Let me be the first to state my hearty approval of this opinion piece. Well
stated, DN. Well stated.Now, queue the supposedly
"tolerant" left, to jump all over this opinion piece as being
"intolerant". Who, pray tell, are the intolerant ones?
In a blog post Thursday, Mozilla's executive chairwoman, Mitchell Baker,
apologized for Mr. Eich's appointment, writing, "We have employees with
a wide diversity of views. Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff
and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public…"All true, until the belief or opinion is not aligned with the liberal agenda.
No longer does the fact of skills or knowledge mean equal opportunity but we
must now face the bigotry of the left.
Can't disagree on this one. When BYU fired a professor for writing an
editorial criticizing the LDS Church's stand on Proposition 8 there was an
outcry. Where are they now? How is this any different?
Excellent, excellent article.
I agree wholeheartedly with this opinion. The LGBT community and those that
support their push for same sex marriage rights expect you to conform with what
they want. But if you don't and you show support for the other side, they
do whatever they can to force you out. They want tolerance for their cause, but
are not willing to show it in return.There is no reason that Eich
should have been forced out. His support for traditional marriage was not
linked in any way to Mozilla. He has a right to show support for one side or
the other, without it affecting his employment. Does this mean I can go ahead
and force one of my employees to resign if they support SSM?
Do I think he should have been forced to resign? No. Do I think this opinion
is hypocritical? Yes. Why is it acceptable for a company to reflect its values
by refusing to allow insurance coverage for contraceptives but it is
"totalitarian" for a company to expect its senior employee to act in a
way that complies with its values? And by the way, this is not state action, so
comparing it to totalitarian governments is way over the top. You can't
just be for "freedom" when the freedom is something you like and be
against it when the freedom is something you dislike or you are as hypocritical
as the "liberals" you are complaining about. And before anyone says I
that I am also a hypocrite because I think he should have been fired, please
reread the first 2 sentences I wrote.
I too agree with this article. When I read about Eich a couple of days ago I
thought it was very sad. Maybe he just didn't want to stay somewhere that
preaches one thing and lives another. Do as I say, not as I do.
I thought most employers had a policy of non-discrimination based on religion.
I'm not saying that Eich's support of Prop 8 was religiously based,
but I can certainly imagine prospective employees being in that situation. Is
this a message to them that they need not apply for employment? At a minimum,
it sounds like a potentially hostile work environment.Th article
credentials. My understanding is that he was in fact a co-founder of the
company. If true, the irony seems even deeper, as many founders seek to instill
their values in their company. To be found inconsistent with the values of a
company one founded, even though one has held the same position throughout,
seems the height of absurdity.
Henry Drummond,You're comparing apples to oranges there pal.
The firefox CEO didn't criticize his employer. You really had to stretch
to try and make that comparison work. Sorry, I know you wanted to take a dig
there, but it failed.
It's a sad day when $1000 can cost you your whole career. Joseph McCarthy
really would be proud.A private $1000 donation... cost him his whole
career (because of intolerance of opinions that don't match with theirs)...
That's just sad.He's not the first. He's just the
latest to be picked off and had careers destroyed by these radicals who
can't tolerate anybody who wasn't on their side on Prop 8.
I could understand Mozilla forcing him out if he made anti gay statements or
showed bigotry in hiring or promotion/evaluation processes, but forcing him out
because he supported a political side over another? What's next, fire a
person who is affiliated with conservative organizations or votes for tea party
candidates? Disgraceful Mizolla...guess who isn't getting any of my
business in the future?I'm a tolerant individual, and have made
clear on comment boards that I feel gay and lesbian individuals should be
allowed to marry. I don't feel it's my right to tell them morally how
to live their lives, as long as their choices don't infringe on my rights,
which I don't think SSM does. I don't lay this at the feet of the LGBT
community because many of them are not hostile or aggressive in their position.
I'm proud to call many of them my friends. I lay this at the feet of the
liberal agenda who have chosen "diversity" as a clarion call for
preferential treatment instead of civil rights, and exclusion of ideas for
groupthink mentality. That's right, "diversity" so we can
I take great exception to the last paragraph of this article. This has NOTHING
to do with the legal concepts of liberty and freedom. Eich still has the legal
freedom to say whatever he wants. No one can take that away. But freedom is not
a guarantee that there will not be consequences to your actions. What we have
here is a case of cultural norms of behavior evolving in a way that is gradually
making an anti-gay marriage stance the public equivalent of being against
interracial marriage. There's legally nothing to stop a person from
financing an effort to make interracial marriage illegal, but it's well
understood that the result is going to be public shaming. That's where
we're headed with an anti-gay marriage stance. So while it may bother you
that cultural norms are shifting in a way that you don't like, you kind of
just have to deal with it. Just as you have the freedom to say what you want,
other people have the freedom to shame you for it.
Wonder,Re: "And by the way, this is not state action, so comparing it
to totalitarian governments is way over the top"...I think I can
see where he's coming from. It doesn't have to be a State sponsored
thing to be likened to how other totalitarian regimes acted in history.
Krystallnacht was not a state sponsored thing. It was when civilians
intolerant of Jews went out to bashed their Jewish neighbors... and the state
just watched.Kristallnacht, was a series of coordinated attacks
against Jews throughout Nazi Germany and parts of Austria on 9–10 November
1938, carried out by non-Jewish civilians. German authorities looked on without
intervening. The name Kristallnacht comes from the shards of broken glass that
littered the streets after Jewish-owned stores, buildings, and synagogues had
their windows smashed.The intolerance and the state just watching...
is the similarity. It doesn't have to be "state sponsored".His only crime was a political contribution... and this is what he
gets??Joseph McCarthy really would be proud.
Williams64 has stated the lefts position perfectly...and they are very good at
it, as most media gives them a bully pulpit. He states.."Just as you have
the freedom to say what you want, other people have the freedom to shame you for
it". Well said Williams64...exactly what the left has been doing for a long
time. Its sad when someone has to "shame" a person into silence about a
dissenting moral opinion. Perhaps those who share Eichs opinion, need to
stand behind him, so the "lefts" perceived shame will turn into a
2 bits,You're seriously comparing a man being shamed out of a
CEO position by the internet with Kristallnacht? There is no comparison. None.
The actions taken during Kristallnact were violent and illegal. Against the law.
That is, for the state to stand by and do nothing was for the state to abandon
the law. By contrast, today we have a company yielding to public opinion,
expressed non-violently and through entirely legal means. No laws are being
broken, so the state has no reason to get involved. Again, there is no
comparison. McCarthy was a representative of the government misusing
state power to lead a witch-hunt. There is no similar politician leading
investigations against individuals who are opposed to gay marriage. Just because
you think someone is being unfairly treated in both cases doesn't mean the
situation is the same. It's not the same. It's not even remotely the
re:2bits"I think I can see where he's coming from. It
doesn't have to be a State sponsored thing to be likened to how other
totalitarian regimes acted in history. Krystallnacht was not a state sponsored
thing. It was when civilians intolerant of Jews went out to bashed their Jewish
neighbors... and the state just watched."The comparison to and
oversimplification of Jewish persecution is (and citing Joseph McCarthy) is
over-the-top. Preceding Kyrstallnacht there was a long propaganda campaign--by
Hitler--blaming the Jews for Germany's defeat in WWI and the subsequent
economic depression. There were also ever increasing restrictions on German
Jews. The Brown Shirts--a paramilitary Nazi organization participated in
Deanvrtc,You're of course quite correct. But the left has never
been the sole distributors of public shame so to phrase it as the left has
"been doing it for a long time" is kind of misleading. It's more
like, everyone does it and has done it and gets mad when it happens to them.
I'm simply pointing out reality. The right loves to trumpet freedom and
liberty when their positions are under attack, as this article does, but that is
misleading. Liberty and freedom are not under threat as a result of Eich being
outsted, and to make that claim is to devalue those concepts to the point of
meaninglessness. Stick to the facts. Yes, a person is being subjected to very
public shame over a private belief. It's regrettable but this has happened
countless times to people of all political persuasions throughout history. Lets
talk about that issue and not make this into something it's not.
Kinda reminds me of the guy who got his hillbilly show suspended for talking
about his religious beliefs in a magazine article and offending the same
community. And they claim to be the tolerant ones...===Here's the irony.... You don't like being fired from
your job for being gay... but you support firing someone for donating to prop-8
political campaign?? That seems VERY inconsistent..====Not only do you not want to be fired for being gay... you want LAWS preventing
employers from firing you!You can't really run around firing
people for not supporting prop-8... and then want laws to protect you!===And before somebody goes there... I'm NOT for firing
people for being gay. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy.Maybe we need a law preventing gay people from firing people for not
supporting Prop-8??===Wait a minute... I just read that
he donated to Pat Buchanan's campaign and more... I take it all back. In
that case, what happened was TOTALLY justified!
2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UT"It's a sad day when $1000 can
cost you your whole career. Joseph McCarthy really would be proud.A
private $1000 donation... cost him his whole career (because of intolerance of
opinions that don't match with theirs)... That's just sad."A-- it did not cost him his career. It cost him a job that he himself
made untenable.B-- because he refuses to say that his catholic
church was wrong, and contributing to the cause it espoused is wrong, he can
have any job there except boss.People do not deserve to work for a
man who sticks to a belief that took away their rights.It is NO
different than if he contributed to the "take away the lds tax
exemption" even though he had mormon employeesOpen your eyes,
I agree with the article. Freedom is for us all, in equal doses. Mozilla should
have rode this out, just like honey maid did with their 'love'
@williams64Palo Alto, CANo... I was pointing out that it
doesn't have to be state sponsored to be bad. I was also
pointing out things intolerance makes us think is OK... but the level of the
two... isn't comparable.===Are you saying there was
no which hunt here??Sure it wasn't done by the Government...
but that doesn't make it OK either. That was the whole point of my
earlier comment.===I think what they did (If it was
based on his politics) was wrong. A lot of people agree.I'm
not saying it was State sponsored. But that doesn't make it OK. I'm
just saying it's "IN-Tolerant". And it was.
Williams64:Your argument borders on absurd. There's a difference
between freedom of speech and freedom to partake in the political process. This
isn't about what Eich said it's about contributing money legally to
political positions he supports. As a business owner do I now have the right to
fire one of my staff who has supported money and time for defending Amendment 3?
The message being sent by Mozilla is chilling: "don't contribute funds
to a political position we disagree with or you will be fired/forced out".
All while our government will watch and smile and not lift a finger while
someone loses their job. If that doesn't scare you concerning our
constitutional and protected rights, nothing will. Just like Krystallnacht
referenced above (thank you 2 bits) the fact our government will not protect
Eich and his right to the political process is exactly what makes this
unnerving. Like I said...can companies now fire individuals in the tea party or
people that voted for Amendment 3 in Utah? It's absurd to think about, yet
that's exactly what happened here.
I do not think Mr. Eich should have been fired, but I can understand the anger
of the people who called for his resignation. It is probably difficult to
forgive someone who supported a cause that you felt treated you as "less
than." That said, I hope I would have let bygones be bygones and moved on,
particularly since he has never been documented as discriminating against
anyone. The tide has turned and some people's past actions are now being
seen as having been on the wrong side of history. Soon it will be as
unthinkable to disparage the LGBT community as it now is to disparage people of
a different race. Just as in my lifetime we've gone from having separate
water fountains to relative racial equality. Times are changing and there is
always a storm with change. Then things calm down and we wonder why people in
the past were so resistant to change.
GaryO - Mozilla, like every other firm has the right to remove a corporate
officer at any time. And yes, they did the wrong thing by forcing Brendan Eich
out. In both scenarios that you proposed here, accepting the value of freedom of
speech demands that we learn to live with ideas that we find hurtful.
2 bits,My last comment here. I understand your frustration. There is
some hypocrisy going on. However, you should not assume that everyone that spoke
up against Eich actually was in favor of him being fired over this issue. It
looks like a lot of people just wanted to try to get him to change his mind.
Some did unquestionably take it too far.I think laws should protect
Eich in this case, and if he sued he might actually have a case. However, I do
think his position as CEO puts him in the public spotlight and that does make it
pretty different from the scenario of a gay person losing their job for who they
are. Arguably, Eich is not being fired for his religious or political beliefs
(if he was, he wouldn't have been promoted in the first place since the
company knew his stance on this issue). He's being fired because the
company could be boycotted out of existence if he's not. It's a
practical measure, not an issue of company-endorsed discrimination.
I have followed this story from the time Mr Eich was given the position of CEO.
Yes he has experience above and beyond what is required for the position. Yes he
is a co-founder of the company. Yes he has made political contributions that
compliment his political,moral,religious views as a private citizen. Yes he got
fired because a group of people want to BULLY everyone who do not agree with
their agenda. Do I agree with their agenda IT DOES NOT MATTER I believe Mr. Eich
has a right to believe anything he wants and to spend his money anyway he wants.
Maybe if he had supported the other side a different group would have gotten him
fired, however the ones who believe that the Constitution was written and
followed so that everyone living in this country legally can have an opinion and
civilly go about their business probably would not have fought to get him
fired.Sex,Race,Culture use the courts to change laws not HATE & BULLYING
then folks will support your cause and change will happen in time hopefully.
Peace and God Bless you all even the atheist among us.
OK, so Sen. McCarthy was a government figure. What about the Hollywood
blacklist? Movie studios are private companies. And yes, they justified the
public shaming of Communists (and tried to get them to renounce it) by saying
they wanted to take away the rights of Americans.
"That he could lose his job for such a thing is not only shameful,
it’s an affront to basic American principles."------------I agree completely.This is, sadly, only a recent one of an
accumulating torrent of examples of a fight for freedom of thought and
expression. The PC thugs that picket someone for voting differently than they
believe is proper are guilty of **precisely** the same intolerance they so
stridently oppose in others.Andrew Sullivan, someone who is gay and
has been advocating for homosexual marriage for 25 years and was actually
recently married homosexually, had it exactly right when in reaction to
Eich's resignation he wrote, "If we are about intimidating the free
speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before
I just switched to chrome
What I'm hearing is, "He only got fired because he has the
'wrong' belief."He got fired because a lot of people
got upset about it and the company directors were concerned that it would damage
their ability to compete. Should he have been fired for this reason? I
don't know. People have been fired for less...like being gay.The public reaction to Eich tells me that young people - and this is who
dominates Mozilla's arena - really won't put up with a belief that is
harmful to their family members, friends, and co-workers. They don't see
being against marriage equality as an example of diversity. They see it as an
example of bigotry and discrimination.So I don't agree that
this is an example of a litmus test. A political candidate feeling required to
say she's a person of faith in order to even be in the game is a litmus
test. And since when is it mere political correctness to frown on demonstrably
harmful beliefs? No. It would be politically correct if we were to let a
harmful belief slide simply because it was religious.
Henry Drummond,A church school didn't fire an employee for
having different opinions, but for speaking out against the church as an
employer and as a faith.A Mozilla employee didn't say
"we're wasting our time here at Mozilla, we have the wrong software
philosophy". Had he done this, no one would be upset when he's
fired./////If someone thinks the LDS Church isn't
tolerant for not being inclusive of Hindu beliefs by not calling Hindu's to
be LDS Bishops... then they clearly don't understand the meaning of
inclusive, the meaning of beliefs, perhaps the meaning of anything because
instead of trying to understand something they didn't create... they want
to redefine and claim to be the author of everything. We've moved past idol
worshiping into self-worshiping.The truth is, we didn't create
Marriage. We can't redefine or recreate it. And we most certainly
can't replicate the love found in marriage between a man and a woman.General Conference can't come soon enough!
Thanks DN. I just deleted Firefox. Presently viewing in IE.
Opposing civil rights is the biggest mockery of freedom and diversity there is.
It is pretty ridiculous when a 1% tail can wag the dog. The door swings both
ways. Mozilla's prejudice = Firefox + delete key on my computer. There are
other web browsers out there.
The people that don't see this as a mockery of diversity are the ones that
get to arbitrarily decide who gets to be part of diversity.
Re: Henry Drummond "When BYU fired a professor for writing an editorial
criticizing the LDS Church's stand on Proposition 8 there was an outcry.
Where are they now? How is this any different?"Exactly so.
There is no difference. But consider that alternate views on SSM can get you
fired about equally well. Do not many Utahns who support SSM fear to let their
employers know for fear of losing their jobs?
Get used to it people - this is nothing less than the new Obama-nation showing
its ugly face. Just wait - soon it will be government spying on how you vote and
then inflicting punishment on you or forcing you into "re-education
camps". If a CEO of a major company can get fired over his personal private
views then that same Nazi - like behavior can spread to ANY company. Find
yourself out of line with the thinking of the PC crowd and fear for your job or
perhaps the IRS or both. Yes folks this is the total transformation of America
so many ignorantly voted for 6 years ago. The transformation from a free nation
to a nation where you dare not express any free speech. How does that hope n
change look now comrades??
This is just liberalism showing it's ugly face. Liberals want no thought
allowed unless it is their thought. Is that thinking closer to free America or
the old USSR? Libreals are all about force not freedom and anyone foolish to
have ever thought otherwise should get a wake up call now. Yes it is shameful
but it is liberalism after all. Liberals - you must be so proud!!
Marxist - If it is acceptable to run Mr. Eich out of Mozilla on a rail because
his personal beliefs are different from the cool clique in that company, then it
is equally acceptable for an SSM supporter to get hounded out of a firm where
the majority supports the divine definition of marriage. In a free society, the
knife has to cut both ways,
I can't imagine having to work in San Jose California. What a stink hole.
You would be in fear of your job constantly for not only what you did but what
you thought ...or what some think you thought. California is a scary scary
Bob K,So you are saying that 52% of Californians should be fired
from their jobs because they voted for Prop 8? The reason we vote
is so people can share their opinion on one side or the other. When one side
retaliates because they don't like how the other side voted...that is
called bullying. Not sure how bullying is ever defensible.
The question is what do we do about this atrocity? Where is the
petition we sign to get him his job back?When do we stand up to this
bullying and denial of diversity and tolerance?When will enough be
I love the logic that it's discrimination to speak out against
discrimination and oppression, using this logic we should all go out and give
the Philips family big hugs and cheer them on when they protest military
funerals. When you actively wok to take away others rights as this man did you
are the oppressor not the oppressed.
How is Eich's effort to deny his gay coworkers the civil rights he enjoys
any different from an effort to prohibit mixed-race marriage, as Mormons like Mr
Eich once did? Would any CEO today advocate that mixed-race marriage be
banned, and that mixed-race couples be denied the full rights of citizenship?
The hypocrisy is rank. I am quite sure this paper (and many of the
commenters) supported the law in Arizona that would have allowed a business to
fire somebody for their sexual preference, yet they are outraged by this?
I believe that people who share the values of Eich will have to come together
and create products and ideas for other people who share those same values. If
others don't want to use them… fine. Go somewhere else.
Safari, Chrome, IE, Firefox all have published pro homosexual stances on
marriage.I could find no stance for Opera, but they are in Norway.
You decide.Perhaps less internet would the best choice to stay away
from all the SSM promotions.
Is it wrong to fire somebody for a political donation? Does that infringe on
free speech and a system that does allow dissenting opinions? Probably.At that same time, in the last year some dozen teachers have been fired from
schools across the country for the "crime" of marrying their long-term
partner. Usually this was done out of state, because the couple lived in a state
that did not yet allow gay marriage.I don't remember people
being upset about that. Well... yeah, there were people upset. Because each of
those firings generated protests from students who were taught by those teachers
and who saw no problem with a gay married teacher leading a math class or gym
class or teaching science or social studies. The same folks who are
now violently up in arms about Mr. Eich being fired supported the termination of
those teachers. Sorry. If it was wrong to fire Brandon Eich for
giving money to group that opposed gay marriage, then it is also wrong to fire
teachers who entered into a legal gay marriage.
The DN editorial staff is stewing about whether or not to publish my comment on
this article so I will rephrase: The Mozilla BOD has the right and authority to
dismiss the CEO if they feel that person's views and or positions do no
reflect the values of their Company. In this case Eich supported a widely
accepted position that Prop 8 is in fact a discriminatory piece of legislation
that denies marriage equality to gay people. The BOD didn't like it and
they let him know about it. Eich occupied a significant position of influence in
the Company and his financial support made it clear concerning his homophobic
views. Companies operate in a political environment and Eich should have
understood that. Maybe he should have applied for a position in a more right
wing neo conservative organization that would embrace his views on homosexuals.
I appreciate all the well written comments. The potential of
personal attacks does make a person hesitant to express his/her true feelings.
And when only one side of the argument is heard, the outcome is not always fair.
This type behavior doesn't work in marriage. Doesn't seem to work in
the political realm either.
Hate in the name of tolerance is still hateThat is a concept
politically correct culture simply cannot seem to comprehendI was
introduced into homosexuality as an adolescent. I do not belong to any faith,
But I have experienced the "tolerance" of extremist in the gay community
first hand. They do NOT represent me any more than Westboro Baptist represents
all religion.I sincerely apologize for the hateful things that
"tolerant" people have done in my nameThey embarrass me
Would I be wrong to assume that the D-News will shortly be editorializing about
the wrong done to World Vision? You may have heard - the organization decided
to recognize legally married same sex spouses. Many "Christians" were
so upset they stopped sponsoring poor children in developing nations. World
Vision was forced to change its policy. I assume the D-News will be condeming
those activists for their attacks on diversity - and also for harming suffering
children worldwide. Right?Will we be reading a D-News editorial
condeming the ongoing boycott of Starbucks by the National Organization For
Marriage? Certainly that boycott (which claimed at one point to have cost $10b
in stock value) is an attack on diversity and tolerance. Will the D-News
editorial board condemn NOM for making a mockery of diversity and freedom?
I don't use Firefox (not or any political reason, but because I don't
like the program and it doesn't suit my computing needs -- that has been
true long before this issue arose). That being said -- I don't care what
the executive of a company says of what he things -- s/he has every right to
believe and express politically those positions. I would appreciate
information on an issue -- did he discriminate in hiring, or provide substandard
benefits, or do anything else against the interest of his employees for
prejudicial reasons? Those are reasons which would lead me to support his job
termination, not any political position he might take.One further
thought -- people have the right to spend, or not spend, their money where they
choose, for political reasons or other reasons as they choose. Companies have
the right to take actions based on their perception of how peoples'
spending might affect their companies. That's how a free market economy
works. People who otherwise support a free market economy are now complaining
because free market pressures cost someone with whose political views they agree
his job. That's the free market economy. Live with it.
The war on CommunismThe war on povertyThe war on drugsThe war
on terrorismNow the newest war, the war on thought.Go
George Orwell!(It passed the censors on the other DN Mozilla story,
so it should pass for this one too.)
@Orem Parent: "The question is what do we do about this atrocity?" You are, of course, also addressing teachers who got fired simply for
being gay and marrying their partner in a legal ceremony?You also,
of course, are concerned about scoutmasters who were removed from leadership
because they are gay?And I assume you support Starbucks – they
have expressed an opinion and have a corporate policy. Are you boycotting the
boycott and buying Starbucks on a regular basis?A travesty is a
travesty. If you are upset about Mr. Eich being removed from his position for
being anti-gay, then I'm sure you also support people who are gay and are
removed from a position.
Oh for crying out loud....This was a business leader, A
business, and a public relations nightmare impacting PROFTIS.This has ZERO to do with Government crack-down on religion.
These actions were a major affront to free speech, political rights, ad the
democratic process. People should not be forced out of their jobs for taking
political positions as private individuals.
I changed from using Firefox several months ago to Google Chrome. I did that
due to the poor performance of Firefox, but now I am glad I did for another
Why do his personal beliefs have anything to do with his job at Mozilla? This
guy was a co-founder of the company, so he's been there a while. He
wasn't using the company product to push his views or further some agenda.
I have used Mozilla products for many years now, and have never seen any sort of
political message being pushed through their product. It's sad that
people felt the need to have a man removed from his job because of his personal
beliefs. It would be just as sad if this happened to someone who had donated to
any other political cause no matter their belief. It's a scary thing when
someone is removed from their job for what they do outside of the workplace
(within legal bounds), especially if it doesn't affect how they perform
their job, or the product they produce.It seems these days that everyone
is so busy trying to push their side's agenda (on both sides), that they
don't stop to consider that the agenda they're pushing may be causing
harm to others.
Well written. I certainly agree. Those who feel everyone's opinion is
worthwhile need to be able to handle the opinions that don't agree with
theirs. No one should be able to tell us how to vote or who to contribute our
own money too or else it would jeopardize our job with them. Mozilla has too
great of a product to be so one sided and unfair. It was disappointing to see
that they don't support an individual's freedom in their own private
life that has nothing to do with their work performance. This attitude could be
extended to what religion an employ belonged to or what choices they make in
their private life.
An attack on anyone's 1st Amendment free speech rights, or freedom of
religion rights, or the right to participate in our democratic process without
fear of interference or retaliation is an attack on every American's
freedom, liberal or conservative. The liberal appologists for this outrage are
devoid of logic and left nakedly exposed dressed only in bigotry. Liberals need
to ask themselves just how much hard-tought freedom they are willing to throw
under the bus in pursuit of this issue. I fought in two wars to preserve every
American's constitutional rights and to help export our ideas of freedom in
South East Asia and the Middle East. The current tactics of intimidation and
retaliation used by Americans against Americans reminds me of both the Viet Cong
and the Taliban. Is your agenda really worth this? Do your precious ends
really justify your freedom-killing means? Do you really think that losing our
liberty won't come back to bite you also? Think again.
LDS Liberal - The Mozilla Foundation is a 501c(3) non-profit organization.
You'll need to come up with another motive.
"The current tactics of intimidation and retaliation used by Americans
against Americans reminds me of both the Viet Cong and the Taliban. "If you think these tactics used against this CEO are anything like what
the Viet Cong, or the Taliban, were doing you really need to study some history.
I mean really. Hey, conservatives, you guys do realize that you
believe in small government, right? You believe that businesses should be able
to make their own internal decisions, right? You guys know that's what you
believe, right? This business has the right to put anybody in as CEO, or remove
them, for whatever reason the board chooses. You guys do realize, don't
you, that this is what you BELIEVE in. The right of businesses to make their own
decisions. You also realize that you believe in the right of people
to not shop someplace, and to say why they won't shop there. You believe in
the right to boycott. And for a business to respond to that boycott. Don't
you guys even know what you believe in? NOTHING happened here that is against
conservative principles. Or did you really want the government to
A corporation can terminate anyone whose presence might negatively impact its
bottom line. That is called "Doing good business."No group
of religious fanatics has any right to tell Mozilla what to do about how it
conducts business.If you don't like it, switch to Chrome.
J in AZThe Foundation is non-profit. The corporation of which he
was the CEO is a for-profit organization. The critical point,
though, is that the board came to believe that his presence would harm their
mission. They get to make that choice, just as any Board of Directors gets to
make this choice for its corporation. You get to judge that choice as you see
fit. No freedoms infringed.
For years the religious right has told me that if I don't like their
opinion, I can vote with my wallet and take my business elsewhere. Now that the
culture has finally adjusted, and more people are willing to publicly shame a
company for hiring an anti-gay CEO, the religious right claims it's unfair
to this man's free speech that he be urged to resign.So I guess
I have 2 questions.1) Are the religious right afraid that the gay
community is going to treat them like they've treated the gay community all
these years?2) Does the religious right feel that freedom of speech should
come with an absolution of consequence as a result of that speech?
Good Americans stand up for the constitution that guarantees equal rights and
protection under the law. It's not absurd for anyone opposing freedom to
face social consequences in this country.And don't even say
"freedom of speech!" He was never harassed by the government or arrested
for opposing gay marriage. That IS freedom of speech. You are not however,
guaranteed freedom of consequences for your speech.
The arguments coming from both sides are hypocritical. So let's go with
some common sense. Does he do his job? Does he do his job well? Has he made
the company profitable? Has he used his position on any political issue to
embarrass the company? Has he used the company to promote his political
views?I don't see any of the answers to the above questions
that could lead to a firing or forced resignation.
The negative blowback that Mozilla is receiving due to their intolerant actions
against Mr. Eich, confirms DN's analysis that Mozilla truly is
"[making] a mockery of diversity and freedom."Looks like
Mozilla doesn't see the hypocrisy and Irony in their official statement on
Good thing this guy did not live in Utah.In Utah, you can be fired at any
time and for any reason.People in Right to Work States have no
reason to complain.
You have to be joking! Lets see, Proposition 8 was all about diversity and
freedom? What a joke! So, you are saying that diversity is good, then why deny
gay people the right to marry? You think that freedom is important? You
wouldn't know it when it comes to the gay issue. Oh yeah, I guess you
would, as long as it is your freedom to tell gay people they can't get
married! Your freedom to decide the lives of others based on your freedom of
religion! truly, this is ridiculous! You are not talking about freedom and
diversity! It is very much the opposite! Diversity would be the gay people you
find in a population of Mormons! so, if you are ok with diversity, you certainly
have not shown it! Freedom! I shouldn't get upset, but if people are
so worried about equality, then why are they not willing to give me the right to
live my life that is best for me. They all get to! you are definitely not
worried about some people's freedom!It truly is sad! At least for
me., but who am I? Somehow, I don't believe you.
The people commenting on his free speech rights, intolerance and the like really
don't get it. The LGBT community didn't fire this guy - they
don't have the authority. There aren't enough of them by themselves to
get the the guy fired. This was purely a business decision based on the net
value, pros and cons, of this guy as CEO. His own actions in the modern world
contributed heavily to the negative assessment in his net value. He is free to
contribute wherever he likes, and other people are free to express their
opinions on that. What you really have trouble with is the face that
supporters of gay marriage now outnumber those opposed, and this the market will
reflect. In the past this might have been no big deal, but now it is a very big
deal. Lesson? If you want to be a CEO don't support causes in opposition to
the mass of your customers. They will make their displeasure known, and could
cause your company money. That's a capital crime for a CEO.
2 bits In the state of Utah a gay person can be fired at will by an employer.
I don't see a correlation. This CEO was not fired, he resigned. Tell that
to our LBGT brothers and sisters who have been fired only because they were gay!
It is simple. Press delete. Done.
I read about the resignation and didn't pay anymore attention it until now.
I would classify this matter at the level of a Condoleeza Rice retirement
Brilliantly stated editorial! No one else is as ^^intolerant^^ as a
"gay" activist (although leftists in general give them a run for that
title) bent on ^forcing^ others to agree with their self-centered agenda.If they cannot forcibly change minds, then they are determined to bully,
shame and intimidate all those of opposing views into silence. HRC and the SPLC
now specialize in this type of “intimidation,” to cause those of
opposing views to Fear for their jobs if they so much as dare exercise their
rights to contribute to causes congruent with their own moral views.