• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Subscribe
  • RSS

Mozilla CEO Resigns In Wake Of Controversy Over Gay Marriage Stance

Brandon Eich Mozilla

In a story indicative of just how fast news develops today, the CEO of Mozilla resigned late today just a day after it came to light that he had donated money to the backers of California’s Proposition 8:

A little over a week after becoming chief executive of Mozilla, Brendan Eich is stepping down after an intense debate over his belief that gays should not be allowed to marry.

After his appointment as the company’s new chief, Mr. Eich came under heavy fire from employees and the public for making a $1,000 contribution in 2008 to support a ban on gay marriage in California under Proposition 8.

In an interview on Tuesday, Mr. Eich defended his views, saying that he was capable of separating his personal beliefs from those of the business he is running. Mozilla makes the popular Firefox web browser and is considered a pioneer in open source, a collective development process now common in the tech industry.

When asked Tuesday if he might resign, he said that would leave it up to the Mozilla board to decide.

“I serve at the pleasure of the board. I would have them ask me to step down,” he said. “Until then I have to be C.E.O. 100 percent.”

In a blog post on the company’s website, Mitchell Baker, the executive chairwoman of Mozilla, said Mozilla did not act quickly enough to respond to criticism of Mr. Eich.

“We didn’t act like you’d expect Mozilla to act,” Ms. Baker said. “We didn’t move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We’re sorry. We must do better.”

While Ms. Baker did not say directly that Mr. Eich’s belief’s regarding gay marriage did not reflect the company’s ideals, she noted that Mozilla, based in Mountain View, Calif., is a company that promotes openness and equality.

“Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality,” she wrote. “Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.”

The appointment of Eich and his position on marriage equality become an issue nationally earlier this week when dating site OKCupid took the somewhat unusual step of blocking access to its website to anyone using the Firefox browser. Instead of seeing the OKCupid website, such users were greeted with a message that pointed out Eich’s position on Proposition 8 and stated that it did not comply with the company’s views on marriage and equal rights. Before that happened, though, the appointment had already been causing controversy among Mozilla employees:

Since Mr. Eich was appointed chief executive, a number of current Mozilla employees took to Twitter to air their views about the board’s choice, with several voicing concernabout the appointment, and some employees even suggesting Mr. Eich should step down.

John Lilly, the former chief executive at Mozilla, linked on Twitter to the blog post about Mr. Eich’s resignation and wrote, “Tough times, but reflects so much of what I love about the organization.”

Rebecca Rolfe, executive director of the San Francisco L.G.B.T. Center, said California is a state that values openness and fairness and companies should practice those same values.

“We see a lot of corporations now providing support for their L.G.B.T. employees and the L.G.B.T. community. It’s important to recognize all types of unions,” she said. “For Mozilla to recognize that is important as well.”s

Not surprisingly, the resignation, as well as the whole issue of Eich’s views on same-sex marriage and what that means or should mean for Mozilla as a company have quickly become the subject of much debate. The general reaction on the right seems to be that Eich was pressured out and that what happened here is akin to “bullying” or denying him his rights. Take, for example, this from PJ Media’s Bryan Preston in a post titled “The Fascist Thugs Win One: Firefox CEO Steps Down”:

Obviously Mozilla does not believe in equality or freedom of speech. If it did, it would have defended its CEO and noted that many of its employees agree with him, not just the other side. It would have asserted that both sides deserve a hearing.

Firefox surrendered to the OKCupid mob, which loves free speech so much that it has successfully deprived a man of his income because of his beliefs — beliefs which are not fringe, but are shared by roughly half the country or more. Beliefs which he once shared with the left’s own champion, Barack Obama.

Preston’s comment starts out, of course, with a complete fallacy. Nobody is contesting Eich’s right under the First Amendment to state his beliefs on same-sex marriage or his right to donate to organizations that oppose marriage equality. At the same time, though, it’s also the case that Mozilla is a private entity that, in the broad sense, has the right to hire and fire whomever it pleases, especially for a position as public as Chief Executive Officer. There’s no restriction on Eich’s “freedom” here at all. For one thing, “freedom of speech” only applies to the government. For another, there’s no such thing as a “right” to a job. As for the “equality” issue, I must admit I have no idea what Preston means. Eich has the same rights that everyone else does. One can agree or disagree with what happened here, but to turn this into an argument about “freedom” and “equality” is, quite simply, absurd.

Additionally, I think it’s worthwhile to remind people on the right about their own position on matters very similar to what happened to Mr. Eich. Just about a month ago, we had a long national debate prompted by Arizona’s consideration of a law that purported to grant businesses the right to refuse to provide services for same-sex marriage ceremonies, among other “rights.” At that time, many people brought up cases such as the photographer on New Mexico and the baker in Colorado, both of whom were sanctioned under applicable civil rights laws for refusing to provide services for same-sex weddings. Many on the right cited these cases as examples of people being “persecuted” for their beliefs. Leaving that hyperbole aside, the thought occurs to me that if you believe that bakers and photographers should have the right to refuse to provide services to same-sex couples then you cannot deny the right of consumers and individuals to speak out against someone who disagrees with them, or to refuse to do business with a company based on those positions. Liberty is a two-way street.

The more interesting argument comes from Andrew Sullivan, who is quite obviously a supporter of marriage equality but who argues in this case that Eich was “hounded” out of his position:

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

On some level, I find myself conflicted about stories like this.

As a supporter of marriage equality, I think Eich is wrong and, indeed, that opposition to marriage equality as applied to same-sex couples itself, even when cloaked in the guise of religion, is as reprehensible as opposition to marriage equality as applied to interracial couples or couples of mixed ethnicity or religion. People are free to believe whatever they want, of course, but that freedom doesn’t mean that they are free from the consequences of their beliefs, or from the judgment of those who disagree with them. Additionally, as I stated above, this simply is not an issue of “freedom of speech” or “equality” because, as a matter of law, these are private matters. If Eich’s resignation were the result of action by some governmental entity or an agent of the state, then perhaps those claims would have merit. In the context of this particular dispute, though, they quite simply don’t apply and, at some level, I’m not sure that it matters why Eich resigned. If the Mozilla board determined that his presence at the head of the company was detrimental to the long-term interests of the company then their duty to the shareholders arguably requires them to ask for his resignationThey may be inc0rrect in that determination but, on some level, I’m not sure it is our place to question that decision but rather something for the market to decide.

At the same time, I see the merit in the argument that Sullivan is making in his post.  At what point do we draw the line at “calling people out” for their position on same-sex marriage? I asked this question two years ago in the midst of the Chick-Fil-A controversy and made this point:

I understand the argument, but while I stand in support of same-sex marriage and disagree with people like Dan Cathy or, up until a few months ago, Barack Obama, I find it hard to take the leap into saying that every single person who opposes same-sex marriage is, by definition, a bigot. Same-sex marriage is an emotional subject matter for the supporters and especially those who are directly affected by the current state of the law. However, it should also be recognized that it’s also an emotional issue for many people on the opposite side of the argument as well. For many of them, it’s seen as a matter of deeply held religious values. For others, it’s a matter of tradition and the fact that, they contend, that same-sex marriage would constitute a radical change to centuries of how marriage has been defined in the west. Now, I happen to believe that neither of these arguments have much merit. As to the first, nobody in this country is seriously talking about forcing religious institutions to accept same-sex marriage (if they did, I would oppose it as much as I suppose SSM). As to the second, the fact that we’ve done something one way for a long time doesn’t mean that it’s the right way. The institution of marriage as recognized by the government brings with it certain benefits and legal protections and laws banning same-sex couples from attaining that legal status are a violation of equal protection because there is no rational basis for the state to define marriage as only being between one man and one woman.

The trends on same-sex marriage are quite obvious to everyone. In the polls, at the ballot box, and in the Courts, the argument for marriage equality is winning the day and it is only a matter of time at this point before same-sex marriage is recognized in every state in the nation. Given that, one does have to wonder just how much of a victory dance those of us on the winning side need to do. Is it really necessary to make everyone who disagreed with us pay the price for that disagreement? And what do we do about people who have changed their mind on this issue, such as the President of the United States?

Related Posts:

About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May, 2010 and also writes at Below The Beltway. Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. James Pearce says:

    Is it really necessary to make everyone who disagreed with us pay the price for that disagreement?

    No, but this is how the culture changes. There’s a debate, someone loses, and their ideas gets shunned. If they were still bouncing around in the zeitgeist, that would mean the debate is still on.

    But this one…this one’s over.

    And what do we do about people who have changed their mind on this issue, such as the President of the United States?

    Nothing. Give them a high five, maybe.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 7

  2. Just Wondering says:

    Would it be okay for Mozilla to ask all employees to sign a statement saying they support gay marriage and fire all those who refuse? That seems to be the mindset here.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 28

  3. Kari Q says:

    This is really the wrong reaction to this news. If he had attempted to change company policies regarding LGBT employees, then the response may have been justified. But it’s really not appropriate for someone to lose their job over this.

    But OkCupid did not block Firefox. The headline of the news article is incorrect, as the body of the article makes clear. OkCupid put up a screen asking them to use a different browser but also included a button that let the Firefox user continue to site with a simple click. One extra click is hardly “blocking” Firefox.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 0

  4. beth says:

    @Just Wondering: But Bill over in Accounting isn’t going to be representing the company nor being its public face in the media and business circles.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 6

  5. wr says:

    Odd. It’s as if no one on the right remembers just months ago they were cheering the firing of an editor at a gun magazine who dared to suggest that some restrictions on gun ownership might be a good thing. It’s even like Doug has forgotten it. Why could that be?

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 42 Thumb down 5

  6. anjin-san says:

    @ wr

    Why could that be?

    That’s different.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 3

  7. C. Clavin says:

    Fisted by the invisible hand…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 4

  8. charles austin says:

    It’s about walking in and pissing on someone else’s altar and demanding that they worship your God. Always has been and always will be. If it was about civil rights then civil unions would suffice, but no, politically you must force everyone else to bow down and do what you say. It’s not enough to obey Big Brother, you must love him. Dissension for the party line is not allowed.

    Sorry, if that conflicts you, maybe you should check your assumptions.

    God, what a cesspool this place has become.

    Poorly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 40

  9. Ben says:

    @Just Wondering:

    Give me a break, that’s a ridiculous analogy. As has already been said, the CEO is the face of the company, for better or worse. Companies are more or less defined by their CEO. So it’s pretty important to make sure that your CEO isn’t at odds with what you want your company to represent, or to what a large segment of your customers want to see. And I’m just making an educated guess here, but I’d say the average Firefox user is younger and more tech-savvy (and probably better educated) than society as a whole (because it’s open-source and is a much more powerful browser than IE). That’s a demographic that is strongly in favor of marriage equality.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 5

  10. Ben says:

    @charles austin:

    It’s about walking in and pissing on someone else’s altar and demanding that they worship your God. Always has been and always will be. If it was about civil rights then civil unions would suffice, but no, politically you must force everyone else to bow down and do what you say.

    Maybe you’ve missed it over the last couple hundred years, but “marriage” ain’t just a religious ceremony anymore. It is a government-sanctioned partnership that has become entangled with every single section of our local, state and federal governments. It has nothing to do with God anymore.

    If we were to completely eliminate the civil marriage and go to a civil union for all, and leave marriages to religion only, then the great majority of people would be fine with that.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 3

  11. charles austin says:

    Sure, Ben, as long as everyone thinks the right way. That’s what you demand. I get it.

    Poorly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 33

  12. Franklin says:

    I agree with Andrew Sullivan. I may totally disagree with Eich on the issue and have for years, but frankly his view was the majority’s view at the time of Prop 8. That’s a few years ago. You know how long it took blacks to get all of their rights? This cultural change is simply the fastest in recorded history; it’s not too surprising that some people’s views haven’t “evolved” yet.

    And it’s not like his view is that gays should be imprisoned or killed (as in other countries, like right NOW; obviously we would all support firing him if he did think that).

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1

  13. Kari Q says:

    @Ben:

    And I’m just making an educated guess here, but I’d say the average Firefox user is younger and more tech-savvy (and probably better educated) than society as a whole (because it’s open-source and is a much more powerful browser than IE).

    Wow, I feel so hip!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

  14. michael reynolds says:

    I tweeted about this earlier. Eich is wrong about gay marriage – that’s his right.

    This is the United States, we are not supposed to be running individual people out of town on a rail for disagreeing with our politics. We’re supposed to be making our case and trying to convince them. If we fail to convince them, okay, so we failed. They still have a right to their opinion, to express their opinion, to back politicians who agree with their opinion.

    But I take a different tack on corporations. Unlike Mitt Romney and the Supreme Court I don’t think corporations are people. Corporations have no human rights, they are not human. So I have no problem at all refusing to spend my money at Chick Fil A. There’s no human to engage with, no human to convince, no human who’s rights must be respected. There’s just a company that has devoted itself to screwing over a significant portion of the population.

    Human rights are for humans. Mr. Eich is a human. Chick Fil A is a corporation. So I’ll buy someone else’s chicken.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 2

  15. MBunge says:

    Sullivan, like other professional pundits, is deeply invested in the concept that no one should ever really be held accountable for any stupid crap they may say or write or do.

    As for Eich, it’s hard not to enjoy the conservative hysteria over this because this is exactly the way they want the world to work. This was private citizens agitating for a private institution to enforce a community standard of morality without the government getting involved. It’s the utopia where libertarianism and social conservatism converge. They’re just feeling what it’s like to be on the short end of of that standard.

    Mike

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 4

  16. Just 'nutha' ig'rant cracker says:

    @Ben:

    If we were to completely eliminate the civil marriage and go to a civil union for all, and leave marriages to religion only, then the great majority of people would be fine with that.

    I suspect not but am willing to test the proposition. Any states up for a ballot initiative on it?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  17. anjin-san says:

    @ charles austin

    If it was about civil rights then civil unions would suffice

    This is patently untrue, unless you reject the 14th amendment. Equal protection under the law meant just that – equal protection. It does not mean “we will grant you some, lesser rights, and you should count yourself lucky that you get that much”

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 2

  18. Hal_10000 says:

    It seemed an over-reaction to me. It wasn’t like Eich was leading the charge against gay marriage or a Congressman trying to pass an amendment. He gave some money to a cause. I can guarantee you that just about every CEO in the world has given money to some cause people don’t like.

    No, but this is how the culture changes. There’s a debate, someone loses, and their ideas gets shunned. If they were still bouncing around in the zeitgeist, that would mean the debate is still on.

    We don’t shut off debates because “someone loses”. That’s just trying to silence the side that is currently losing. We have had vigorous debates on subjects where one side had apparently lost — the War on Drugs, the death penalty, various economic ideas. The Iraq War had overwhelming support at one time. Was it right to shame those who opposed it (as some conservatives did)?

    Ideas “lose”, fall out of favor and come back all the time. Something like 40% of Americans still agree with Eich (I disagree with them). And the time of the Prop 8 fight, the majority of people agreed with him (Prop 8 passed). I vehemently opposed Prop 8, but I don’t think his ideas were so far outside the mainstream — then or now — as to deserve “shunning” like we’re some 18th century religious enclave.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2

  19. Tillman says:

    Someone needs to tell Sullivan this is what happens when you start winning the war of ideas.

    As the article notes, no gay advocacy organizations were seeking his resignation. He stepped down because his personal beliefs, which he articulated by donating to a referendum campaign to ban gay marriage, were hurting the Mozilla brand. That is probably the worst thing you can do as CEO of a company. He didn’t step down because the culture began shunning him for his perceived bigotry, he stepped down because his perceived bigotry was harming the company he was in charge of. That’s a perfectly rational decision.

    This is the sort of thing that happened to open Holocaust deniers and white supremacists in our country. Who shed the tears for our lack of tolerance and diversity when they were marginalized for expressing their beliefs in public?

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 4

  20. Modulo Myself says:

    @Hal_10000:

    Cultural conservatives pulled a really nasty trick. Normal decent somewhat slow people thinking gays are a bit icky is unfortunately normal, but Prop 8 and DOMA and the Natural Law maniacs and the insane fundamentalists pretending that Traditional Marriage God’s greatest gift were not normal. They were crazed political acts; they were people who’ve spent their lives hating liberals for night and day existing. If someone like Eich hadn’t all this crap placed in front of him, he would not have lifted a finger about gay marriage. Instead gay marriage would have happened, he would have been thinking about gay people and why they aren’t like straights and life would have gone on.

    People make choices, and lots of regular people in the past ten-fifteen years have ended up swallowing a shitload of bullshit and squashing other people as a result.

    The idea that a CEO isn’t subject to the laws of paternal judgement (bed made, time to lie in it) does make sense in America–after all poor people deserve to be screwed for their actions, but a rich white guy? But not all rich white guys get off scot-free, apparently .

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2

  21. Hal_10000 says:

    Tillman, I don’t think opposing gay marriage is even in the same ballpark as holocaust denial or white supremacy. It’s not like Eich was saying gays should be rounded up and sent to pray-away-the-gay camps. He was advocating a view that pretty much the entire political establishment agreed with.

    I’m posting on this on my own blog, but it’s odd because I don’t really have a problem with any of the individual elements of this. But the combination leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Is everyone who ever opposed gay marriage now disqualified from being a CEO?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2

  22. repsac3 says:

    He spoke, people who disagreed with what he said replied with speech of their own, and the free market had it’s say, as well.

    I do not have a problem with this.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1

  23. bill says:

    gee, i’ve used firefox for years- didn’t realize i was supporting hitler!

    @Hal_10000: if you’re against it, you HATE it- welcome to the new millennium.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3

  24. MBunge says:

    @Hal_10000:” Is everyone who ever opposed gay marriage now disqualified from being a CEO?”

    What if a CEO in 1964 had donated money to a campaign to put a ban on interracial marriage into California’s constitution? Let’s be clear about something. This guy wanted to permanently define gay relationships as second class under the law based on nothing more than his religious views. He didn’t just hold an opinion. He didn’t just express an opinion. He participated in a political effort that was going to hurt other people, no matter what its professed intention.

    Now, I’d defend Eich if he would also have donated money to a campaign to ban divorce or allow employers to refuse to extend health benefits to a remarried spouse but didn’t because no one asked him to. Failing that, we return to the hypocrisy of demanding gays be held to a standard no one else must live up to. To me, the principle that everybody has to live under the same set of rules is worth the collateral damage than comes with shunning and other social sanction.

    Mike

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 3

  25. mantis says:

    Hal_10000:

    Is everyone who ever opposed gay marriage now disqualified from being a CEO?

    I don’t think so. There are a number of aspects to this situation that wouldn’t apply to all, or most, situations.

    - Mozilla is an organization in a very liberal part of California in a very liberal industry.
    - Eich wasn’t just opposed to gay marriage, he spent money to deny it to Californians, meaning some nonzero number of his employees now have a chief executive who they believe actively denied them their rights.

    A smart executive usually does not get actively involved in controversial political issues irrelevant to his/her industry. It hurts your career prospects. Tons of CEOs of American companies are Republicans, and many of them give money to Republican politicians who oppose gay marriage. They are not being similarly hounded. There is a difference between having a stance on an issue and inviting controversy, and doing so in an industry where most disagree with your position is just dumb.

    I don’t think there’s any reason to worry about a rash of gay marriage opposing CEO oustings. It just doesn’t matter in most situations.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 2

  26. Strongly disagree with Eich, but I’ve always considered winning a political argument by going after someone’s employer to be Dirty Pool. Yeah, it’s legal, but you’re a crappy person for doing it.

    The other thing about this that bother’s me is that fact the only reason this came out is that someone at the IRS illegally leaked NoM’s confidential tax documentation to HRC.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2

  27. Oh also, it’s highly hypocritical for PJ Media of all people to be squealing about fascism given their long history of supporting politically motivated boycotts.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2

  28. wr says:

    @Hal_10000: “Is everyone who ever opposed gay marriage now disqualified from being a CEO?”

    Of what company? Hobby Lobby?? Chik-fil-A? Probably not.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2

  29. M. Bouffant says:

    @Stormy Dragon: In a sense, Eich is the employer.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  30. Jeremy R says:

    Kind of related. Romney outdid Eich 10-fold in giving $10,000 to the Prop 8 campaign, funding some pretty awful “they’re coming for your children”-style ads:

    Three Ads Mitt Romney Helped Fund To Stop Gay Marriage

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  31. bill says:

    @Just Wondering: especially since the voters supported it, but i guess a few judges deserve the final say on what really should be- especially in that ultra conservative bastion that is california.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7

  32. anjin-san says:

    @ bill

    a few judges deserve the final say

    Well, only if you believe the founding fathers had the right idea when they established the government of the US.

    The voters don’t get to create laws that are unconstitutional. Sorry.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2

  33. MarkedMan says:

    Three things:
    - I disagree strongly with Eich but would not have boycotted Mozilla because if it. Chick fil a is different – it is effictively the brothers’ company. Eich is an employee.
    - the Mozilla board may have been correct to send him packing, but they acted hastily and their message was written classlessly, without respect for Eich. They just threw him overboard and then bad mouthed him.
    - I’m pretty sure the prop 8 donor lists were public. No leak necessary.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  34. C. Clavin says:

    @charles austin:
    And made worse by your return.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  35. Alas, the poor social conservatives have found out the opposing side can use their tactics and win. Oh, the heartache, what will become of our beloved country?

    /end snark

    It’s awfully hilarious for social conservatives to whine about another group boycotting a business or organization when they’ve been boycotting Disney for decades. Social conservatives, at one point, claimed that the reason Ford was doing so badly financially was due to their boycott (the boycott was started due to Ford’s marking to the LGBT community in Germany).

    Why should proponents of gay marriage not use a tactic that the other side has been using for decades, especially now that they have majority support for their position?

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 4

  36. Mikey says:

    Not much more to say that hasn’t been said in these comments already. I think @Tillman gets to the heart of it with

    He stepped down because his personal beliefs, which he articulated by donating to a referendum campaign to ban gay marriage, were hurting the Mozilla brand.

    The position of CEO is unique in a company because the CEO represents the company in a way other executives and employees don’t. He or she is the personification of it, and his or her actions are seen as representative of the company as a whole. This is true not only relative to the general public, but to the employees, so this from @mantis is also relevant:

    some nonzero number of his employees now have a chief executive who they believe actively denied them their rights

    Eich had to go. There was no avoiding it.

    And it’s pretty rich to hear conservatives whining about “fascist thugs” when just a few weeks ago they were advocating the use of the full force of government to enforce the “right” of businesses to discriminate based on perceived affronts to religious beliefs.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2

  37. gVOR08 says:

    A couple of things here stand out as odd. One is that we’re talking about a $1,000 donation. For Eich that’s pocket change. If that’s all there was, it’s hardly a full hearted commitment. The second is that this started as an employee thing, not an LBGT community thing. This may just be an expression of tech culture. But it sure is reminding me of the World Bank forcing out Paul Wolfowitz. It was ostensibly about favored treatment of his girlfriend; but apparently it was really that the WB staff wanted Wolfowitz gone for other reasons and used whatever they could get to get rid of him.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  38. Scott says:

    Why should proponents of gay marriage not use a tactic that the other side has been using for decades, especially now that they have majority support for their position?

    Because where does it end? Just as when the NRA blocks anyone (e.g. Surgeon General) who doesn’t agree with them even though the position has nothing to do with guns, then that’s wrong. Just as when you invade a country, then wail when another country does the exact same thing, that’s wrong.. Just because progressives can then turn the tables and use the same tactic, does not make it right. And you provide ammunition for the other side. You lose the right to complain. And you lose in the end.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

  39. mantis says:

    @Timothy Watson:

    It’s awfully hilarious for social conservatives to whine about another group boycotting a business or organization…

    Indeed. Remember when they went after Dunkin Donuts because the company’s advertising spokeswoman wore a scarf they decided was some political statement?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0

  40. C. Clavin says:

    @mantis:
    Or that girl band that said bad things about Bush43.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

  41. Moosebreath says:

    @Scott:

    ” Just because progressives can then turn the tables and use the same tactic, does not make it right. And you provide ammunition for the other side. You lose the right to complain. And you lose in the end.”

    So you believe that, if a tactic which you feel is wrong, but is effective when one side uses it, the other side should refuse to and instead unilaterally disarm? I’ll pass on that, thank you.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4

  42. KM says:

    I can’t really find it in my heart to feel bad for Eich. He made a donation to a controversial campaign in accordance with his beliefs- that means he should stand by his beliefs and be grateful to not work for and represent a company that’s going with the opposite of his stance. If you really believe in something, you don’t bend when the wind howls. Did it cost you your job? Well, what’s more important to you, filthy lucre or your “deeply held beliefs” on something immoral?

    You make your bed, you lie in it. Don’t ever threaten the money in corporate America – you’re not as irreplaceable as you think.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3

  43. James Pearce says:

    @Hal_10000:

    We don’t shut off debates because “someone loses”.

    Sure we do. Just because there’s a skinhead rally in Gary, Indiana doesn’t mean we’re still debating the merits of white supremacy. Some issues are dead.

    Now I may be premature on nailing the coffin on the “traditional marriage” movement, because it’s not dead yet.

    But it is in the terminal stage of its disease, and death is imminent. That’s not to say that 50 years from now, there won’t be some grandpa on his front porch railing about two dudes getting married. It’s just to say that by then…he’ll be the weird one.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2

  44. Tillman says:

    @Hal_10000:

    I don’t think opposing gay marriage is even in the same ballpark as holocaust denial or white supremacy.

    On the one hand, you’re right, but on the other, you’re right because those specific positions have been anathema for “civil” people to openly hold for decades now. The turn-around on gay marriage has been incredibly swift, and in that regard Eich was blindsided. Being anti-gay marriage is equivalent to them not in degree but in kind. We might be able to judge historical figures by the times they lived in, but you’re asking for a lot from the average person to consider anytime within the last decade as a time when social mores were different, even if they were.

    Is everyone who ever opposed gay marriage now disqualified from being a CEO?

    I think mantis is on the ball here. His particular circumstances led to this being bad publicity for his company. Dan Cathy can get away with it because, I mean, the dude makes good chicken sandwiches. (The biggest reason I don’t eat at Chick-fil-A anymore, while it does salve my political conscience, is because I learned Bojangles makes better grilled chicken sandwiches.)

    If it makes any difference, I wasn’t planning to stop using Firefox over this. I doubt the gay people I know were even aware of this boycott. It’s OKCupid, for crying out loud.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2

  45. KM says:

    @Scott:

    Two wrongs don’t make right, that’s true. No one benefits when we keep lowering the standards.

    But hey, if he doesn’t like it, he can just get another job right? Isn’t that the standard R response when the employee doesn’t like how the company’s handling things? Go work somewhere else.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2

  46. Tillman says:

    @Tillman:

    (The biggest reason I don’t eat at Chick-fil-A anymore, while it does salve my political conscience, is because I learned Bojangles makes better grilled chicken sandwiches.)

    And that, my friends, is the free market in action.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  47. Eric Florack says:

    Fascism is alive and well, apparently.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 16

  48. mantis says:

    @Eric Florack:

    Fascism is alive and well, apparently.

    Yes, you and your ilk still exist.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 2

  49. Ben says:

    @Just ‘nutha’ ig’rant cracker:

    I suspect not but am willing to test the proposition. Any states up for a ballot initiative on it?

    It can’t just be a state that does it, because a lot of the marriage rights are federal. So it would have to happen at the federal level too. Which isn’t bloody happening.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  50. SenyorDave says:

    In some ways this was analagous to the Al Campanis issue years ago. Some conservatives said Campanis was entitled to his opinions (he claimed that it was possible blacks were not up to managing a baseball team). He was the general manage of the LA Dodgers at the time. He was IN CHARGE of hiring and firing for the organization. The CEO of a company is in charge of hiring for an organization. If Eich had donated money to an organization that sought to deny basic rights to Jews or blacks he would have been fired on the spot. Case closed.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1

  51. Gavrilo says:

    If you think what Mozilla did to Mr. Eich is acceptable (as I do) then you must also believe it is acceptable for a company to fire (or ask for a resignation from) a gay employee if they feel that the presence of that employee might be damaging to its business.

    No more whining about how it’s legal to fire someone simply for being gay. Otherwise, you are an intellectually dishonest hypocrite.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6

  52. @Tillman:

    Dan Cathy can get away with it because, I mean, the dude makes good chicken sandwiches.

    He can also get away with because the majority of his stores are in the South, which has the most support for same-sex marriage bans.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  53. Modulo Myself says:

    @Gavrilo:

    Damaging to business is the key–the openly gay people who end up as CEOs put up an image of having a typical upper class private life, ie, charitable, boring and sterile. If the CEO of some tech company ends up at a club doing ketamine, that image goes.

    None of what happened to Barry Eich is different. Conservatives are upset. These were their rules! But they never imagined that their cause would end up so unpopular.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

  54. Vast Variety says:

    Isn’t this just free market capitalism in the market of public debate working as intended?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

  55. rudderpedals says:

    @Hal_10000:

    “shunning” like we’re some 18th century religious enclave.

    Shunning is the last passive step before the neighbors march with the pitchforks, people get fired, etc. ISTM if shunning were more effective we’d not be having this discussion, n’est ce pas?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

  56. KM says:

    @Vast Variety :

    Isn’t this just free market capitalism in the market of public debate working as intended?

    Yes it is. But you see, that isn’t supposed to happen to the Makers, the Job Creators. To the Religious and the Righteous, the Culture Warriors. To the Conservative and the Libertarians and Small Gov minded.

    That sort of thing is for the little people and Others like liberals, LBGT, atheists, etc. Anyone not them. The Invisible Hand should smacketh them not, its smiting is supposed to be only for the unfit!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

  57. Vast Variety says:

    @Stormy Dragon: Stormy, this isn’t from the leaked IRS information. The Prop 8 Doners list was required by California election law to be made public. NOM went to court to try and prevent it from being released but they lost.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/02/prop-8-donors-find-out-wh_n_163234.html

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  58. mantis says:

    @Gavrilo:

    If you think what Mozilla did to Mr. Eich is acceptable (as I do) then you must also believe it is acceptable for a company to fire (or ask for a resignation from) a gay employee if they feel that the presence of that employee might be damaging to its business.

    Sure, if the gay employee was engaged in activity that became public knowledge and harmed the business. Simply being gay doesn’t count.

    But yes, I agree. Gay people can be fired from their jobs for stuff they do that hurts their company, just like everybody else.

    No more whining about how it’s legal to fire someone simply for being gay. Otherwise, you are an intellectually dishonest hypocrite.

    No, there you are full of shit. Simply “being gay” won’t hurt a business.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0

  59. Anonne says:

    @C. Clavin:

    Yeah, I’m sure the Dixie Chicks are crying in their tea about this.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  60. KM says:

    @Gavrilo :

    If you think what Mozilla did to Mr. Eich is acceptable (as I do) then you must also believe it is acceptable for a company to fire (or ask for a resignation from) a gay employee if they feel that the presence of that employee might be damaging to its business.

    Just so long as I can fire divorced people, fatties, smokers/drinkers and anybody else I feel damages my business at will with no whining (after all, we are health-conscious and family friendly!)

    It’s nice you’re conflating a state of being (gay) with a belief (don’t like SSM). Beliefs can change, a state of being often can’t. I can’t really change being female, being tall, being white. I can easily change my religion, my feelings on the NFL, my political beliefs, my opinions. I don’t chose to be but I can choose to think and do. See the difference?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0

  61. Rob in CT says:

    The triumph of “political correctness,” or just the will of the marketplace?

    Why not both?

    Look, can we dispense with the silly idea that “PC” is the sole province of the Left? The Right has embraced PC with a vengeance (e.g., Christie’s horrible mistake of calling the Occupied Territories the, um, Occupied Territories. There are better examples, but that one is fresh).

    Further, and more importantly: this is more defensible than the Dixie Chicks incident (remember that?). That was over performers saying something people didn’t like (but taking no actual action that would effect anyone). Here, you have actual contributions to a cause that would, in fact, have an effect on people’s lives.

    I’m not exacly in love with this outcome, personally, but I don’t really get the whining over it. Rich dude gives money to political cause people find objectionable. This has business consequences. Dude ends up being forced out. Waaaah. If an employee making minimum wage posted something dumb on Facebook and embarrassed the company, they’d be gone in a heartbeat and Conservatives would be just fine with it (moreso, they’d cheer it on, for the most part. Teh Poors always have it coming, see).

    So, in conclusion, cry me a f*cking river.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 1

  62. Woody says:

    CEOs aren’t monolithic – there’s a wide variety of personal ideologies, I’d expect, but their extraordinary compensations are partially due to the notion of The Buck Stops Here.

    There are plenty of examples above regarding controversial statements given by CEOs. Mr Eide certainly does have the right to express himself and should not be terminated. However, if the board feels the stated opinion would endanger Mozilla’s position in the browser market, then they surely have the right to ask him to resign.

    This puts me in mind of the stunning WSJ editorial by Charles Koch, in which he complains about being attacked on the internet. Both situations reinforce my belief that Congress and the Roberts Court will find a way around prohibiting titles of nobility.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  63. James Pearce says:

    @Ben:

    So it would have to happen at the federal level too. Which isn’t bloody happening.

    Not yet. There are what, 19, states now that recognize gay marriage? That’s going to cause problems down the line. We’re not going to have a situation where simply moving to another state invalidates a legal marriage, so the feds will have to come down on this sometime.

    And they’re not going to come down on the “ban gay marriage” side.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  64. socraticsilence says:

    Given the recent reinforcement of money=speech wouldn’t a much better (and possibly actually accurate) objection to this guy’s dismissal be that its a protected activity under the EEOC? I mean is an employer really allowed to police the political donations of their employee’s– could for example Walmart fire people for donating to an SEIU action fund, or Hobby Lobby force out a person who gave to Planned Parenthood?

    Only a moron thinks this is a pure free speech issue but it seems to me at least that an EEOC objection is a much closer run.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  65. mantis says:

    @KM:

    It’s nice you’re conflating a state of being (gay) with a belief (don’t like SSM).

    Actually, Eich was opposed for his actions (donating money to support legislation specifically denying equality), not his beliefs per set. Absent those donations, he would still be CEO.

    Basically, what Gavrillo is saying is if a CEO were forced to resign because it was revealed he gave money to white supremacist groups, then companies should also be able to fire people for being black.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

  66. Gavrilo says:

    @Modulo Myself: @mantis:

    Sorry, you don’t get to determine what constitutes damaging a business, the board of directors does. The board of directors might conclude that a gay employee could damage the morale of the company or they could conclude that a closeted gay man was living a lie and, therefore, fundmentally dishonest. Something doesn’t have to be public in order to damage a business.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  67. mantis says:

    @socraticsilence:

    I mean is an employer really allowed to police the political donations of their employee’s– could for example Walmart fire people for donating to an SEIU action fund, or Hobby Lobby force out a person who gave to Planned Parenthood?

    If that employee was the public face of the company and his/her actions hurt the company’s image, yes. EEOC has nothing to do with it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  68. Moosebreath says:

    @Rob in CT:

    “I’m not exacly in love with this outcome, personally, but I don’t really get the whining over it.”

    It’s of the same order as the old saying that class warfare is when the lower classes fight back.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  69. mantis says:

    @Gavrilo:

    Sorry, you don’t get to determine what constitutes damaging a business, the board of directors does. The board of directors might conclude that a gay employee could damage the morale of the company or they could conclude that a closeted gay man was living a lie and, therefore, fundmentally dishonest. Something doesn’t have to be public in order to damage a business.

    False. Read up on Cain v. Hyatt. You may remember its fictionalized depiction in the film Philadelphia. There is such a thing as wrongful termination.

    It’s not me deciding. It’s US law.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  70. bill says:

    @anjin-san: nice, do you feel that way about the 2nd amendment too? and if the supreme court backs something you don’t support will you just swallow your pride and join them? of course not, nothing is ever “settled”.
    oh gotta run, installing chrome to replace firefox- hopefully the ad-blocking apps work as good!
    hey look, another “self loathing homosexual” slammed mozilla for bending over to the same-sex crowd!

    Meanwich Bruce ✔ @HeyTammyBruce
    Follow

    Hi @Mozilla libs, shouldn’t you now send a questionnaire to every employee to make sure they have the correct opinions? Chop chop!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

  71. grumpy realist says:

    Actually, the scuttlebutt is that there was a coup d’etat within the BOD and the winning side simply used the gay rights kerfluffle as the reason to get rid of Eich. They saw their opportunity and took it–if it hadn’t been this they would have found another excuse. This was due to inside Mozilla BOD infighting–nothing more.

    And Rod Dreher is of course over-the-top about how Teh Gayz are persecuting everyone.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  72. al-Ameda says:

    @Eric Florack:

    Fascism is alive and well, apparently.

    Just ask the Dixie Chicks about fascism and American non-liberal media.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

  73. Gavrilo says:

    @mantis:

    So, you’re saying that had the Mozilla board fired Mr. Eich rather than asking for his resignation, you believe it would be a wrongful termination. Good to know.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

  74. mantis says:

    @Gavrilo:

    No, I am not saying that. You’re obviously too dim to understand. Carry on.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  75. Xrlq says:

    There’s no restriction on Eich’s “freedom” here at all. For one thing, “freedom of speech” only applies to the government. For another, there’s no such thing as a “right” to a job.

    So if a company decides it doesn’t like black people, or too many of its customers don’t, it can fire all the blacks cuz they don’t have a right to a job. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way. No one has a general right to a job, but everyone has a right not to be pushed out for an illegal reason. And as surely as race, religion, creed and sex are illegal reasons everywhere, political activity on one’s own time/dime is an illegal reason in California.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9

  76. stonetools says:

    I am a bit torn. I would have kept him on, but then again, I am not a Mozilla board member. What’s interesting is how much the business environment has changed. Ten or even five years ago, there would have been no business case for firing Eich. Now there is.

    The trends on same-sex marriage are quite obvious to everyone. In the polls, at the ballot box, and in the Courts, the argument for marriage equality is winning the day and it is only a matter of time at this point before same-sex marriage is recognized in every state in the nation. Given that, one does have to wonder just how much of a victory dance those of us on the winning side need to do. Is

    Maybe a bit premature here. In three fifths of all states, gay marriage is still illegal (if not unconstitutional). I’m pretty sure the gays in those states aren’t high fiving and doing victory dances

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  77. stonetools says:

    @Xrlq:

    And as surely as race, religion, creed and sex are illegal reasons everywhere, political activity on one’s own time/dime is an illegal reason in California.

    Then he has solid grounds for a lawsuit, if what you say is true. I’m betting it ain’t true.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  78. Tillman says:

    @grumpy realist: Do you have anything to link to for that? That’s honestly more intriguing than our “debate” on dudes getting fired for free speech moneying.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  79. Matt Bernius says:

    @Gavrilo:

    If you think what Mozilla did to Mr. Eich is acceptable (as I do) then you must also believe it is acceptable for a company to fire (or ask for a resignation from) a gay employee if they feel that the presence of that employee might be damaging to its business.

    If we are doing an actually apples to apples comparison, I agree. But its totally based on the situation.

    So for example, if a CEO of a Conservative Christian brand reveals himself to be Gay or supporting of causes that undermine the brand image, then yes he can be fired. But in this case it’s not so much that he’s gay, but because being gay most likely violates a number of the clauses contained within his contract (i.e. public behavior causes, etc). And he’s being fired because he can no longer be an effective brand ambassador.

    But I have a hard time seeing how a rank and file employee simply “being” gay would be damaging to most businesses.

    Beyond that, my general feeling on this issue tends to be closer to Sully’s.

    Ultimately the board deserves blame for not doing the necessary due diligence before the hiring and then really poorly handling the firing.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  80. Matt Bernius says:

    @Xrlq:

    And as surely as race, religion, creed and sex are illegal reasons everywhere, political activity on one’s own time/dime is an illegal reason in California.

    Ummm… source?

    Cause I’m betting his contract had a couple clauses about public behavior that this is potentially covered under.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  81. mantis says:

    @Xrlq:

    political activity on one’s own time/dime is an illegal reason in California.

    He resigned.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  82. mantis says:

    @Matt Bernius:

    I’m pretty sure he’s referring to CA Labor Code section 1102, but of course your point about the terms of a CEO’s contract is quite valid.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  83. James Pearce says:

    @Matt Bernius:

    Cause I’m betting his contract had a couple clauses about public behavior that this is potentially covered under.

    I would also guess that his “golden parachute” has language precluding any kind of lawsuit.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  84. anjin-san says:

    @ bill

    nice, do you feel that way about the 2nd amendment too?

    I am a gun owner, have been target shooting for over 40 years. Any other questions?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  85. Rob in CT says:

    I’d like to point something else out.

    Often when I’ve seen a debate between a Libertarian and a Liberal concerning Civil Rights, the Libertarian position is that the Free Market would solve the problem – hey, Jim Crow was backed by the government! See, it was a governmental problem, not a private power problem.

    Typically the argument is that businesses that take all customers & employees would out-compete those that didn’t. Set aside the fact that this is totally ahistorical and home in on the logic. Now let us review this Mozilla thing again.

    Shouldn’t we be hearing rousing cheering from Libertarians today?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0

  86. anjin-san says:

    @ Florack

    Fascism is alive and well, apparently.

    Perhaps you can link to some of the comments you no doubt made supporting the Dixie Chicks right to free speech, while at the same time taking the right to task for attacking them.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  87. bill says:

    @anjin-san: well there was that second question mark, but good for you.

    semi-off topic–just saw/heard one of those awful ads in here for the first time ever, first time i’ve used chrome, adblock does work now!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  88. James in Silverdale, WA says:

    “Fascism is alive and well, apparently.”

    So is permanent “conservative” victimhood.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  89. anjin-san says:

    Bithead says:
    Tuesday, August 8, 2006 at 08:15
    As a casual note;
    This doesn’t seem to bode well for the Democrats, who have been singing exactly the same tune as the Ditzy Twits.

    I also seem to remember Florack referring to the Dixie Chicks as “traitors”…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  90. grumpy realist says:

    @Tillman: Here’s what I’ve found. There looks to be a bit of a bruhaha about the donation, but there was also a heck of a lot of pushback against Eich’s professed future business strategy.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  91. grumpy realist says:

    P.S. It looks like everyone wants to make this into a free speech issue. The original bringers of the complaint seem to be somewhat taken aback at what happened–they only expected an apology. Whoops!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  92. John425 says:

    Mataconis says: “Liberty is a two way street, but apparently dissent is a one way street with left-turn only signs.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

  93. grumpy realist says:

    @John425:
    Please note the following:
    1) Mozilla is in California, near San Francisco.
    2) a sizable percentage of people who use Mozilla’s products happen to be young hipsters who, if not gay themselves, are definitely supporting SSM.
    3) A sizable percentage of Mozilla’s employees are gay.
    4) The Board of Directors decided it was better for the future health of the company that Eich should go.

    projected cash flow talk$. I think this was a silly thing to throw Eich out for (and read my links on the inside Board of Directors dope above), but there’s no Constitutional right to be a CEO of a computer software company.

    And it’s not just the left that does this.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0

  94. mantis says:

    For all those who seem to believe this is some crushing blow to liberty or fascism or whatever, answer this:

    Suppose Hobby Lobby appointed a new CEO. Shortly afterwards, it is discovered he donated money in the recent past to Planned Parenthood and NARAL. Following this revelation, many employees, customers, and pro-life business partners raise public objections to the appointment. The Hobby Lobby board then asks the new CEO for his resignation, or he resigns on his own. Would you be outraged as you are now? Is that fascism?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0

  95. rudderpedals says:

    What is this magical cloak of Liberty? Most of us are accountable to employers, friends, and family for our acts.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  96. Eric Florack says:

    @mantis: Whatever happened to the good old days dating to the era of John F. Kennedy, Milton Friedman, others of their ilk? Friedman said on numerous occasions that one of the things that makes this nation great and so much different from others is that we can work side by side without concern for whether our fellow employees are Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, we go out and do the job we were hired for. In slightly more than 50 years we are now in a place where anyone having a difference of opinion and willing to put their money where their mouth is is very likely to see repercussions coming down the street that include demands that you and your opinion no longer work at this or that organization or “we” will take revenge on this or that organization.

    Not to confuse the issue, but Drudge this morning has (at least, had) a link to a story that the six jurors in the George Zimmerman case have now had their names released to the media, phone calls already made by the media (no one answered, sadly for the media), no doubt demands made on why they voted to give Zimmerman a pass at that trial of last summer. Anyone seeing a pattern here? Agree with us … or else!

    This case under discussion is is another such. and yet, when anyone objects to the tactic….

    Bloody amazing, anymore.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 10

  97. Rafer Janders says:

    @socraticsilence:

    I mean is an employer really allowed to police the political donations of their employee’s– could for example Walmart fire people for donating to an SEIU action fund, or Hobby Lobby force out a person who gave to Planned Parenthood?

    In at-will employment states, yes, an employer can actually do this. They can fire you for any reason or for no reason. They can fire you because they don’t like the shirt you’re wearing that day.

    That’s why we need unions.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2

  98. stonetools says:

    @mantis:

    Apparently you are not aware of the IOKIYAR rule. I guarantee that in that scenario, Rod Dreher, etc. would be manning the barricades insisting on the right of corporate boards to hire and fire whatever executives they chose and how even questioning that right was an offense against God, apple pie, motherhood, and The American Way….

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  99. Eric Florack says:

    @Gavrilo: We agree on that point.

    @anjin-san: Yes I did, and i stand by that statement. You might wanna go back and check the context again.

    @Timothy Watson: Lets remember that same sex referendums have been turnd down by huge majorities in every state theyve been attempted. they dodnt even try bringing it to a vote anymore. Point being, it aint just the south.

    @ the rest

    Gee, what would happen if we on the right were to use similar tactics… what would the hard left (Well represented here) say?

    That “we” are marching in lockstep one with another. Hmm, seems to me that’s what they’re doing! Oh, was I supposed to point that out?

    Seems diversity is wonderful so long as your views agree with their views, otherwise your brand of diversity will not be allowed to speak on “our” college/university campus where free speech is said to flourish and is encouraged so to do, until your views conflict with theirs…or more directly, the only diversity they won’t stand is diversity of thought.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3

  100. James Pearce says:

    @Eric Florack: Oh God….

    Not to confuse the issue, but Drudge this morning has (at least, had) a link to a story that the six jurors in the George Zimmerman case have now had their names released to the media…….. Anyone seeing a pattern here?

    Yeah, I do actually.

    I see a fainting couch. I see some wimps. I see wimps falling on the couch, wrist to forehead, muttering, “Oh, I’m so victimized.”

    George Zimmerman……Seriously?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

  101. anjin-san says:

    @ Florack

    You might wanna go back and check the context again.

    The context is simple. When Democrats criticized Bush, it was akin to treason. When you criticize Obama (or tell blatant lies about him, as is your habit) you are Captain America.

    Lets remember that same sex referendums have been turnd down by huge majorities

    Since you feel that the majority is the deciding factor, no doubt you support raising taxes on the rich, as the majority of people in this country clearly does.

    the hard left (Well represented here)

    Damn. You are even more delusional than I thought you were.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  102. anjin-san says:

    @ Eric Florack

    Friedman said on numerous occasions that one of the things that makes this nation great and so much different from others is that we can work side by side without concern for whether our fellow employees are Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative

    A guy who routinely equate being a Democrat with “leftist”, “socialist” and “communist”, who never seems to tire of the infantile “Democrat Party” is actually brining this up?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0

  103. stonetools says:

    @grumpy realist:

    After reviewing your links, I am now convinced that this was a corporate maneuver aimed at forcing out Eich for business reasons and that the whole Prop 8 angle was a pretext. Let me highlight this:

    The wildfire that brought Eich down was sparked in part by Rarebit developers Hampton Catlin and Michael Lintorn Catlin, who as married gay men took Eich’s politics very personally, removed their app from the Mozilla Marketplace, and called for Eich to apologize or resign.

    Hampton Catlin on Thursday, though, called Eich’s resignation “the worst kind of victory.”

    “We never expected this to get as big as it has, and we never expected that Brendan wouldn’t make a simple statement. I met with Brendan and asked him to just apologize for the discrimination under the law that we faced. He can still keep his personal beliefs, but I wanted him to recognize that we faced real issues with immigration and say that he never intended to cause people problems,” Catlin said in a blog post Thursday. “It’s heartbreaking to us that he was unwilling to say even that.”

    Seems to me that if the board wanted to keep Eich, they would have just directed Eich to put out a statement apologizing that his donation caused offense, etc., and that would have been the end of it. Instead they forced him out.
    Unfortunately, this has now led to the whole gays=Nazis meme, and an orgy of conservative victimhood. Oh well, I expect this to blow over in a few days, except on talk radio and conservative web sites where Eich will become the latest in the long line of conservative martyrs crucified by the forces of Political Correctedness.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  104. mantis says:

    @Eric Florack:

    we are now in a place where anyone having a difference of opinion and willing to put their money where their mouth is is very likely to see repercussions coming down the street that include demands that you and your opinion no longer work at this or that organization or “we” will take revenge on this or that organization.

    Very likely, or in rare circumstances when the individual in question is in a leadership position or a highly public-facing position and taking a stance on a highly-charged, controversial issue that brings unwanted negative attention to the company? I know which one I see, but I’m not a paranoiac.

    Drudge this morning has (at least, had) a link to a story that the six jurors in the George Zimmerman case have now had their names released to the media, phone calls already made by the media (no one answered, sadly for the media), no doubt demands made on why they voted to give Zimmerman a pass at that trial of last summer. Anyone seeing a pattern here? Agree with us … or else!

    Or else the media may try to contact you? The horror! Juries in high profile cases have long been contacted by reporters. This is not new. And the judge released their names, BTW.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  105. wr says:

    @Eric Florack: “Friedman said on numerous occasions that one of the things that makes this nation great and so much different from others is that we can work side by side without concern for whether our fellow employees are Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, we go out and do the job we were hired for. ”

    So I’m thinking you believe it was a terrible miscarriage of justice when the movie studios, working in concert with a Republican congress, fired and blacklisted writers, directors and actors because decades eariler they had supported anti-Fascist movments in Spain, or even joined the Communist party?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0

  106. Eric Florack says:

    @anjin-san: Constitutional, you say,
    Interesting. maybe we should break this out and examine it. You are telling us that laws forbidding homosexuals to marry are unconstitutional. Doubtless, you feel governmental power should be used to reinforce your viewgranted to homosexuals in the matter… the right to marry… as we in the rest of society have always had. This is incorrect, of course… but to explain WHY it’s wrong, is going to need some serious detail. Here’s a start;

    Let’s lay down a few basics, from a post of a few years ago:

    Here it is; Rights are a cultural construct, and meaningless outside that construct. As I said in the article linked above: Rights are not universal.

    When Jefferson wrote that “WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF-EVIDENT” he was not speaking a universal truth at all. The operative word in that phrase is “WE”.

    Rather than talking about a universal point of view, a universal truth, if you will, he was instead talking about the point of view of WE the new American culture. With this angle, many of the long-held myths about rights tend to disappear.

    Consider; if it was in fact a universal truth that all men were created equal, it wouldn’t have been such a radical idea, for the time, much less then to now. Last I checked, it is quite true that a vast majority still do not consider these as any kind of truth, universal or otherwise; they consider them to be anything BUT self-evident. Royalty still exists, as do class structures, and slavery, as well.

    Once the culture is allowed to fall either to the law, (or, in the case of anarchy, the lawless) ….even in an attempt to impose rights where they do not exist, what happens to real rights, which are a cultural concept?

    They fail.

    Make no mistake, people… governments that try to over-rule the culture which gave them life, have always and forever in history, failed. A fairly recent example is the former Soviet Union.

    That established, let’s look closer at the cultural angle.

    Right off the bat, and regardless of your take on the Judeo-Chirtsian ethic, and it’s Biblical basis, it seems fairly clear that marriage, as such, existed as at least a cultural concept, from ancient times. Additionally, secular laws were written to parallel the already- established traditional marriage, as the proper purpose of government dictates, to accommodate in a legal sense what already existed within the culture that the government was properly supporting.

    As to that, let us consider the words of George Wasington, who as General of the colonial army, when advised of there being a homosexual in his ranks…

    At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778) Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false Accounts, found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th Article 18th Section of the Articles of War and do sentence him to be dismiss’d the service with Infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning by all the Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return; The Drummers and Fifers to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose (“George…,” underline in orig., emp. added).

    Washington saw “sodomy” (the 18th-century word for homosexual relations) “with Abhorrence and Detestation.”

    I’ll bet you didn’t know that homosexuality was treated as a criminal offense in all… I say again, ALL of the original thirteen colonies, and eventually every one of the fifty states.

    Most had quite severe penalties were quite severe, including death—in New York, Vermont, Connecticut, and South Carolina Even Thomas Jefferson advocated “dismemberment” as the penalty for homosexuality in his home state of Virginia, and even authored a bill to that effect. One wonders why so many homosexuals hold him so dear, and why the Democrat Party, so wrapped up as they are with the homosexual lobby, still considers him a party icon. He wrote the Constitution.

    So, with all this in mind, anjin, ask yourself….Do you suppose he’d write a law that ran directly afoul of it? I don’t.

    The position of the culture as a whole is fairly clear, insofar as revolutionary times, and the intention of the founders. As to the cultue’s current position on the matter, consider thatevery time the subject is brought to a vote the response is invariably overwhelmingly negative. Those states which have legalized homosexual “marriage” have invariably done so without the benefit of a referendum, knowing full well it would never pass.

    The desire, apparently is to change the culture byforce of government, in turn by beating the “equal rights” drum. The problem here, however, is a bit more complex than that. The law, as such, IS in fact equal in it’s application. Men can marry any female that will have them. No discrimination involved.

    Understand the line being drawn here; The Constitution was written with an eye toward the founders desire of equal rights before the law and equal rights of the individual in matters pertaining to and involving government. Not society, not the culture. Government, and government alone.The culture, for its part, as well as the individuals within it, are free agents, and unrestricted in in matters of the culture, and it’s dictates.

    I submit that while it’s true that there are laws on the books pertaining to marriage, these are, as I’ve said, a governmental tool to deal with what already exists in the culture. In other words, this wasn’t driven by government, but by culture.

    The solution being sought by the social left in this matter is exactly the kind of thing to be expected from a group of people who hold government the highest entity, rather than the culture. Those seeking laws enabling homosexuals to marry, are seeking to change society with the power of government. And that, dear reader, goes well outside the purview of our government, at whatever level. At least, if we take the intentions of the founders seriously.

    If we don’t, then prepare for the consequences of saying it’s the government that grants rights… because that’s what they want to happen here. Trust me… that’s not an america you want to live in.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6

  107. mantis says:

    @Eric Florack

    Lets remember that same sex referendums have been turnd down by huge majorities in every state theyve been attempted.

    Washington voters approved gay marriage by referendum in 2012.

    Gee, what would happen if we on the right were to use similar tactics… what would the hard left (Well represented here) say?

    You’ve been using them as far as I can remember, dolt. Boycott Dunkin Donuts because Rachel Ray wore a terrorist scarf!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  108. Scott says:

    Unfortunately, this has now led to the whole gays=Nazis meme, and an orgy of conservative victimhood

    Exactly right, and everybody feeds into it by playing the game. This allows the both sides do it meme. You all got the learn that when you win, you don’t take revenge, you don’t dance on the grave. Because you keep the cycle of paybacks intact.

    “The only winning move is not to play”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  109. anjin-san says:

    @ Florack

    I’ll bet you didn’t know that homosexuality was treated as a criminal offense in all… I say again, ALL of the original thirteen colonies, and eventually every one of the fifty states.

    And once upon a time, slavery was legal, and society for the most part, approved. Interracial marriages (like mine) were illegal. Child labor in death trap factories was legal. Women could not vote. Your point is irrelevant, but your contempt for/fear of human progress is noted.

    Culture changes dude. Sometimes government is a change agent.

    Those seeking laws enabling homosexuals to marry, are seeking to change society with the power of government.

    You mean like when President Eisenhower sent the National Guard into Little Rock?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

  110. mantis says:

    @Eric Florack:

    I love that this moron doesn’t seem to realize that amendments to the Constitution made after the initial ratification are still part of the Constitution, and laws that contradict those amendments are unconstitutional. Bithead, the fact that you ignore the 14th amendment shows you are either totally ignorant of the topic, or just dishonest.

    So e of the Founders also had slaves, and enshrined slavery into the Constitution through the 3/5 clause. Later generations recognized this as abhorrent and got rid of it. Apparently you think that is wrong.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

  111. Tillman says:

    @Eric Florack:

    Friedman said on numerous occasions that one of the things that makes this nation great and so much different from others is that we can work side by side without concern for whether our fellow employees are Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, we go out and do the job we were hired for.

    He was also in the generation that didn’t discuss politics or religion at the workplace.

    For the most part, this remains true. One of the few political discussions I had with coworkers was after one revealed he owned a gun and went to the firing range occasionally, prompting my then-boss to go on an anti-gun tirade. The dude was in favor of gun control, though. I had a great conversation with him about different types of regulations he’d be cool with (he likes how the Germans do their gun regulations, six-month waiting periods involved), while my boss couldn’t get past far-left talking points on the evils of guns.

    Moral of the story: judge slowly. I know that’s lost on you, bithead, but I try.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  112. mantis says:

    @Scott:

    You all got the learn that when you win, you don’t take revenge, you don’t dance on the grave.

    So gay Mozilla employees should have just accepted that their boss sees them as second-class citizens and actively worked to deny them equality?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

  113. anjin-san says:

    @ Florack

    Do you remember when you spent an entire day arguing that the US Armed Forces are not part of the federal government?

    I think you pretty much disqualified yourself from commenting on the appropriate role of government at that point.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  114. Rafer Janders says:

    @Eric Florack:

    Even Thomas Jefferson advocated “dismemberment” as the penalty for homosexuality in his home state of Virginia, and even authored a bill to that effect….He wrote the Constitution.

    Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, you imbecile, not the Constitution. He was in France as Ambassador when the Constitution was drafted.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0

  115. Not to confuse the issue, but Drudge this morning has (at least, had) a link to a story that the six jurors in the George Zimmerman case have now had their names released to the media

    Someone want to tell Eric that the identity of jurors is not secret in most cases?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  116. anjin-san says:

    He wrote the Constitution.

    Why don’t you do some homework and get back to us when you are as well informed as the average seventh grader?

    Of course, this sort of ignorance is quite common on the right:

    http://www.cato.org/blog/jefferson-was-great-man-he-didnt-write-constitution

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  117. stonetools says:

    @Rafer Janders:

    I honestly don’t know why guys are feeding this troll. I did laugh at you pointing out his mistake , though, so I guess he keeps us amused. He is such a parody of the know nothing conservative. I bet he thinks that Jesus read the King James Bible.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  118. Moosebreath says:

    @stonetools:

    “I bet he thinks that Jesus read the King James Bible.”

    No, I think bithead believes Jesus wrote it. In English.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  119. Eric Florack says:

    @anjin-san: There is a major difference as I said then, between expressing an opinion and aiding a sworn enemy of the US. I find it amusing you apparently can’t tell the difference.

    And the remainder of my comment remain unanswered. Forgive me if I’m unimpressed.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

  120. Eric Florack says:

    @anjin-san:
    Without diving into the minutia, because youre simply not woth the bother, I await your showing me any substantial disagreement between Jefferson and the other founders on the point.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  121. Eric Florack says:

    @anjin-san:
    Yes, I do.
    And guess what?
    Its still true, much as you may dislike that.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  122. stonetools says:

    Here is more info on why Eich was forced out:

    But Sullivan is even more wrong because it wasn’t the Prop 8 contribution, and Eich’s refusal to renounce it, that eventually did Eich in. He was being defended by company executives last week and throughout the early part of this week, even as the dating site OKCupid had urged users to boycott Firefox. Eich even gave an interview on Tuesday suggesting he was staying put. Eich only announced he was stepping down after it was revealed late Wednesday that he’d given money to Pat Buchanan’s presidential campaign in 1992, and later to Ron Paul’s campaign. Suddenly, in addition to defending a CEO who gave money to homophobic efforts, Mozilla would have to defend a CEO who supported Buchanan, a far-right extremist and isolationist who’s been accused of racist and anti-Semitic attacks, and who also was, rightly, driven off MSNBC — though that took years longer to accomplish than the few weeks it took to purge Alec Baldwin.

    It all just became too much for Mozilla to bear, and who knows what else may have been dug up on Eich? None of this is about government censorship. It’s about a company based in Northern California that has many progressive employees, as well as a lot of progressives and young people among the user base of its Firefox browser, realizing its CEO’s worldview is completely out of touch with the company’s — and America’s — values and vision for the future.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  123. anjin-san says:

    @ Florack

    the founders desire of equal rights before the law

    I wonder if you can reconcile this statement with your defense of the denial of equal rights before the law to gays/lesbians.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  124. Eric Florack says:

    @anjin-san: That wasn’t the question.
    HE ASKED ABOUT THE 2ND, NOT YOUR GUN OWNERSHIP.

    The 2nd amendment was to protect us from the government we have now,

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

  125. Eric Florack says:

    @stonetools: so, this is the thought police in action, then.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

  126. anjin-san says:

    @ Florack

    Yes, I do.
    And guess what?
    Its still true, much as you may dislike that.

    Ah, so the Armed Forces are not part of the federal government? I guess that explains why the President is the C in C, and why the DOD budget is a component of the federal budget, and why SecDef is a federal employee. Well, I could go on, but I think I have had enough of your delusional belief system for one day.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  127. Eric Florack says:

    @wr: To a large extent, yes.
    That said, there was a communist threat to be dealt with.
    (I commend to your reading An American Betrayal)

    @anjin-san: @anjin-san: already done that. Go back and actually read, this time where I point out that there is a difference between equal rights before the government, vs equal treatment in society.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

  128. grumpy realist says:

    @stonetools: This also ended up being a test of Eich to see if he could handle a crisis. The guy seems to be totally clueless about handling one and managed to either tick off everyone or at least not get them on his side. Half of the BOD had bolted because they though Eich has exactly the wrong person for the new markets they want Mozilla to go in to (if you want to get into a new market, you hire a CEO with experience in those new markets), and the other half probably looked at how Eich was handling the whole kerfluffle and thinking to themselves–naah, don’t think so. Note that Eich failed to get out in front of the situation and just basically sat around until he was asked to leave.

    This was a trial by fire of Eich as to whether he had the nous to be a CEO, and he failed. Big time. If he hadn’t been thrown out over the contribution issue, he would have most likely stumbled over something else.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  129. grumpy realist says:

    @stonetools: Wow, I wonder if Eich had let the other BOD members know about that.

    It’s one thing to protect your CEO, it’s another thing to discover he’s been hiding iffy stuff from you. At that point, you’re toast. I bet they started wondering if the next thing that was going to show up was a picture of Eich attending a segregationist rally.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  130. Vast Variety says:

    @Eric Florack: Marriage has existed in some form through out most of human civilization once we stopped living in caves. However the form of marriage and it’s recognition within the law has changed significantly over the ages.

    As for Washington’s stance on Homosexuality, It’s easy to concede that he wasn’t a fan of it but he didn’t have much issue with homosexuals within the ranks of the Continental army. Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben played an essential role in training, his work is still used in military training today. He was also Washington’s Chief of Staff. He was also gay.

    Our founding father’s knew there was no way they could enumerate every right a human being was entitled to within the Constitution itself. That’s why they choose to enumerate the limitations placed on the the government, both federal and state, instead. The Bill of Rights does enumerate a few rights retained by the people but the 9th amendment specifically states that the rights held by the people are not limited to those specially mentioned.

    The attached link is to Federalist #84.

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2002/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2002-9-10.pdf

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  131. anjin-san says:

    @ Florack

    Go back and actually read, this time where I point out

    I did glance at your comment. I assumed it was some sort of satire about meth smokers discussing civics. Did you intend it to be taken seriously?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  132. Scott says:

    @mantis: Actually, yes. You’ve already won the argument. Judge on actions going forward. Because the path this is leading to will result in backlash. Which is what is wanted.

    I don’t disagree on ultimate goals but on the methods. And this is wrong in my judgment.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  133. Grewgills says:

    @Ben:

    If we were to completely eliminate the civil marriage and go to a civil union for all, and leave marriages to religion only, then the great majority of people would be fine with that.

    That is exactly what I thought we should do back in the 90s and early oughts. Then I thought it would be a much bigger uphill battle to get marriage equality and the best solution would be to remove government from marriage and instead allow civil partnerships of any people that wanted them.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  134. Grewgills says:

    @bill:
    So back to fascist Firefox or you can start passively paying for the blog you have been enjoying, but denying compensation all this time.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  135. al-Ameda says:

    @bill:

    especially since the voters supported it, but i guess a few judges deserve the final say on what really should be- especially in that ultra conservative bastion that is california.

    So the courts should step in an prevent him from resigning?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  136. Grewgills says:

    @Eric Florack:

    Friedman said on numerous occasions that one of the things that makes this nation great and so much different from others is that we can work side by side without concern for whether our fellow employees are Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, we go out and do the job we were hired for.

    Nobody was ever fired for having a controversial opinion back then. Homosexuals, atheists, supporters of abortion rights etc were free to voice their opinions with nary a negative consequence.
    Idiot

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0

  137. Grewgills says:

    @Eric Florack:

    Lets remember that same sex referendums have been turnd down by huge majorities in every state theyve been attempted. they dodnt even try bringing it to a vote anymore. Point being, it aint just the south.

    Bulls#it

    Gee, what would happen if we on the right were to use similar tactics… what would the hard left (Well represented here) say?

    They do and have been doing so for decades. Your ability to be willfully ignorant is truly amazing.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  138. Dave says:

    @Eric Florack:

    what would the hard left (Well represented here) say?

    Fella, you clearly live in a bubble if think this blog is “hard left.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  139. Grewgills says:

    @Eric Florack:
    The biblical definition of marriage you tout included polygamy and recognized concubines. The more modern definition that only includes one partner became the Christian norm because it was Romans that codified Christian norms ~700 years after the death of Jesus. That same change happened for the Jews a few hundred years later because it was the dominant view in the societies in which they lived. The Mormons of 100 years ago and the Muslim theocracies are closer to ‘biblical marriage laws’ than we ‘Christian nations’ are.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

  140. Grewgills says:

    @mantis:

    Bithead, the fact that you ignore the 14th amendment shows you are either totally ignorant of the topic, or just dishonest.

    Don’t discount the very real possibility that it is both.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  141. Grewgills says:

    @stonetools:
    Jesus didn’t just read it, he wrote it.

    Damn it, Moose beat me to it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  142. Tillman says:

    @stonetools: @grumpy realist: I like how I can just skip the vast majority of the thread to find you two discussing the actual issue at heart. Thanks for the links, both of you. Knew it had to be something other than just donating to Prop 8. Like Hal said way up top, it wasn’t like the guy was saying gays should be rounded up and sent to pray-away-the-gay camps. Though the uproar was overblown, seems like it would’ve just been the tip of the iceberg.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  143. matt bernius says:

    I’ll bet you didn’t know that homosexuality was treated as a criminal offense in all… I say again, ALL of the original thirteen colonies, and eventually every one of the fifty states.

    Most had quite severe penalties were quite severe, including death—in New York, Vermont, Connecticut, and South Carolina Even Thomas Jefferson advocated “dismemberment” as the penalty for homosexuality in his home state of Virginia, and even authored a bill to that effect. One wonders why so many homosexuals hold him so dear, and why the Democrat Party, so wrapped up as they are with the homosexual lobby, still considers him a party icon. He wrote the Constitution.

    God. Really?!

    By this logic white folks should still have slaves today because Jefferson had them…

    Are you really that stupid?

    Oh wait, Jefferson wrote the constitution? You really are that dumb. Thanks for schooling us on history.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  144. anjin-san says:

    Are you really that stupid?

    That would be a big yes.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  145. anjin-san says:

    @ matt bernius

    BTW, did you know that Florack is the only one on the internet who has a dedicated music server?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  146. Moosebreath says:

    @anjin-san:

    “did you know that Florack is the only one on the internet who has a dedicated music server”

    He’s right about that. The rest of our music servers are looking for another gig.

    I’ll be here all week.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  147. charles austin says:

    I’ve had 24 hours to think about it and I’ve come to the conclusion that most of you are pathetic fascists who will go along with anything if it suits your preferred conclusions. George Orwell had your number a long time ago. Nothing has changed.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

  148. anjin-san says:

    @ charles austin

    Guess my message to you about grown men whining on the other thread went over your head…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  149. anjin-san says:

    CINCINNATI (AP) — A federal judge says he will strike down Ohio’s voter-approved ban on gay marriage, meaning the state must recognize marriages of gay couples who legally wed elsewhere.

    Judge Timothy Black made the statement Friday following final arguments in a lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of the marriage ban.

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/judge-to-end-ohio-ban-on-recognizing-gay-marriage

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  150. wr says:

    @charles austin: Oh, goodie, Orwell. Big Brother and Animal Farm, right? Throw in Atlas Shrugged, and you’ve got the only three books these righties have ever read.

    Interesting that all three are books most people read in high school.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  151. Eric Florack says:

    You lefties do know, of course, that you are illustrating perfectly the kind of intolerance of other views we are on about, right?

    Thanks awfully for proving the point better than I ever could on my own.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  152. @charles austin: You know Orwell was a socialist, a socialist that fought to install a socialist regime in Spain, right?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  153. superdestroyer says:

    Look at how many previous arguments about homosexual political power have been shown false by the firing of the Mozilla CEO.

    1. The idea that there are a large number of conservative homosexuals has been shown to be false. Look at how few homosexuals have come to the defense Mr Eich or criticized Mozilla. In reality, homosexuals are very liberal as a group and conservative homosexuals are almost nonexistent.

    2. The idea that if Republicans would just support homosexual marrige that it will put the issue behind them could not be more wrong. Homosexuals are very organized, politically powerful, and will continue to oppose all conservative politics no matter what. Homosexuals will continue to find new issues to get active about and will never support conservatives. ONce again, any conservative who wants to give more political power to homosexuals is a fool.

    3. Anyone who wants to have a job in the future should stay out of politics. If employers are going to hold political positions against employees, then people has better avoid politics. The benefits are too small and the risks are too high. No one can predict what will be politically correct in 10 or 20 years. So the only solution is to avoid politics, votings, and leaving any paper trail concerning your political beliefs.

    4. everyone who believes that the U.S. will continue to have two political parties because people will always disagree over issues are now shown to be wrong. The treatment of Mr. Eich shows how the U.S. will function as a one party state because anyone who has beliefs or supports causes outside of mainstream political correctness risks losing their job, their business, educational opportunities for their children, and their livelihood. The behavior of politically organized homosexuals show how the U.S. will operate as a one party state in the future.

    Image how hard solving policy issues will be in the future when everyone involved in politics will only have one point of view and will be scared to death of been seen as not being politically correct.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

  154. Mikey says:

    @superdestroyer: This isn’t about “political correctness,” it’s about one group of people working to deny another group equality under the law. Reducing it to mere “political correctness” is just a way to diminish the scope of the injustice.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  155. al-Ameda says:

    @charles austin:

    I’ve had 24 hours to think about it and I’ve come to the conclusion that most of you are pathetic fascists who will go along with anything if it suits your preferred conclusions. George Orwell had your number a long time ago. Nothing has changed.

    24 hours? I think you reached your conclusion in 3 minutes, then you took 23 hours and 57 minutes to craft that phony Orwell analogy.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  156. anjin-san says:

    @ Florack

    You lefties do know, of course, that you are illustrating perfectly the kind of intolerance of other views we are on about, right?

    Well if you are saying that lies, ignorance, and stupidity are things we tolerate poorly, that’s true.

    For example, you seem to be too stupid to see that by saying things like “you lefties”, and “Democrat Party” even as you whine about intolerance is pretty pathetic.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  157. stonetools says:

    @Timothy Watson:

    My guess is that he hasn’t actually read Orwell. He has just heard that 1984 and Animal Farm were anti totalitarian books and just assumed that Orwell was a player on the right wing team. Pretty sure he’s never even heard of Road to Wigan Pier or Burmese Days.
    I’m not sure where Orwell would fit in today’s ideological spectrum. IMO, it’s likely he would be slightly left of Obama. I’m certain he would have hated Ayn Rand and her fellow travelers.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  158. Keith Humphreys says:

    Doug, as you are a lawyer I would be curious for your take on this:

    Are companies under any obligation to tell prospective CEOs that certain political stances will be required of them? If someone leaves a job in California to take a CEO job in Ohio that has been described to her as being about selling a lot of widgets and then gets fired a week later for having a Planned Parenthood bumper sticker on her car (or having given to some political cause the company opposed), could she not argue successfully in court that she was hired under false pretenses and suffered economic harm as a result even if the firing itself is legal?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  159. Matt Bernius says:

    @Eric Florack:

    You lefties do know, of course, that you are illustrating perfectly the kind of intolerance of other views we are on about, right?

    Just to stake my position here, it’s not that I’m intolerant of other views. What I’m intolerant of is poorly reasoned views – regardless of who is making them.

    Over countless threads, you have continually put forward illogical arguments, often founded on claims that have no basis in fact. And people, including our definitely not-a-leftist host Dr. Joyner, have pointed this out to you in the past. And you have yet to demonstrate any sort of self reflexivity — or even the capacity to say “you’re right, I was wrong on that point.”

    So, until you do anything to demonstrate your ability to form a cohesive argument, let alone recognizing that the dreaded “leftists” might occasionally have a valid point, you’ve done nothing to prove you can put forward a position deserving respect.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  160. anjin-san says:

    Let’s look at a few chestnuts from Florack’s blog and see if we can find some of the tolerance he so cherishes:

    Don’t think of the Democrat party as a political party but rather as a criminal enterprise.

    Mrs. Clinton would merely be a bread seeking a third term for her husband, B.J. Clinton.

    the Obama regime

    Professor Mireille Miller-Young -
    he feminist studies/queer theory professor,

    This from the cheap slut (Sandra Fluke) who did not want to ed to pay nine dollars a month for her own birth control, so she threw a national hissy fit.

    I’d rather just ban the bossy bitches who want to push us around

    Mind you, this is just culled from the homepage, not the result of digging in depth.

    http://bitsblog.theconservativereader.com

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  161. @anjin-san:

    Mrs. Clinton would merely be a bread seeking a third term for her husband, B.J. Clinton.

    Weird, I thought the conservative talking-point was that Bill Clinton’s presidency was really just Hillary’s first two terms. Maybe I need a flowchart or minute-by-minute text updates.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  162. Matt Bernius says:

    @anjin-san:

    Professor Mireille Miller-Young – [t]he feminist studies/queer theory professor,

    Eric wrote nothing wrong or snarky there. Queer theory is a well establish field of academic inquiry. And it is an outgrowth of feminism. Any college with a gender studies or comp lit program will most likely have at least one professor who does feminist studies/queer theory.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  163. anjin-san says:

    @ Matt Bernius

    You learn something new every day.

    I am still curious to hear him reconcile his comments about tolerance with “bossy bitches” and “cheap slut”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  164. Moosebreath says:

    @Timothy Watson:

    ” Maybe I need a flowchart or minute-by-minute text updates.”

    There’s a very simple way to update oneself on the type of thinking done by the bitheads of the world:

    1. What are liberals for? Whatever it is, I’m against it.

    2. Update step 1 daily.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  165. al-Ameda says:

    @anjin-san:

    I am still curious to hear him reconcile his comments about tolerance with “bossy bitches” and “cheap slut”

    It’s just the feminist-side in him coming through.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  166. MarkedMan says:

    First, I wouldn’t have let Eich’s position stop me from using Mozilla stuff (bad design and update policy has done that). But the idea that Eich’s positions are not pertinent to his performance is ridiculous. Or rather, not his positions, but the public reactions effect on the business. The board absolutely must consider that. Even at my level as a mid level executive, I understand that if my public persona becomes a problem for the company even through no fault of my own, well no hard feelings but my company shows me the door. We would not apply that to a line level employee. To the contrary, we have policies in place to protect them from retribution or sanctions for their beliefs. But an executive leads and guides the company and is at least potentially the public face. If something becomes a destruction or an outright impediment, the company has a duty to act.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  167. grumpy realist says:

    @Tillman: Thank you. A lot of people on both sides seem to be extremely insistent that it’s a “gay thing” and totally ignoring the business side of things. Looking back at the history of Eich, it looks like there was a bit of a kerfluffle when he made CTO but it died down because everyone knows a lot of geeks aren’t that great at getting along with people and Eich was a great programmer so they put up with his eccentricities. The problem is, when you step up to a CEO position you’ve got to be able to get along with a huge number of people and running around donating to causes that are, ahem, not very good for a sizable percentage of your employees or customers is just Not A Good Thing. Add to that the fact that Eich obviously didn’t know how to get out ahead of the squawking, didn’t have anyone that much on his side, half of the board was already against him because they thought he wasn’t what they needed for the new markets they were going into….well, it was all too much.

    As said, if Eich had had the nous and charisma expected of a top CEO, he would have never found himself in this position. The whole thing blew up over Proposition 8, but if it hadn’t been that, it would have been something else. Being CEO of a large corporation does in fact mean that you need to be as diplomatic and boring as possible.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  168. Hal_10000 says:

    What if a CEO in 1964 had donated money to a campaign to put a ban on interracial marriage into California’s constitution?

    If it was now, fifty years later, and he had renounced those views, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. If it was 1965 and we were still embroiled in a debate, I’d leave it alone. If it were 2014 and he was still saying he was right, that would be another thing. After all, we did elect a former Klansman to the Senate from West Virginia … over and over again.

    You can’t lump gay marriage into things like racial discrimination, where history has had its say and the vast majority of people agree it was wrong. This is a debate that only recently turned the tide. A majority didn’t support gay marriage until basically last year. I think you have give at least a few years for people’s views to “evolve” like our President’s did (remember him?). Or else I need to re-up on boycotting the Dixie Chicks (they still exist, right?)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0