As many on this blog know, I have long been a supporter of same-sex marriage and gay rights. However, I have qualms about a story this morning that Mozilla Chief Executive Brendan Eich has been forced to step down after a campaign by an online dating service. The campaign revealed that Eich had made a donated $1,000 in 2008 in support of California’s Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in the state before it was struck down in the federal courts. The controversy raises again the tension between free speech and corporate identity.
On Monday, OkCupid sent a message to visitors suggesting that they use browsers such as Microsoft Corp’s Internet Explorer or Google Inc’s Chrome: “Mozilla’s new CEO, Brendan Eich, is an opponent of equal rights for gay couples. We would therefore prefer that our users not use Mozilla software to access OkCupid.”
Eich, who invented JavaScript, apologized for causing “pain” and promised to promote equality for gay and lesbian individuals at Mozilla. However, the campaign continued to call for his ouster.
We previously discussed this issue in relation to the Chick-Fil-A controversy. In this case, Eich was targeted for a small donation to the campaign in 2008. Many people oppose same-sex marriage out of deeply held religious or political views. I do not agree with them but this remains a deep divide in our country.
Eich was exercising his free speech rights in a matter of great public debate. I happen to view many current laws as discriminatory. However, the Supreme Court has yet to rule that states cannot prohibit same-sex marriage and there is no indication that Eich would refuse to comply with such a ruling if it were handed down. Indeed, there is no allegation that Eich has been in any way discriminatory toward employees or associates based on sexual orientation.
However, Mozilla Executive Chairwoman Mitchell Baker indicated that, if anything, it took too long to can Eich: “We didn’t act like you’d expect Mozilla to act. We didn’t move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We’re sorry.”
That is what concerns me. Should companies now move quickly to can officials for religious or controversial personal views? There was a time when people would be fired for supporting gay rights. What about giving money to presidential candidates like Rick Santorum who oppose gay rights generally? Notably, President Obama’s Administration spent the first few years in office defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in court. Obama himself refused to endorse same-sex marriage for years in office 00 during the year period of this donation. To this day, the Obama Administration refuses to treat discrimination against homosexuals as the same a race for the purposes of constitutional interpretation. So why is Eich not allowed to hold such personal views in making donations?
I do not question the right of all citizens to launch such a boycott and to use their market power to influence corporate policy. Clearly, many people stopped going to Chick-Fil-A in such a protest. However, I have concerns over the basis for such a campaign when there is no evidence of political or personal views having any connection to the company. Indeed, the company appears a leader in non-discriminatory practices. Where do we draw the line in such cases? What about corporate executives below the CEO or contributions to political parties or candidates viewed initial to same-sex marriage?
Source: Yahoo
Love is to Be Multiplied – Not Divided
So refreshing to note that OkCupid fully supports Polygamy . . .
Absolutely the right thing to do. Very happy with the company’s decision. Bigotry should engender punishment. Corporate firings against gays have gone on for decades, centuries, without much furor. I have no problem with a racist, a sexist or a bigot of any kind being called out publicly, humiliated if necessary and banished to the far reaches of the nether world. I hope this guy has a tiny sense of what his kind of prejudice has caused other people when it affected their work, their personal relationships and their psyche.
We have free speech and people are free to respond to what we say. If he had donated $1000 to a racist Neo-Nazi group, there would be NO question of his being forced out. If you believe gay people deserve equal rights, this is no different. The slogan of the pro Prop 8 hate groups was “Protect Our Children” casting gay people as some kind of demonic evil praying on children, That is what he supported.
In this case however, since a change in public opinion has happened so wonderfully, remarkably fast that if he has changed his position and publicly says so and apologizes, I think it is overkill to ask him to resign.
On the other hand since he invented Java, I’m not very worried about damage to his quality of life, he’s rich and can still do whatever he wants. It is nothing compared to the damage done by powerful people like him who kept gay people as despised second-class citizens for so long.
PC is pernicious.
I agree with James Knauer, we need to be mindful that in our quest for retribution we don’t become the bullies were abused by.
Very troubling-You think?
Court has yet to rule that states cannot prohibit same-sex marriage and there is no indication that Eich would refuse to comply with such a ruling if it were handed down. Indeed, there is no allegation that Eich has been in any way discriminatory toward employees or associates based on sexual orientation. http://qr.net/sgp9
Oh, and you’re all thuggish homophobes.
How refreshing to see these comments. People are seeing just how wrong PC is and being a positive person, I know PC will be defeated. Andrew Sullivan wrote a great piece on this.
Can’t wait to see that mandatory rainbow theme on my browser. FOAD Moz.
“After all, the contract is with the corporation…”
It would help matters immensely if we all had a copy of the contract to consult. There could very well have been terms that stipulate that if he was unable to continue as CEO due to “bad perceptions” — even if he was not a “fault” — that he would then be in violation of the contract. We do not seem to know.
A CEO is the most important face the company has. His or her views do, in fact, matter. Would we question his resignation as much had he given to the group that wants to ban interracial marriage?
Anonymously Yours
Sounds like an action for defamation….. Or intentional interference with a contract…. Resulting in damages…. If I was his attorney…. I’d sue to shut this site down…..
=================
That action might also lie against corporate members inside the corporation who took the ball and ran with it.
After all, the contract is with the corporation, thus corporate officers can be sued for wrongful interference with his contractual relationship with the corporation.
“However, I have concerns over the basis for such a campaign when there is no evidence of political or personal views having any connection to the company. ” – JT
Agreed.
Enough with the control freaks already.
” If your politics don’t interfer with you job they should play no part in your firing.”
But what if you contract specifies various personal behavior standards and stipulates that you are serving in an at-will capacity? What if you are richly compensated for the specific risks of your position?
Justice Holmes and Mr. Turley make strong and valid points. Note there is or should be a distinction between someone acting on a personal belief but privately, not representing a corporation in doing so, and a corporation (Hobby Lobby, Chick-fil-A) claiming personhood exemptions from laws based on religious (real or cynical) grounds.
Justice Holmes nailed it with the first post in the thread.
Sounds like an action for defamation….. Or intentional interference with a contract…. Resulting in damages…. If I was his attorney…. I’d sue to shut this site down…..
The backlash is in no way surprising. For centuries and longer, people have used religion as the permission slip for appalling behavior toward gay people, which was at best rank exclusion, and at worst, death.
In 50 short years, the pendulum has swung, and people under aged about 45 or so remember the oral traditions of their ancestors, and see the emotional scars it leaves on the generation just older than them, who could never have conceived of “coming out,” much less a declared marriage.
Add social media, and the backlash has grown very long legs indeed. We are still free to debate local fairness, as this case demonstrates. And, it exists within a much wider, emotionally charged context.
Payback remains human nature.
Agree with Justice Holmes.
Voicing ones objection to the views of a corproate official is ok. Even boycotting a company is ok but when the board fires someone for his political views that is wrong. Liberals should be careful what they ask for as there are many more right wing corporations who would gladly do the same thing to those holding liberal political views. If your politics don’t interfer with you job they should play no part in your firing.