Comments about ‘Why some liberals are uneasy about Brendan Eich's resignation from Mozilla’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, April 4 2014 3:35 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
slc, UT

I can not figure out why "some liberals" would fall for this twisted logic. This man did more then just say "I don't support gay marriage" through his donations he actively worked to oppress others and take away their civil liberties. No matter how you twist that it does not change the fact that he was an active oppressor not a passive victim.

Murray, UT

The BSA never kicked any homosexual scout leaders.

Murray, UT

The war on Communism
The war on poverty
The war on drugs
The war on terrorism

Now the newest war, the war on thought.

Go George Orwell!

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

I'm liberal. Uneasy does not describe my feelings. Appalled is probably closer.

This is McCarthyism all over.

"Citing an “organizational culture” that “reflects diversity and inclusiveness,” Baker publicly lamented that the company's actions were upseting to some."

Mozilla fired someone because he voted for Proposition 8. A lot of people did. Are they going to be fired too? Are they going to feel that Mozilla welcomes their contributions? They should have cited their diversity policy when people complained about Eich.


I'm left wing. I did not support Church's position on prop. 8 in California (I stayed neutral). However, as the article suggests, I feel uncomfortable about Eich's resignation. I don't get it.

Samuel Adams
Layton, UT

Sad, very sad, to see another victim of the new McCarthyism that says over and over again in the media and on this forum; "You can have all the freedom of thought, religion, and speech you want …. as long as you agree with us or keep it to yourself….and if you don't ….we will take you down." Frightening state of affairs.

Somewhere in Time, UT

This is pure bullying. Nothing less. That's what the LBGT movement has become.

And..."Here" is right. Christ, his teachings and his commandments, will prevail. The only question is which side will each of us choose. As for me and my house, we will choose the Lord.

liberal larry
salt lake City, utah

Don't I remember, a few years ago, BYU professors getting dismissed for exercising their rights to free speech?

Did the DNews editorialize for freedom of speech in that instance?

Karen R.
Houston, TX

@ Hutterite

"It is distressing that this CEO has been turfed. We are all entitled to opinions even if they're offensive to others. Freedom has to work for all of us."

Yes, Eich is entitled to his opinion and he is entitled to financially support a campaign that sought to deprive people of their equal rights. Does this make him a good candidate for a company woose mission statement and reputation emphasize equality and inclusion? When did diversity come to mean tolerance of odious beliefs?

Because this is the thing: This belief isn't merely offensive. It leads to actual, daily harm. Gay kids get bullied and kicked out of their homes because of beliefs like Mr. Eich's. Gay people get insulted, humiliated, and assaulted because of beliefs like Mr. Eich's. And what does he have to justify the belief? Nothing that is holding up in a court of law.

I am glad that there are consequences for acting on beliefs that cause harm for no good reason. The fact that the belief likely stems from religious doctrine should not protect it. It should only make it look more shameful.

Haworth, OK

Those who think anyone who opposes gay marriage is an intolerant bigot will continue to use this type of completely intolerant tactic to destroy the opposition to their agenda. The problem is some of them are ruthless and don't care what anyone thinks about how they get things done as long as it gets done. Conservatives on the other hand, in responding to their tactics seem to act like gentlemen who play nice, like they don't want to hurt anyone. Hence they are getting the crap beat out of them. The truth is, at this point, gay activist need to experience some of their own medicine. They need to be persecuted out of their jobs or communities for using hateful, intolerant measures against people who just acted within their 1st amendment rights. They have to be forcibly brought to understand, not through any form of violence by the way, that every time they use such tactics on others they will experience them themselves, rapidly. I do believe it is possible that they could then decide to change tactics. As is, they face no significant consequences for actions that are totally intolerant and un-american.

deductive reasoning
Arlington, VA

Liberals only support the "diverse" opinions that they agree with.

On the other hand
Riverdale, MD

@Stormwalker, Boy Scouts of America is a youth organization founded around a particular ideological orientation. Whether or not you agree with their world view, you must accept that from the BSA's perspective, it makes sense not to allow leaders whose lifestyles are significantly at odds with the ideology around which their organization is built. The BSA situation is not analogous to the Mozilla one, where a software company CEO was pressured to resign due to his views (made public only through a political donation six years ago) on a topic that had nothing to do with their business.

Show me a CEO ousted for quietly making a political donation in favor of gay marriage, and I'll join you in being indignant.

1 Voice
orem, UT

It is interesting how people continue to excuse bad behavior justifying it because of an unrelated issue.
EG. the argument for supporting a bad behavior based on the logic that this behavior is no worse than that behavior.
Bad behavior is bad behavior. The also seem to confuse issues when making comparisons between them.

Dismissing or barring someone from a private of religious organization because the individual does not share the values and beliefs of that church or private organization is very different from persecuting an individual because of his or her beliefs.

Mozilla fired a man because he supported a cause (unrelated to the company) that some individuals in our society have label as wrong minded. They took his job to appease a powerful minor groups opinion who are bend on punishing people with different opinions from their own. This type of behavior is wrong and should be stopped.

This is very different from institutions that sanctions or dismiss an individual who does not share the values and purposes of the organization especially when they publicly attempt to undermine the organization or institution.

New York, NY

This is not a liberal vs. conservative issue, though the DesNews seems intent on framing it this way.

A CEO publicly espouses a widely unpopular view that alienates and offends the company's employees, partners and a wide swath of it's customers. The board of directors determines that this is detrimental to the company, makes him incapable of effectively leading the company forward, and the CEO has to step down.

This is both free speech and the market at work people.

salt lake city, utah

Where's all the conservative talk of a business has a right to do anything it wants? The DN has been rife with it for weeks regarding Christian businesses refusing to serve gays, and hobby lobby being able to refuse to comply with the law.

I ridicule, but the question is serious.

anotherview said; "A business is going to look at its customer base and target audience and decide whether the person or issue is going to be a liability or not."

That's simply all that happened here. Companies do this all the time. Most major companies have ethics standards that include not engaging in activity that embarrasses the company or puts it in a bad light.

The question becomes does the behavior offend the premise of the corporation (a bank that openly solicits the business of the gay community), or does it simply offend the personal standards of owners and or personnel (hobby lobby) and violates the law as well.

The issue goes beyond ideologies and so should the discussion.

Personally I don't think they should have fired him. I don't see he violated their premise.

Cottonwood, CA

Once again, we see the liberal definition of free speech. We are free to agree with liberal ideas and everything else gets protested or whined about. These are people uneasy with their philosophy.

Murray, UT

There are still many sweet women named Gay. Please consider treating their name more kindly than as a sexual orientation reference.

4 horse race
Salt Lake City, UT

How long before the suppression of all religiously based views are made legal? Opps, that already happened when Judge Walker struck down Prop 8 in Calf. reasoning that the people who voted for it did so based upon "religious bias". Not sure how he could read 7 million minds but he claims he did. I'm not optimistic about either freedom of speech in America or religious freedom. This is a far more important issue than marriage equality. Advocates on both sides of the issue had better wake up and see what is happening here.

Lehi, UT

Mainstreaming and promoting homosexuality through legal enforcement of the lifestyle choice, taxes, etc. hurts all of us. But still, I don't think it's right to fire people who agree with it.

Idaho Falls, ID

The fallacy in the gay activist movement is the assumption that support of Prop 8 equates to gay bashing and depriving a segment of civil liberties. That just isn't true. Support of Prop 8 was about preserving the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. Nothing more nothing less. I have gay relatives whom I love and accept, and would not deny them any of the rights that a "marriage" would provide, but it doesn't change my opinion on what defines a marriage. 2 totally different issues.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments