Quantcast

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

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, April 6 2014 11:19 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
gittalopctbi
Glendale, AZ

@Stormwalker, you have your facts wrong. SSM was NOT legal in CA prior to Prop 8. Civil unions were. Prop 8 was NOT taking away any "rights" at all. It was preserving the traditional definition of marriage. It wasn't even taking away civil unions.

ClarkHippo
Tooele, UT

@Karen R.

No one should lose their job or be kicked out of their apartment or home simply for being gay or lesbian. I do not support that in anyway whatsoever, so I respectfully ask that you not put words in my mouth.

One more thing, where in the U.S. Constitution does it say that someone gives up their freedom of expression when they become CEO of a company? If the accountant or secretary can support a certain view, why not the CEO?

Dr. Thom
Long Beach, CA

Basing an action on public out cry or popularity always leads to a slippery slope of social injustice. Recount historically how a popular ideas such as segregation, book burning or the Final Solution brought disaster to a culture or society, then ask what is better, upholding personal convictions or giving in to public opinion for the sake of appearing "cool". What the CEO did was exercise his Constitutional right to donate to the legal party or issue of his choice. What we are seeing is a backlash or a double standard against someone who's opinion, values or don't coincide with ours. If this CEO had donated to support Prop 8, would we see the same reaction of the GLBT community, no because he would be seen as "one of us."

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Just a friendly reality check reminder ---

This was a business dealing with it's own employee.
NOT the mean old nasty Government.

Obama is not stealing your Freedoms.
Get over it people.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

ClarkHippo
Tooele, UT

One more thing, where in the U.S. Constitution does it say that someone gives up their freedom of expression when they become CEO of a company? If the accountant or secretary can support a certain view, why not the CEO?

2:42 a.m. April 7, 2014

=========

It doesn't.
And the Government is not persecuting the CEO of the company.

When the Government does somthing, call me.

Until then -- this is a business matter, not Cosntitutional.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

There's sure a lot of anger and paranoia here for a people who supposedly live a belief that brings them peace, and comfort. Especially when you stop to realize that at the end of the day the whole SSM thing will have absolutely no perceptible effect on there lives at all.

There's another article in this same paper by a conservative not only touting free speech (the right of the gay community to protest and push for what they think are their rights), but giving full support to the principle that some should have more speech than others not based on the citizenship and humanity but on their pocketbook. In fact the entire conservative community has supported this principle and lauded it's existence.

But wait, when a principle we disagree with gains prominence not because of personal advantage but sheer acceptance that's not right. Someone is pushing an agenda, someone is forcing their ideas on society etc. etc.

My, my it must be difficult to sing of peace and love on Sunday and then display such anger on Mon.

Counter Intelligence
Salt Lake City, UT

@anotherview

I think the role of those who call themselves tolerant and liberal should set a higher example for all of peacekeeping, looking for common ground, looking for good everywhere, extending kindness, charity and respect for all--especially those different from themselves rather than drawing battle lines.

Lead the way.

Unfortunately those on here justifying the firing cannot seem to comprehend that Hate in the name of tolerance is not leadership, it is just hate

Kaladin
Greeley, CO

@pragmatistferlife - So in your mind it is hypocritical of religious people to stand up for their beliefs. We are supposed to just roll over and take it. My religion does not teach that if I am not smiling, carrying a daisy, singing a love song and expelling rainbows at all times I am in the wrong. Rather, my religion teaches me to stand up for what is right. As you can see, I have not taken a position on this issue in the comments, but when people use this "religious folk are hypocrites when they do anything but keep quiet in the corner" argument is used it is time to speak up.

Red
San Antonia, TX

I just took Mozilla off of my computer! I hope they go out of business.

bye bye Mozilla.

southmtnman
Provo, UT

Mozilla has certain corporate values, just as Chik-Fil-A has its own corporate values. If the Board of Directors decides that the CEO's public image is contrary to those corporate values, and it is hurting the company, they have every right to ask that person to resign.

Why the hypocrisy? Why is it OK for Chik-Fil-A to stand for and enforce their "corporate values", but it is not OK for Mozilla?

Karen R.
Houston, TX

@ ClarkHippo

The reality is that people in leadership positions - in both the public and the private sectors - sometimes have limitations on their free speech rights that those of us in the general public do not. Mr. Eich is not the first executive to lose his job because of a personal belief. The first one I recall in the private sector happened way back in 1987. Al Campanis was fired by the Dodgers after opining that African Americans weren't ready to be managers. Mr. Eich's active support of a campaign dedicated to keeping some people second class citizens is no different than what Campanis did. Yes, they each have the right to hold and act on their respective beliefs. And the companies whom they very publicly represent have a right to decide if this is good or not for their bottom line.

The Wraith
Kaysville, UT

This is so much simpler than most people realize. Yes Mr. Eich has a right to donate to any cause he wants. However, Mozilla and it's executives have the right to run their corporation they way they feel is best as well. You have the right to disagree with either decision as well. I just know that in my job there are several things I could do, and have a right as an American to do, that would still get my fired. Why? Because the people I work for also have a rights and they want their company run a certain way.

To me this seems very simple. What am I missing? Why do people get so mad at companies like Mozilla and A&E when they discipline an employee for behavior that the company doesn't like? These companies aren't squashing free speech. Mr. Eich can donate all he wants to any movement. He was free to do so before and he can do it again. No one has taken away his free speech. The company has rights as well and they can exercise those right.

Blue Rampage
Salt Lake City, UT

In support of tolerance, free speech and civil rights, I have removed Firefox from my computers. I am now getting used to Chrome as my new browser.

The Wraith
Kaysville, UT

Excellent Blue Rampage. Google is even more of a supporter of LGBT rights than Mozilla.

ClarkHippo
Tooele, UT

@LDS Liberal

You said - "And the Government is not persecuting the CEO of the company.

When the Government does something, call me.

Until then -- this is a business matter, not Constitutional."

With all due respect, I seriously doubt you and the other "liberals" on this page would be so quick to dismiss this firing if Eich had been let go for giving $1000 in opposing Prop 8.

And speaking of "business matters" what about the Hobby Lobby case? Hobby Lobby is not the government, yet people are taking their business to court, demanding they do what the government tells them.

@Karen R.

Okay, I get your point about Al Campanis. One might also include Jimmy the Greek from CBS in that same boat. But I would ask you the same question I asked LDS Liberal. Would you be one to say, "Oh, no big deal," if Eich had been let go for giving money against Prop 8?

idablu
Idaho Falls, ID

it is interesting how embolden the GLBT has become by the result of sympathetic judicial activists.

They now have resorted to bullying (e.g., forcing the ousting of Mr. Eich at Mozilla and Peter Vidmar at the U.S. Olympic committee) and misrepresentation of what Prop 8 really was--a referendum on preserving the definition of Marriage, not a vote to oppress gays and lesbians as they would like to have you believe.

RFLASH
Salt Lake City, UT

If he did give so much money for Proposition 8, does it not occur to people that employees have the freedom of speech to say that it is wrong? Then you have the nerve to mention equality in this article, that you want equality and freedom of speech! For whom? I certainly would give someone a chance. I do all of the time because I deal with this everyday and most people I love are Mormon. We have to sit back and take a lot! So, when someone gets scolded for having treated gay people like garbage, I think that it may be ok to open up my mouth and say something! If they can't take it, then they never should have dished it out! Seriously, imagine what it feels like to be told that there is something wrong with you just because you love someone! Our entire lives are effected by what these people do, and we should keep our mouths shut? Nobody cares when we lose our jobs! Nobody blinked an eye when they did that to me! Mormons are upset because they also did the same! They gave money to discriminate!

Karen R.
Houston, TX

@ ClarkHippo

I was disgusted when, in response to similar activism, World Vision reversed its decision to hire gay people who are legally married. That was "a big deal" to me. Like Mr. Eich, those activists acted in support of discriminating against a certain group of people and one way they expressed their demand was by withdrawing their financial aid to needy children. Morally questionable in my opinion, but well within their rights. And within World Vision's right to listen to them instead of to me. No freedoms infringed. My rights live on to fight another day.

This is my fourth, thus last post on this thread. See you in another comments section.

happy2bhere
clearfield, UT

If any liberal is disturbed by this case it is because they understand that the same principle used (political incorrect speech or position) could be used to attack a liberal CEO in the future. Good thinking on their part. Thankfully some liberals in todays America still understand that on of the primary reasons for the 1st Amendment was to protect unpopular speech.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

Here's the deal Kaladin, I didn't say nor even imply conservatives were hypocritical for standing up for their religious beliefs. I did say two things. Conservatives are hypocritical in their support for free speech and they are hypocritical about a companies right to do as it wishes.

Also no one expects rainbows (whatever that means) in a political discussion but truth and reality would be helpful. Not some of what follows...

You are just like the "radicals" who forced his resignation

It's funny to me that the left wing thinks Joseph McCarthy was scary- I'm terrified by the power the gay rights crowd apparently has- scary times indeed.

How long before the suppression of all religiously based views are made legal?

WOW! This is scary. Nobody is safe -- if you are a conservative

to comment

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