect you to search for them.)
"We have profound reservations about same sex marriage not just because of the harm it does to a vital heterosexual institution but also because we reject the implication that in order to be equal and respected homosexuals should conform to heterosexual norms and be in effect the same as heterosexuals. In this sense we believe same sex marriage to be homophobic – it demands recognition for gay relationships but at the price of submitting those relationships to heterosexual definition. This serves neither homosexuals nor heterosexuals."
>While I don't feel comfortable lynching someone based on contextually irrelevant beliefs
You say the words but somehow you manage to do the exact opposite.
In his blog (https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/) he writes
>I intend to demonstrate with meaningful action my commitment to a Mozilla that lives up to its ideals, including that of being an open and inclusive community.
I believe that, until proven wrong. So how about judging him by his actions as a CEO? Instead of a private donation? IMO its the only correct thing.
That was point one. The second one I want to make is about elephants and blind people. Elephants are big– so big that blind people are only able to perceive a part of them. So they all disagree about what the elephant is. And gay marriage is an elephant and opinions are elephant parts. I doubt this elephant has just two parts labelled "Equality For Everyone" and "Hate And Bigotry". Please don't make the error of boiling down a complex issue to two sides.
Saying "there's many sides to the story" is a lame excuse that people (especially politicians) use to avoid making decisions.
That might be true, but it's also true that making decisions based on a strongly opinionated argument led to literal witch hunts. With burning and everything involved. (And OS-flamewars, these are even worse). I guess the best option is to find a healthy balance between choosing a side and considering conflicting points of view.
In this case, I think there are some angles of view that might be contra-marriage but not hateful. That's all I wanted to say– I don't think Eich is a bigot, his reason might be different than the one that a a lot of people placed in his mouth.
But if you're going to be the CEO of a very public organisation, things like this (or, say, shooting an elephant, hiring hula girls for trade show, using racial epithets, whatever) will bite you badly in the ass and you really need a good narrative beyond "the lurkers[1] support me".
[1] Indonesians
Some users are already boycotting and some web pages (okcupid?) are displaying a message to Firefox users.
I think Eich could be a great CEO (I like engineers as CEO's), but maybe Mozilla should listen to the community and set an example of how FLOSS companies should function in the 21st century.
A community poll would be really interesting to see.
On the other hand, I find some of the reaction silly. OKCupid for instance. Firefox is the work of hundreds of people, taking a brush and striking them all off isn't right. What best is that this is left to Mozilla, let them handle this.
All the difference is in how much you value your money. I'm not sure if it makes him a homophobe, really, or somebody taking his interpretation of religious texts (assuming that's the reason) too seriously.
That said, the current witch hunt leaves me uncomfortable.
No, the difference is in holding an opinion vs. using the existing power that money confers to deny equal rights to a group of people.
The point of social and moral suasion is to make clear to people that certain actions are not accepted or tolerated by the community, and that holding to them will hurt you.
In the case of OKCupid, I strongly suspect that their preferred outcome would be for Eich to be replaced with someone qualified for the position who doesn't go out of their way to extend personal resources to those who support quashing the rights of others. Not to bury the Firefox browser.
Extending the message to those who use Firefox is one way to do this.
So I wonder. What does inclusiveness even mean when it comes to a global effort like most open source software is today? How does the scale affect it? Certainly Eich's donation is non-inclusive relative to the US, but it is more inclusive globally than Google's efforts to push their agenda globally.
And how can one have inclusiveness when political dissent is punished?
To your main point, yes, homophobia is a global norm. So is racism. So is sexism. That doesn't make them ok in Silicon Valley.
Yes, which is why I think that Eich was wrong, because this was a California initiative.
But it is still less offensive than the racist white-mans-burden approach Google is taking with this issue globally, assuming he resided in California (if, OTOH, he resided in Washington State or anywhere else, it would be similarly bad).
I would also totally take issue with the idea that homophobia is the norm and this is why SSM is not recognized in most countries. The fact is that marriage, reproduction, sexuality, and retirement are tied together differently in most countries than they are in the US today, and consequently I don't think that modern American definitions of homophobia are very relevant in most of the world. To hold the idea that everyone should strive to have kids they can retire with to be homophobic stretches the definition beyond the breaking point, but that's the basis in almost all of the world. As social security declines as a retirement option, maybe it will come back in the US, but it isn't where we are now.
Similarly in much of the world, abortion is not seen as a human right for similar reasons. Where sexuality, reproduction, marriage, and retirement are closely bound, many of these issues are very, very different, and this is why treating divisive issues as human rights is very, very wrong.
The normal state of human relations is that most societies historically and today emphasize unchosen parent/child relationships more than chosen friend and spouse relationships. This is done for functional reasons -- it allows families instead of businesses and governments to take on the primary role of caring for the elderly, and it essentially forces marriage and having children to be the norm. It also makes dissolution of marriage much harder because intergenerational obligations get messy when children are expected to care for divorced retiree parents, particularly when they remarry.
In other words, traditional marriage, as it existed a hundred years ago in the US, was a more or less permament union which assured that most folks would have children who would care for them in their old age, and both sexuality and reproduction were subservient to that goal. This is still the model in the rest of the world.
Many countries have been moving away from that model to one where government and corporations bear the primary responsibility of providing for the elderly. In such a model, yes, same-sex marriage makes sense. But if you make same-sex marriage a human right, you essentially say that no society which treats children as the optimal source of support for retirees has a right to exist. That is orders of magnitudes more intolerant than contributing $1000 to Prop 8, because you are setting up large numbers of cultural and economic differences as human rights violations. Sure, neither same-sex marriage nor child protective services are possible in a society where children are expected to be the normal source of retirement support but that doesn't make the lack of either into human rights violations. You have to look at issues in context.
So again, what does it mean to be inclusive in a global open source project? Does it mean excluding, as I think you want to, anyone who believes the optimal arrangement is for people to get married, have kids, have household businesses, and retire with their kids? Because if so, you have just alienated most cultures in the world, and that's "inclusive" only of wealthy, privileged white folks.
If that threat is real and (wholly or partly) stems from this controversy, Eich as CEO could be the thing that kills Mozilla.
I'd say, based on his own words, he's not the best person for the job right now.
I am an atheist, but I am okay with theistic CEOs as long as they don't try to shape the company's value to be theistic. I do have a problem if CEO wants company-wide religious ceremony.
If the position is to be against someone-who-would-fund-blah as a CEO, but okay as a colleague, this doesn't seem to help depriving the campaign blah from being funded (as long as someone didn't plan to increase donation from increased remuneration as a CEO). If the position is to be against someone-who-would-fund-blah both as a CEO and a colleague, I am not sure I support that position.
The main point being, while setting company-wide policy is greatly helped by being CEO, funding campaigns is less so.
Also, they didn't get a CEO for a whole year. It looks like there is no "better" one available.
Well of course, no one ever proudly confesses to being a bigot, homophobe, sexist or racist.
"No, supporting Apartheid does not make me racist, I don't hate blacks, some of my best friends are black. I just believe blacks and whites better live in different quarters"
Mozilla just got a lot less appealing.
He implicitly confirms his 2008 view. He says being against inclusiveness actually is inclusiveness. He says he's the best Mozilla CEO. He says that much of Mozilla comes from Indonesia, where LGBT discrimination[1] seems to be much more accepted.
I can't help but associate Firefox with Mozilla and Mozilla with it's head, Mr. Eich. I wish I could only see the great people that stand behind Mozilla, but atm when I look at the Firefox logo, I see the homophobe :(
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Indonesia
What about the people in the company who DON”T believe this is a human rights issue? What about those people who believe homosexuality is a moral/social issue? Should Ballmer just say these people are wrong? That “Microsoft the corporation” has decided to take a stance on this social issue?....
Should a CEO pick sides on an issue that is so divisive? Does being "inclusive" and "diverse" suddenly stop when it involves views that are different than the ones we hold?....
I argue this is just exactly the same wrong you accuse the religious leader of. You claim the preacher went beyond his walls. Well since when did a CEO have the right to go well beyond his walls?....
Social change should be initiated, and decided, outside the scope of corporations.
http://web.archive.org/web/20051119214319/http://vicgundotra...
I support gay marriage today, but a decade ago, I didn't. I'm a bit ashamed to admit that. It took a lot of time and a lot of incremental phases for me to come around from someone who was openly opposed, to someone who tolerated, and finally fairly recently to someone who actively supports gay relationships and marriage. I'm still working on trying to bring my parents around to my point of view. They espouse viewpoints I frankly find offensive today and I can nearly guarantee that in the past they've donated more than $1000 to organizations that oppose gay marriage. But I by no means think they're "bad people". Eich is of my parents' generation, and I believe that empathy will eventually win most of them over, not ultimatums.
To me, Mozilla has become an unfair target of convenience. A lot of people are understandably still upset about Prop 8 and similar movements. But I think people have chosen to open fire at Mozilla simply because it's a lot harder to try to engage marriage equality opponents directly as people in a public way.
Clearly, it has worked to put the issue out in front, but I don't think it's fair or ultimately productive. What's the endgame here? We can let the siege continue against Mozilla, one of the few major players who really stands behind the user. Maybe Eich will step down, and who knows what happens to Mozilla. Maybe we'll get an insincere change of heart. But that's just a victory for mob intimidation. I suppose maybe just maybe we'll get a sincere reversal from Eich. He certainly seems sensitive to the pain he's caused. But even if this happens, I don't know that the end would justify the means.
"We're talking about a total of roughly $10,000 of donations over a period of 19 years, between 1991 and 2010. The man isn't being vilified over one donation."
http://tim.dreamwidth.org/1845008.html
Eich repeatedly uses the Mozilla Foundation as a shield to protect himself, saying that Mozilla is being threatened, when it is he who is the cause of these actions against Mozilla. He is showing that he has no qualms about using the foundation to protect himself.
There is no longer a question that the man is a homophobe who believes in using state power to enforce religious persecution on a specific minority group. He says, "This group of people can't do this religious thing because it offends me, and the state must prevent them from doing it." And, he voted for it with his wallet, and affirmed that vote with this interview.
Marriage is a religious institution. My personal opinion is that the state has no business being involved in marriage, including for reasons of taxes and other special privileges. There are good historical reasons for these laws, but they are no longer valid and we will need to change them, and can do so without harm to any particular group (except for those who want to enforce their own beliefs upon others, which is sadly common.)
CEO is a very particular position. It's the moral and character leadership role of a company, and having a homophobe in this position is a serious problem. For me, an intolerable problem.