Quantcast
U.S. & World

Mozilla CEO's Prop 8 support sparks controversy

Comments

Return To Article
  • Swartzy Arlington, TX
    April 2, 2014 6:37 p.m.

    I guess they are all inclusive as long as you are part of them. If you think different you are not included. It seems to go that way for many liberal groups. Have a mind of your own,m and you are an outcast. so much for inclusivity I might have to use Opera for a while just to protest

  • Kate Hutch Kenmore, WA
    April 3, 2014 12:03 a.m.

    Seems to go that way for LIBERAL groups, Swartzy? That comment belongs in the humor column.

  • LovelyDeseret Gilbert, AZ
    April 3, 2014 12:09 a.m.

    It goes to show that CEO's and corporations are amoral, even if they personally have morals and standards.

  • Bob K portland, OR
    April 3, 2014 2:38 a.m.

    Swartzy
    Arlington, TX
    "I guess they are all inclusive as long as you are part of them. If you think different you are not included. It seems to go that way for many liberal groups. Have a mind of your own,m and you are an outcast."

    Let's see it from the employees' and customers' points of view:
    This catholic man, graduate of a Jesuit college, went along with his church's authorship of Prop 8 (and a bishop's calling in the mormons to help) and refuses to say it was wrong, 5 years later. He is working in a field, and in a metropolitan area, in which opposition to marriage equality is considered old fashioned bigotry.

    Would YOU be happy to do business with, or buy from, someone who contributed to the campaign to remove the lds church's tax exemption, or someone who gave money to a cause that stated that mormons should not have equal rights?

    By saying he is "sorry if it hurt people", he fails to realize that Gay people hear it as "I had to stab you, sorry if you bled"

    He is in a liberal part of CA, not in Texas

  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    April 3, 2014 3:02 a.m.

    Why this is only coming to light now? Weren't all $1000+ contributors already targeted?

    Are we soon going to read stories about people who donated money to political causes 20 or 30 years ago?

    Looks like the left is desperate to remind people that freedom of speech is not only a privileged given to those whom they, and they alone, regard as worthy of it.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 3, 2014 4:14 a.m.

    Mozilla has the right to support the causes that they wish.

    People have a right to agree, disagree, boycott or picket.
    That is the American way. It is not inclusive or exclusive. And it works both ways.

    What's the big deal?

  • Dr. Thom Long Beach, CA
    April 3, 2014 5:09 a.m.

    So if he donated $1,000 to groups opposed to Prop 8 he would be a hero? Hey here is a thought, people donate to causes they believe in and if they support or oppose something and its legal to do so, what business is it of anyone else. If you don't like their political giving, just vote with your dollars and buy a competing product. I am not a big fan of liberals in the media or Hollywood, so I don't buy their books, products, songs or watch their movies.

    Many people do, I don't. Its a semi-free country people!

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    April 3, 2014 5:24 a.m.

    Thinking different is one thing. Actions, however, have consequences. In this case we are talking public actions taken in support of a position that is at odds with the official policies of the company.

    Recast those actions for a minute. Suppose, during the last election, a company in Utah known for hiring Mormons had a CEO who made cash contributions to one of the well-known anti-Mormon groups to help attack Romney's religion. Not a political contribution to Obama, but a donation to fund disinformation.

    How would you feel buying that company's services? Working for that company? Would you believe that LDS employees would really be treated with fairness? Would you encourage people to use another company, or would you support the CEO because "religious freedom"?

    This is about choices. I'm not required to use Firefox, and this story inspired me to make a choice and try some alternate browsers. Meanwhile, the Mozilla board will hopefully consider how well the CEO represents their company as a workplace that claims to be diverse and affirming.

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    April 3, 2014 7:15 a.m.

    Support by our church and this CEO delayed 10000s of Californians the choice of getting married but in the end equality won and homophobia lost once again.

  • Vanceone Provo, UT
    April 3, 2014 7:53 a.m.

    Just remember: liberals swore up and down that gay marriage wouldn't harm anyone. That the rest of us had nothing to fear. That all that would happen is some people would finally get to be happy. That no one else's life would be negatively impacted.

    Now? If you hold views contrary to their belief, they will attack, boycott, and do their level best to get you fired, drag your name through the mud, and in general try to exert their will against you.

    So much for "Gay marriage cannot possibly harm anyone!" Now, it's "Convert or we will punish you to the best of our abilities." Note--this is their right, but boy, they cannot claim that same sex marriage is harmless. Now, you conform or risk your job.

    Also note that the gays are trying to establish the position that a devout Mormon, Catholic, or other Christian is not eligible for any job that involves contact with other people. This sure as heck is harmful to the rest of us.

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    April 3, 2014 8:38 a.m.

    Well, good for Brendan Eich for exercising his free speech rights and good for Mozilla for hiring and, so far, supporting him in doing so.

    The hateful, spiteful and completely hypocritical nature of those who wish to suppress the same freedoms of thought and expression that they simultaneously trumpet for themselves induces revulsion in me.

    Mr. Eich has done **nothing** that deserves criticism and in continuing to fight for his 1st Amendment rights is helping not only himself but every other citizen.

    I say again, good on him.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    April 3, 2014 8:44 a.m.

    @Clarkhippo
    "Looks like the left is desperate to remind people that freedom of speech is not only a privileged given to those whom they, and they alone, regard as worthy of it."

    Protests and boycotts are part of freedom of speech.

    @Dr. Thom
    "So if he donated $1,000 to groups opposed to Prop 8 he would be a hero?"

    That million moms group or whatever it was that tried to boycott JC Penney after they hired Ellen DeGeneres as a spokesperson would probably boycott instead.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    April 3, 2014 8:55 a.m.

    Odd how for so long the gays were bullied, called names, even killed.
    Now some gay folks are pushing back and suddenly the bully is being persecuted treated wrongly, and I'm suppose to feel pity for them.

    Choices have actions, you've been telling the gay community that for years, now it's a 2 edge sword.

    and none of this "harm" come from gay marriage, it comes from bigotry being recognized instead of admired.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    April 3, 2014 9:26 a.m.

    He can give money to and support anything he wishes. The fact that anyone even cares about this issue shows the blatant inability of the homosexual movement to like or say anything nice about those who might disagree with them.

  • Brave Sir Robin San Diego, CA
    April 3, 2014 9:43 a.m.

    Internet Explorer by Microsoft: Big, evil corporation, plus they hate Apple.
    Chrome by Google: Big, evil corporation, plus they hate Apple.
    Firefox by Mozilla: Awesome, free, not as big and evil, but the CEO hates gay marriage.

    Now that's a real quandary. How's a liberal supposed to surf the internet with a good conscience any more?

  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    April 3, 2014 10:06 a.m.

    @Vanceone

    Not only that, if the left can successfully silence those who oppose same-sex marriage, why would they stop there?

    @Schnee

    You said - "Protests and boycotts are part of freedom of speech."

    Does that include Tea Party protestors or anti-abortion protestors? Does this include NRA members?

    @Happy Valley Heretic

    You said - "and none of this "harm" come from gay marriage, it comes from bigotry being recognized instead of admired."

    In other words, if a certain church is vandalized or a certain individual loses their livelihood or another person's child is threatened at school, these people only have themselves to blame.

  • Vanceone Provo, UT
    April 3, 2014 10:16 a.m.

    It's actually a good thing, this story. It clears the fog that the gay supporters are trying to blow.

    They have every right to boycott, campaign, etc. But, this story shows the true colors, and the true desires of the gay activists: To force everyone to agree with them.

    Put bluntly, either you wholeheartedly support gay activism, and the ideas that gay activity is moral, acceptable, and preferred--or you are going to pay. They won't let you stay on the sidelines: as Eich shows, either you are for or against them, and if you are against them then you must fight to keep YOUR rights--because the activists will try to make you lose your job, and any other "state supported" activity.

    So you are either for unadulterated, full throated support for whatever they want... or you have to be against it and fight back, just to keep what you have.

    and the gay activists want it that way. They want EVERYONE on their side, actively, or they will try to destroy you. So make a choice! Choose homosexuality, or choose to fight it. Because they will make you choose.

  • Oh, please! Saint George, UT
    April 3, 2014 10:30 a.m.

    I will continue to use Firefox and refuse to shop at JC Penney.

    I will continue to state that homosexuality hurts society because it violates the laws of nature and the laws of God.

    Those are my beliefs and I have the right to share them along side those who disagree with me.

    Previously, on other similar articles, I have shared my views but the DNews "filter police" continually refuse to allow my comments to be published. Why is that?

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    April 3, 2014 10:42 a.m.

    @Willem
    "Support by our church and this CEO delayed 10000s of Californians the choice of getting married but in the end equality won and homophobia lost once again."

    In the vast majority cases "homophobia" used to condemn people who have religious cultural objections to homosexual behavior rather than to bigotry or prejudice. The term has become an epithet. It is the height of cultural chauvinism to conclude that someone is wroing with someone because of their religion.

    In recent posts, many people here were falling all over themselves condemning bakeries or wedding photographers who won't cater to a gay wedding saying that it was discrimination. The logic is that a gay marriage is a result or a characteristic of being gay. Well, contributing to political actions to maintain traditional marriage is a characteristic of certain religions and cultures.

    By that logic therefore, the disagreement against the CEO is not because he supported Prop 8, but because of his religion. That is religious discrimination. Because GoCupid is a commercial enterprise and have entered into the public domain, they should be fined and sued for taking the position that they have taken.

  • slcdenizen t-ville, UT
    April 3, 2014 11:18 a.m.

    Traditionalists, food for thought: Most racists don't acknowledge their racism. Most abusers don't recognize their abusive behavior. Rather than debate the accusation of bigotry, why not do some self-analysis.

    What is bigotry? Is the term dependant on recognition from both parties of the bigot equation? A concerted effort is being put into both maintaining bigoted views and trying to shed the justified criticism of those views. Tolerance does not encompass intolerance, hence the perceived dichotomy of groups dedicated to open expression reviling against the "traditional marriage" position.

    It's not a challenging concept to accept other humans for their decisions while considering those decisions abhorrent or sinful. The issue lies with applying our laws in such a way that prevents equal access. This whole debate has become stale and uninteresting and the longer it continues, the more honest and open-minded people will be forced to choose a side of the argument and quite frankly, it does not bode well for the bigot side.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 3, 2014 11:44 a.m.

    " They want EVERYONE on their side, actively, or they will try to destroy you."

    Vanceone. Are you suggesting that those on the right do not picket or boycott things and companies that hold positions with which they disagree?

    Vote with your wallet and try to persuade others to do the same. That is the free market system at work.

    Both sides do it and the other side always complains.

    Will you be vocally opposed if a group in Orem picketed PacSun over the recent flap?

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    April 3, 2014 12:03 p.m.

    Liberal believe in tolerance and accepting of all people and all diversity. Love and peace. Unless if you have a view that conflicts with their view. Then the mean and hateful labels come out, your intelligence is questioned, and you are no longer allowed to have a different point of view.

    And that is how tolerance works.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    April 3, 2014 12:04 p.m.

    ClarkHippo said: @Happy Valley Heretic
    said: "In other words, if a certain Chruch (property) is vandalized or a certain individual loses their livelihood or another person's child is threatened at school, these people only have themselves to blame.

    You've been using that excuse for years on the gay community, do I think it's right? Nope, don't now, didn't then.

    I said "Gay Marriage" doesn't threaten your religious marriage, vandalism, or assault are not part of "Gay Marriage"

  • Vanceone Provo, UT
    April 3, 2014 12:33 p.m.

    JoeBlow: Indeed, I said that the gay rights movement can do this. No one is questioning that. What I said is that by boycotting, and trying to get Eich fired it puts the lie to the oft repeated claim that "Gay rights won't hurt you."

    That's clearly wrong: Gay activists are trying to hurt someone and basically are stating that either you agree with them or face the consequences. Okay, but if there are "consequences" for not agreeing with the gays, then clearly the happy fluffy "it's all good, love and happiness, man!" is a lie. Why fight against gay rights? Because they are now on record that they will try to terminate your employment, get you fired, boycott your business or force it out of business via the state if you don't agree with them.

    Again, they have that right--but now that the gay movement is demanding that you choose between God or them and they will punish you for choosing God--it's not at all "bigoted" to be against them.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    April 3, 2014 12:33 p.m.

    "Most racists don't acknowledge their racism."

    So what your saying is that most anti-religious bigots don't acknowledge their hate for religious people and organizations.

    Yup! I agree completely.

  • sashabill Morgan Hill, CA
    April 3, 2014 12:48 p.m.

    It's laughable how the Politically Correct community throws around words like "bigot," "hatemonger," or "homophobe" much the same way that right wing Protestants throw around the word "cult." They seldom, if ever, define their terms; it is just assumed as a matter of faith that anyone who disagrees with them somehow "must be" a hatemonger. I am forced to conclude, therefore, that "bigotry" or "homophobia" simply consist of any opinion that happens to be different from that of liberals - much the same way that a "cult" is any religion that fundamentalist Protestants don't happen to like.

  • The Scientist Provo, UT
    April 3, 2014 1:10 p.m.

    Just because your religion is the SOURCE of your bigotry does not justify it. And just because we oppose bigotry in all its forms does not mean we are anti-religion (although I am for a myriad of reasons).

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    April 3, 2014 1:44 p.m.

    When the Cathy family, owners of Chik-Fil-A, were found to be funding anti-gay organizations, nobody was surprised. The family is known to be very Christian and known to support other right-wing political and social causes. There was a call for a boycott, but nobody demanded the family remove itself from leading the company.

    The difference here is that Mozilla has a reputation for being very Gay welcoming and affirming as a workplace. So finding out the new CEO has monetarily supported something that is profoundly anti-gay-rights is a shock and disappointment. Moving him to the highest leadership position seems to run contrary to the stated goals of the company in terms of supporting equality and being a diverse and welcoming place to work.

    Should he be fired? I don't know. But I am certainly curious to see how this is handled and what he (and others at Mozilla) have to say about the seeming conflict of company values and the personal beliefs and actions of the new leader.

  • slcdenizen t-ville, UT
    April 3, 2014 2:37 p.m.

    @Badgerbadger

    Hatred is a strong term. It's more of a preference for reasoned argument in place of dogmatic pronouncements that are later rebutted by new and better information. Religion has managed to protect itself from progress that society at large has undergone. Bigotry also doesn't apply for those who regard reason over dogma for the simple fact that choosing one's religion is not an inherent trait or characteristic, and thus any discrimination toward religion would be similar to that of a person's work ethic, food preferences, or clothing style, not skin color, sexual orientation, or physical/mental handicap.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    April 3, 2014 2:46 p.m.

    @ClarkHippo
    "Does that include Tea Party protestors or anti-abortion protestors? Does this include NRA members? "

    Sure, why not? I don't have an issue with them protesting (the only issue I have with any protests on any side is that I support requiring protestors be at least far enough away so that workers/customers/visitors/etc can access the building/business being protested, doesn't have to be much, like maybe 20ft would do).

    @Tekakaromatagi
    "Because GoCupid is a commercial enterprise and have entered into the public domain, they should be fined and sued for taking the position that they have taken."

    Under that argument Chik-fil-A would also be sued for entering the public domain in donating to anti same-sex marriage causes as a commercial enterprise.

  • Bob K portland, OR
    April 3, 2014 3:42 p.m.

    Now he has resigned.
    --- I do give him credit for apparently not lying in order to stay.
    --- He went to a Jesuit college that is a little bit like "BYU for catholic men". One supposes that he either believed that the catholic bishops were right in creating Prop 8, or that he refuses to contradict his church.

    If you do not understand why he had to go:
    --- Suppose he had been elected mayor of an Arizona town that was heavily mormon, then was found to have contributed to the campaign to remove the lds tax exemption.

    It is ironic that a catholic bishop, Cordileone, sponsored Prop 8 and persuaded mormons in Utah (his former posting) to help, resulting in terrible lies and distortions in the TV ads I lived through in 2008, but the mormons got all the blame.

    If you were NOT in California in 2008, and did not endure the atmosphere of tyranny and manipulation put out by the pro 8 ads, you probably cannot imagine the great hurt and polarization that they caused.

    People who are not in CA might think about walking in the shoes of those who were.

  • I know it. I Live it. I Love it. Provo, UT
    April 4, 2014 5:51 a.m.

    Kate Hutch has pointed out a real and dangerous problem in America today. The fact that liberals don't think they are bullying people when people lose a job over a political belief. What a liberal calls "inclusive political beliefs" and a conservative are not the same thing. Conservatives can disagree with Same-Gender recognition and not feel anything but love for someone who disagrees.

    It's one thing to not morally agree with another activity, behavior, even traits and trends from other individuals. It's entire something else to not accept the existence of other people.

    /////

    * I don't believe in recognizing same-gender marriage/unions. I also don't believe in policing opinions.
    * Liberals don't believe in the same family-values I do. But they ARE policing people.
    * ERGO... liberals are not inclusive of anyone's political beliefs but their own.

    It doesn't take a genius to see who's bullying who.

  • Coach Biff Lehi, UT
    April 4, 2014 7:34 a.m.

    ....crickets. The liberals on here can't come up with a cogent argument for removing this CEO so they revert to past practice. Amazing.

  • slow down Provo, UT
    April 4, 2014 10:55 a.m.

    The more I think about this, the more I find the decision of the company to force his resignation appalling. It is intolerance in the name of "tolerance," albeit it a selective, economically self-interested tolerance. More and more America appears to be unfriendly to diversity, ready to employ all kinds of crafty rhetorical and symbolic violence to ensure cultural and ideological conformity. Maybe its just media bias. Maybe we've always been that way. In any case, a desire to exclude (which is ultimately sadism) is NOT the only possible motivation for opposing the complete legal death of gender as embodied in the ascendant view of marriage. At least he did not cave in to the intimidation.

  • Kate Hutch Kenmore, WA
    April 4, 2014 11:41 a.m.

    I read a lot of comments with the opinion that people are being 'forced to agree' with a given stance. Nobody is being forced to agree with anybody else. Everybody is entitled to an opinion. Everybody is entitled to speak/write/sing/draw/yodle or any other expression of that opinion without the government moving to put a stop to it. (That is the 'free speech' part of the first amendment.) What you are NOT allowed to do is discriminate against another person based on those traits listed.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    April 8, 2014 10:57 a.m.

    So the question for all you Libs is, How does giving $1000.00 to a cause that you believe in make it discrimination?

    If people didn't like Mozilla because of his stance, then let them vote with their feet and don't use them. IF that causes market share to drop and the company to lose money, then that would be a reason to remove him. And that is a long term proposition.