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
Nick,
Impeached for that?
I’m going with more criminal behavior like:
~ Unlawful access to American communications sans warrant.
~ Unilateral law making.
~ Drone warfare killing innocent people.
~ Threatening war on Pakistan
~ Covering up TORTURE
Good, civil debate so far.
rcampbell, You frame this as if it is a war. “The first casualty of war is truth.” Churchill.
Nick,
Did Obama chime in on Mozilla?
Free market…
Six years ago Obama was opposed to gay marriage. Hell, he was opposed 2 years ago. Should he be impeached for that?
rcampbell, As I just said, if it was a “business decision” we’ll soon learn how that turns out, won’t we? Read Andrew Sullivan.
At the time he made the contribution, some six years ago, he was Chief Technical Officer. I have a significant issue with using legally required donor information to hound someone out of their employment in future years. That is especially true when dealing with issues upon which vast numbers of people have changed/revised their views during the past few years. I haven’t seen anything suggesting that his position on Proposition 8 in 2008 represents views affecting his conduct within the company.
Samantha
This is being done in self-defense against the backdrop of many centuries of the bigotry you seem so desperate to protect and defend. And I hope to see much more of it. This reflects America’s values. Accepting his views as an “Oh, well” does not reflect our national values of equality and fairness. That’s the equivalent of excusing a rape as “…boys will be boys…” or a lynching as southern hospital;ity. To suggest it is anything different ignores both history and the present.
Bear in mind also that there was NO government pressure exerted. This was a decision made in the capitalist marketplace. Whether the company’s reasons were to protect themselves from a drop in revenue or share price or because this guy’s views do not comport with the company’s ethics, it is not only legal, but it sends the correct message. Racial and gender intolerance are no longer tolerated in some (most) companies largely as a result of intense activism by the proponents of what is right and despite the intense desire of some to continue their bigotry. When people realize there’s a cost to their bigotry, they’ll begin to pay attention.
The counter-revolt has started.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2014/04/03/TruthRevolt-blocks-Mozilla
I’m certain the extremely judgmental PC Police will sort this out and arrest the usual suspects.
I reckon we will learn if this was a “business decision.” Mozilla has lost mine, and from what I read I am not alone. Free speech folks from the left and right are voting w/ their pocketbooks. Are we “supressors of human rights,” or supporters of the First Amendment?
As a consumer, I have the right to pick and choose which companies I buy products from. Should I find that a company engages in activities, or supports or hires people and policies that are either aimed against me or my personal views, I CAN stop using them. My choice. Thier bottom line.
Consumer choices are based on a well informed public. What’s so wrong with that?
Let’s flip this around.
Who would have threatened a boycott of Mozilla had the campaign to NOT disclose his involvement in the suppression of human Rights succeeded?
Justice Holmes is correct.
The PC people just can’t help themselves. They have the zeal of the religious right, something Andrew Sullivan righteously stated.
Justice Holmes,
Sorry, need to pick this one through…
“Liberals should be careful what they ask for”
JUST Liberals?
This is a bias test.
Justice Holmes,
You can frame it as being canned for his political views or…
… You can look at the stock price drop and shareholders’ losses.
It was business decision, his hiring, that Mozilla is self correcting.
If a man can lose his job for not supporting same-sex marriage, but NOT for not supporting heterosexual marriage, then we’ve already been overrun by elitist goons whose agenda is less about gay rights, more about destroying every person and institution they perceive are in the way of attaining total power and domination, each motivated for having the misfortune to have been born a pawn, rather than into aristocracy. Their membership includes not just extremist gay orientation but extremists from every walk of life, bent on retribution that is destroying every liberty we have known and enjoyed, gaining traction by intimidating into their ranks celebrities, politicians, CEOs — anyone really who has a reputation and money to lose — even the POTUS — and the sheep, because they are sheep, eagarly follow in the footsteps of their favorite idols, too witless to perceive the larger picture, the slaughterhouse that awaits them once these goons achieve their final objective.
I commend the author’s defense of personal liberties.
@Platos Cave “If he had donated $1000 to a racist Neo-Nazi group, there would be NO question of his being forced out.”
I’ve been a supporter of same-sex marriage since the early nineties when I first heard it being discussed. But, I can understand how deeply religious people would be opposed to it. To equate a religious position held by a good forty plus percent of the public to racist views that are despised by practically everybody is just ridiculous. Being tolerant of everybody’s views unless they disagree with you is not being tolerant. Additionally, not everyone who doesn’t believe in same sex marriage is anti-gay.
I’ve had perfectly good working relationships with bosses whose political beliefs I despised. I’m pretty sure that the talented people at Mozilla can muster up the same amount of tolerance.
“PC is pernicious.”
NIck, a copy of my first post in response to this article was just removed from a National Review blog because he thought I was picking a fight with god I could not win.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/375039/corrosive-conformity-editors
It seems you may have a point. The user who removed me was Phyte_On.