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
Why did Arizona and Mississippi feel the need to amend these religious freedom laws already on the books?
“Paul”.
You are misrepresenting what Karen cited. There is only ONE state that has a similar amendment to their religious freedom laws. ONE state. Mississippi.
Hi Annie:
Here’s what I found on states with religious freedom laws:
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-mississippi-governor-signs-religious-freedom-bill-20140404,0,2443463.story#axzz2yFWg2ZFt
http://www.churchstatelaw.com/statestatutes/religiousfreedom.asp
Karen:
“It’s kind of a slippery slope, because I wouldn’t want a Muslim shopkeeper to refuse to wait on a woman without a hijab.”
Personally, I am Ok with that, a person who owns a business should be able to deny service for whatever reason. Although I also think they should pay the consequence of bad judgment.
Annie,
If it’s not sanctioned by Briebart….. It’s not gospel….
Thank you Karen. It seems there are 14 and less Arizona 13.
“Paul”
Lazy response. No states have a similar law that would be the same as the Arizona law with the amendment. If you make an assertion you should be able to back it up or withdraw the assertion magnanimously.
Again,
What states? Cite?
“Paul”,
What 17 states would are they? Cite? I’d like to know what states allow such bigotry.
Annie – great question. I just know that when it hit the fan here in Arizona, our local liberal rag reported that number. They did not name the states and I am not going to look for them. 😉 It is not that important to me. However, if you are interested, and have access to Lexis-Nexis, I am sure you can track them down. 🙂
Samantha:
You’re right. We need to foster tolerance for opposing views.
“Paul” .You’re right about the word homosexual not being mentioned in the bill. That was pretty slick of them. The bill was written in such a way as to allow discrimination against anyone. But we know who the real targets were.
Annie – the same legislation is state law in 17 other states and no one is having a heart attack. Arizona just copied the legislation of the other states. “We” don’t know who the real targets were, because the legislation is designed to protect people like the ones turned down by the Supreme Court today. It was not designed to discriminate against anyone.
Hi RCampbell:
Are you saying that Obama should have been held accountable to the same revenge mob from 2008 to 2012, when he changed his stated position?
Paul – you’re right. The bill was to strengthen a Religious Freedom bill, which came about because an American Indian wanted to be able to smoke peyote, which is against Federal drug laws. I believe the amendment was supposed to enable people to run their businesses according to their own beliefs. But I haven’t read the bill.
Byron:
I think you are right. Supporters of gay marriage might win the battle but lose the war. There could be a real backlash and loss of support when this tendency to take revenge on political donations gets out.
Annie:
I would not support any bill that would allow restaurants to refuse service to GLTB.
However, restaurants CURRENTLY have that right.
I have not read the bill, and would have to review it carefully before I could support it. All I know is that a baker had no trouble serving gay patrons happily and politely, but did not want to bake a cake for a gay wedding because she believes marriage is between one woman and one man. It’s kind of a slippery slope, because I wouldn’t want a Muslim shopkeeper to refuse to wait on a woman without a hijab.
Platos Cave:
The Nazis murdered millions of men, women, and children, and made lampshades and other novelties out of human skin, hair, and gold fillings. I remember speaking with several Holocaust survivors with old, faded tattoos on their forearms about losing everyone they loved to the gas chambers, starvation, and medical experiments. Thinking marriage is between one woman and one man (or between 2 people if this ever becomes a polygamy issue) is NOT the same. No one wants to turn a nice gay couple into a lampshade if they would rather they had a civil union than a marriage. It’s become common to apply the term Nazi way too lightly, and I think it does a disservice to the Hell on Earth they created.
Shouldn’t we be free to debate the pros and cons of gay marriage without fear of savage reprisal? How can people talk about an issue if they are only permitted to think the Party Line?
Karen, where do you weigh in on that Arizona bill that would’ve allowed businesses to not serve homosexuals, if the Governor had signed it?
Paul, Nobody on the left ever goes after Billary. They have an infamous shit list and wimpy liberals shake in their boots about getting on it.
Annie – you do know that 17 states have legislation just like the one the Gov. Brewer vetoed. BTW, the word homosexual was no where in the bill.
Nick – I think the correct term is hit list.
I have no problem with same-sex marriage, but at this time I do not support polygamy. What if I donated to a campaign to keep polygamy banned, and then one day polygamy became the Liberal Accepted Thought Doctrine. Could my life be ruined years later? Shall we all be afraid to voice our true opinions and thoughts, debate openly, or even donate privately to campaigns, for fear that we will be punished with the loss of our jobs?
To my knowledge, Eich has not been accused of being discriminatory in any way in his capacity as CEO at Mozilla, or at any other job. He is being punished with the loss of his job for a private political contribution, for a belief that Obama and Hillary Clinton shared in 2008. It was not until 2012 that Obama’s stated opinion evolved to support same-sex marriage. Shall that become part of an employment contract with Mozilla, that employees may not donate to Conservative campaigns or express Conservative opinions, either at or away from work? It has become Support Gay Marriage Or We’ll Try to Ruin You.
There has become a frighteningly fast movement to severely punish any expressed opinion contrary to Liberalism. The US has the most extensive Free Speech rights, and I see it slipping away. I don’t want to see Conservatives savagely trying to ruin anyone who contributed to a Liberal cause or campaign. And if this happens enough times, I fear that it will become tit-for-tat. Will this sour people who previously supported gay marriage and gay rights, if they know that people who don’t agree can have their lives ruined or lose their jobs? Here on Mr. Turley’s blog, Liberals and Conservatives weigh in, and for the most part, everyone’s polite. Maybe that tolerance for opposing opinions, and cooler heads, should be a goal we need to more actively pursue on the national level.
Eich’s was clearly discriminated against for his religious beliefs. Replace “donated to Prop 8” with “donated to Hillary Clinton” or “donated to the Catholic Church” and compare how you feel about what happened to him.
Byron,
When you “they” in reference to “targeting the guy”…
… Who is this “they”?
The 3 board of directors that were forced out?
Paul,
Good question.
Why aren’t you going after Hillary on the issue???
I have no reason to go after Hillary on this issue, I have plenty of other issues. What I want to know is why the LGBT community is not going after Bill and Hillary on this issue?