So Mozilla’s CEO, Brendan Eich, has been pushed aside by the “tolerance” brigade.
His crime? Donating $1000 to the pro traditional marriage side in 2008. Keep in mind this is the same position that Barack Obama held running for office in 2008 and his constituents in California who voted overwhelmingly for Obama also voted in support of Proposition 8 and thus traditional marriage. In fact, it is a belief that Barack Obama and the majority of Democrats held right up until the 2012 election.
While I expect any company will make decisions because of their bottom line and can see a case where short sighted thinking would lead them to believe this might harm Mozilla’s business in the long run – the idea that a political belief that does not harm others, it’s merely one man’s belief, can cause someone to be fired is a disturbing precedent.
The thought process revealed by Mozilla’s Executive Chairwoman here is stunning. Its as if they were living amongst a serial killer and are being interviewed by the local news with the typical, “he was quiet, kept to himself, I had no idea.”
Baker said that she had not known about Eich’s views on gay marriage throughout most of their working relationship, until the donation came to light last year.
“That was shocking to me, because I never saw any kind of behavior or attitude from him that was not in line with Mozilla’s values of inclusiveness,” she said, noting that there was a long and public community process about what to do about it in which Eich, then CTO, participated. “But I overestimated that experience.”
Baker — who became emotional at one point during the interview — noted that she was “doing a fair amount of self-reflection and I am wondering how did I miss it that this would matter more when he was the CEO.”
Do we have the ability to donate to causes we believe in anymore if roving bands of “tolerance” gangs can bully any company by identifying one employee who gave to a cause they disagree with and demand their head?
Or will future employment mean that we have to silence our beliefs in the public square in order to be employed?
Supporting traditional marriage does not mean you are anti-gay or intolerant or a bigot. It actually means you want to preserve the word associated with a centuries old tradition while not taking away any legal rights from any gay couple. I say this as someone who thinks there is a conservative case for gay marriage but also respects and cherishes the various viewpoints of my fellow contributors at Pocket Full of Liberty on this issue.
Our society will become a boring place once we all believe the same thing or at least fear saying anything different.
If it’s heresy to to differ from anyone else, no one will be special, no one will move us forward, and we will stagnate and rot away while nodding our heads in perfect agreement.
I submit that Mozilla does not understand a word of what they wrote in their press release
Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness. We welcome contributions from everyone regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race, sexual orientation, geographical location and religious views. Mozilla supports equality for all.
I normally loathe the “boycott this because of that” but the precedent Mozilla set by caving to such capricious demands has made me consider whether I want to use their services in the future. I feel trapped into this awful paradigm where something as insignificant as what browser I use must reinforce my core beliefs.
My most mundane choices in commodities and services are now how I define myself instead of my own words and thoughts. I cannot say I comprehend the expectation that businesses must have complete ideological alignment with my beliefs. I’m a person that believes in simplicity. If they make something I like that’s better than anyone else, I’m generally inclined to buy it or use it. I don’t spend my time confirming ideological alignment with their core management staff before I purchase or use an item.
I suspect they might miss his skill and talent more than his lack of perfect ideological alignment.