So, "some liberals are uneasy", eh?It would be nice if the
author had cited some.Conor Friedersdorf? Not a liberal. Andrew
Sullivan? Not a liberal.The article says that Rakesh Sharma
self-identifies as a liberal, but looking at his articles at Forbes, I
didn't see any articles that touched on social issues: the vast majority of
his writing seems to be on patent issues.For an article that
purported to discuss what liberals think, it seemed to spend most of the time
discussing conservative thought instead.
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.
It's VERY simple:You cannot be the boss if you have been
publicly revealed to espouse a cause that hurts some of your employees, and you
do not, after 5 years, say you were wrong.ALL he had to do was say
in 2014 that Prop 8 was wrong and hurtful.He stuck to his beliefs,
which is admirable, but he can't be CEO.It is easy to sit in
Utah and write about the situation -- but ignoring that about 70% of
Californians now think that Prop 8 was wrong and was wrongly pushed by some
churches is pretty darn ridiculous.
They should be uneasy. I applaud Andrew Sullivan, a known gay activist for
recognizing the negative ramifications of firing an individual for their
political views/contributions. I especially liked his comparison of how folks
would respond if someone were fired for donating money AGAINST Prop 8.
I can see why some liberals would be uneasy with this. What I don't
understand is the liberals that are completely comfortable with it!===The reason I see to be uneasy with it is... how do you expect
people to be tolerant of YOUR political beliefs... When you yourself fire people
for not agreeing with you!The second reason is... our human tendency
to keep score and get even. Somebody is already justifying it happened to Van
Jones.It becomes a, "They send one of ours to the Hospital... we
send one of theirs to the morgue"... type of mentality when people keep
score like this and use it to justify their actions.===The reason liberals SHOULD be uneasy about this is... what if people did it to
YOU? And used this incident as their justification.===I
think we all realize what happened was not good example of tolerance. Even the
people who did it have said they did it wrong. You don't need to keep
trying to defend it now.What we need to do is say this isn't
the way we work in America... and move on.
"So, "some liberals are uneasy", eh?It would be nice if
the author had cited some."I guess what the title of the article
should be is "Why liberals should be uneasy about Brandan Eich's
resignation if they really cared about peoples' constitutional rights".
But that's not politically correct.
“Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech,” Okay, one out of two ain't so bad.
@Bob K"You cannot be the boss if you have been publicly revealed
to espouse a cause that hurts some of your employees, and you do not, after 5
years, say you were wrong.ALL he had to do was say in 2014 that Prop
8 was wrong and hurtful."Just because YOU say he was wrong, does
not make him wrong. This attitude is akin to the captors of an American POW who
tell him publicly criticize the U.S. and we won't beat you to a pulp.You are just like the radicals who forced his resignation. "Conform
to my belief or we will hurt you."
Re: Bob K - "It is easy to sit in Utah and write about the situation -- but
ignoring that about 70% of Californians now think that Prop 8 was
wrong"...Does it really matter IF 70% of California thinks
prop-8 was wrong? That's really not the point.Are you saying
that IF 70% of the population disagree with your politics... it's OK to
fire you for your views?And what if it's just 51% of the people
in the State? Still OK to fire because you donated to the wrong side?Because that may be what's making some Liberals uneasy. There ARE some
States where 51% of the people disagree with them... does that mean it's OK
to fire them??=== The point here is not whether Prop-8
was right or wrong. The point is... is it OK to fire CEOs for having donated a
little money to the campaign?===And if it is OK... is it
OK to fire liberals for donating money to Al Gore's campaign (IF 51% of the
people in that State didn't like Al Gore)??===It's one of those, if it's OK for you.. is it OK for me... kinda
idablu:Mozilla employees were taking leaves of absence to protest
Eich's being named CEO.OK Cupid, a prominent web site, were
advising customers to switch browsers, pretty much like the bus boycotts in the
South in the 60s.Mozilla stood to suffer on the bottom line, which
is the ultimate business metric. If the CEO is not accountable, who
Well, some see same-sex marriage as a civil rights issue, and they would be in
good company. Rep John Lewis, who walked side-by-side with MLK has been
speaking against opposition to same-sex marriage since the implementation of
DOMA in the 90's. Christian Evangelicals called for a boycott
of WorldVision, a humanitarian group because they were willing to hire same-sex
married employees. In response to the outcry and boycott, WorldVision changed
their policy. 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. Apparently Mozilla (and WorldVision) thought the costs
outweighed the benefits of retaining Eich in the CEO position. So
where do we go from here? One man's "cause" for justice is viewed
by another man as nonsense. Frankly,I think the role of those
who call themselves religious and Christian 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.
What I hear from SOME in the GLBT community these days is their clamoring for
"equality." The premises of their arguments are not convincing to me.
I'm still not convinced that basing civil rights on an unhealthy behavior
is appropriate. Yes, we disagree. Of that there is no doubt. Yet
I believe the First Amendment allows for such disagreements. That amendment
allows us to disagree with even the most fundamental assumptions of the
constitution, morality, philosophy, religion, society, government, and the law,
does it not? It certainly allows for me to disagree with you and vice versa.
But, we can disagree without being disagreeable. Of course
equality is just as important as free speech, but the balance seems to be
swinging so far in favor of "equality" that free speech is becoming
forgotten and of seemingly little importance. It is NOT of little importance.
A society without freedom of speech and ideas is dangerous to all. More to follow.
I see it coming closer and closer that our beliefs regarding gay rights are
becoming a litmus test on which our own civil rights depend. If we don't
fall in line with pro-gay beliefs, we become fair game for retribution and
oppression by some. But, there is hope. As we work together with
respect and charity, we can largely solve most of the problems that seem so
intractable. To be fair, I know there are some in the GLBT
community who are reasonable. I've met some of them. But those who are
fanatical about people agreeing with them (or else) give me great concern for
the future of our - and everyone else's - civil rights. It seems that
every virtuous thing is on the chopping block.
Though I disagree with the GLBT lifestyle, I’m not talking about (nor
encouraging) hate, anger, and gay-bashing. We are all children of our Heavenly
Father. He may not like what we do, but He loves us with a love that cannot be
described. We cannot hate his other children and still be disciples of Christ.
But it’s hard to remain civil in today’s noxious environment,
I’ll give you that.I think we need to have the courage to do
our duty in standing up for virtue. I don't think we should roll over and
play dead in this day and age when there is so much at stake. Yet,
I think mutual respect is what is expected of true Christians. If that respect
is not given by both sides, then the side that is not the offending one must
suffer injustice with patience and charity if he wants to be a follower of
Jesus. The golden rule was never more needed than it is now.
The more I think about it the more I realize the doctrine of Christ will
prevail. It may not "win" all the battles, but it will win the war. It
already has. We just decide who's side we'll be on. He
went about doing good. He espoused peace and charity. He was quick to uplift
and slow to condemn. Although He does not condone sin, he loves all. He is not
pleased to see us fight, one with another. He wishes all of us to repent and
come unto Him, no matter what our brand of sin is.
I think the best argument I've heard regarding this is : what if Mr Eich
hadn't donated any money but had simply voted in favor of prop 8 and had
the same thing happen to him? How would you all feel about that? What if our
allegedly private votes were laid bare for the world to see and then we suffered
consequences for them? How about that? 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
Unfortunately many people in the GLBT community, and those who promote it like
Mozilla, don't see the hypocrisy of persecuting people with different
opinions because they dare to disagree. As for me I simply stopped
using the fire fox browser to express my displeasure with their behavior. If you
feel as I do I encourage you to do the same.
I trust that those who are upset about Mozilla's actions in ousting Mr.
Eich are equally upset at the Biy Scouts of America for kicking Gay and Lesbian
scout leaders to the curb. Anything less would seem to be hypocrisy.
The problem is Mozilla was caught in a rough position where suddenly they were
going to lose a chunk of support regardless of which route they went. Sorta like
the Susan G. Koman foundation controversy over Planned Parenthood a year or two
Stormwalker - You are comparing apples to oranges. Even if the same premises
were at play, what are you advocating? An eye for an eye? It's actually
pretty scary that a rather small minority group is able to solicit this kind of
retribution against someone for expressing their convictions, and backing up
those convictions with funds, for traditional marriage. So by your logic, those
who donated funds against Prop 8 are also fair game for similar retribution?
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.
The BSA never kicked any homosexual scout leaders.
The war on CommunismThe war on povertyThe war on drugsThe war
on terrorismNow the newest war, the war on thought.Go
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.
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.
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.
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?
@ 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.
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.
Liberals only support the "diverse" opinions that they agree with.
@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.
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
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.
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
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.
There are still many sweet women named Gay. Please consider treating their name
more kindly than as a sexual orientation reference.
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.
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.
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.
I support the free market, which the Dnews supposedly supported just a few days
ago with Hobby lobby and the Arizona bill (that was vetoed by their
governor).If this CEO is so valuable then he will have no problem
finding another job. Folks who disagree with Firefox can decide not to buy their
products.Corporations are people. So if a corporation doesn't
like it's CEO they can get rid of it for any reason.it's
funny how repubs love the free market when it's for stuff they like then
demand government intervention for stuff they don't like.
Gee, funny you say Californians think it's wrong. Marriage between a man
and a woman passed twice. It's the Federal Government who is ignoring
people's voting rights making it unconstitutional. I don't think the
Founding Fathers thought we would become perverse enough of a generation to
demand same sex marriage especially since most came from England seeking
religious freedom. God will prevail in the end regardless of these posts trying
to make us homophobics for sticking up for marriage and family and liberty and
against corruption of the United States by immoral leaders.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism. Also when you want
to cite the unfairness of loosing ones job due to their opinions?
14,000 American men and women were discharged from the US military due solely to
their orientation under 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' with ZERO
response from the Right-leaning circles. In Salt Lakes 2009
Discrimination report people reported discrimination in Housing and Employment 3
times per month. Per month. Notice, when there is
factual backlash about anti-gay comments, NOW people are
'uneasy'...? Doth protest too much, I think.
WOW! This is scary. Nobody is safe -- if you are a conservative. But
shouldn't Barack Obama also be fired? He was outspoken against Gay Marriage
at that time (before it became politically expedient to favor it). I
am writing this comment using Mozilla as my browser. It will be the last time I
use Mozilla as my browser. I have no longer have any respect for that company.
They are the new definition of narrow minded.
An eye for and eye and a tooth for a tooth only makes the whole world blind and
Hobby Lobby CEO wants to tell employees what to do - GOOD.Mozilla tell CEO
[an employee] what to do - BAD.Oh I see, it's a double
@MaxObama obviously supported same-sex marriage all along, he just
closeted himself for a while. Do you really believe those statements about
evolving? The evolution he was waiting for had nothing to do with himself, it
had to do with waiting for the public to catch up so that he could openly take
that position without doing electoral harm to himself. It's a pretty
cowardly tactic on his part.
@On The Other Hand: "Show me a CEO ousted for quietly making a political
donation in favor of gay marriage, and I'll join you in being
indignant."How about the 14,000 members of the military who were
hounded and prosecuted and fired (discharged) for being Gay?How
about a dozen teachers fired in the last six months for being Gay or getting
married in a legal ceremony to their partner, or even for planning their
wedding? Google teachers fired for being gay, read the stories. Note, especially
the protests from students and parent groups. SSM was legal in
California. Eich contributed to remove civil rights from citizens and, by
supporting that, he supported the attitudes that lead to the firing and
harassment of Gay workers. Being Gay does not conflicts with the
Scouting mission. Scouting is about honesty, integrity, and woodscraft. Gay men
can fit that description, and their leadership would be very helpful for Gay
Scouts. Sadly, those men are excluded based on prejudice, not on their fitness,
knowledge, or willingness to serve.
Sullivan, who is himself gay, wrote, “If this is the gay rights movement
today — hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious
right than anyone else — then count me out.”Yet that is
exactly the atmosphere that currently prevails in the US today.
What's next? Setting up a gulag to exile the people who support classic
marriage? Getting someone fired is economic terrorism. These witch-hunts and
purges are a frightening reminder of a barbaric streak in humanity which has a
thirst for revenge. Interesting that the Church of Scientology supported Prop
8. Think those actors involved in scientology are still working? Of course
they are. Where's the consistency?
I'm on the more liberal side and I'm uncomfortable with this forced
resignation. I think that there are people on the left that insist on
ideological purity just as there are on the right (tea party), and I find both
"my way or the highway" attitudes juvenile and ridiculous. But I have to
say, I'm getting tired of people whining about religious persecution when
what's really going on is that people are finally standing up for their
rights. In other words, I don't think Mr. Eich should have been forced out
of his job for a donation in favor of Prop 8, but I don't think that every
time a gay person gets married it is trampling on a religious person's
rights. (Their rights to what exactly? To be free from hearing about gay
marriage? Not sure how on earth these whiners think that someone else getting
married is causing them such great suffering. They are as equally over the top
as the gay rights activists they are complaining about in this case.)
@Karen R:"When did diversity come to mean tolerance of odious
beliefs?" It has always meant that.Besides, it is only your opinion
that it is odious? Did you vote for Obama in 2008. He said then that he
believed that marriage should be between a man and woman.
If Mozilla thought they were seeing boycotts before Eich's firing, they
should wait to see what they will see after the firing. I yanked firefox off of
all of my PCs and Macs. 1,000,000 instances of that will have an impact.
10,000,000 will cause them to sweat. Plan on convincing others to make them
I am seeing some very rational thought from those who are more on the left on
the message board. I think that if we look at one another as good people with
differing opinions we can be friends. We can fight for different causes and
debate vigorously, but must get along in the end. Rounding up gays or
Christians for their point of view is not the answer on either end of the
spectrum nor is stifling their freedom of expression. Thank you to those whom
are on the opposite side of the core issue for realizing that we can live
together and embrace our differences.
@Karen R. You said - "I am glad that there are consequences for
acting on beliefs that cause harm for no good reason."Okay then,
my question to you is, where do we draw the line? Would you be
willing to see someone forced from their job if, for example, they have in
anyway opposed abortion? What if someone opposes tighter environmental laws?
Should that person be forced from their job because they support a position
which you and others my find harmful? The left loves to lecture
people saying things like, "Free speech doesn't mean you're free
of consequences for speaking up." But in my view, what those words really
really mean is, "Speech is only free if you agree with what I believe.
Otherwise, we will strip you of your livelihood and anything else we can get our
hands on." @PaganI actually agree with you about
gays in the military. Don't Ask Don't Tell was a disaster. However, in
using that as an example, what you're truly saying is, the left is just as
intolerant of other's opinions and lifestyles as the right.
Mozilla has every right to sack a CEO who fails to embody their corporate
message. However, they have given lie to the claim that their mission has
anything to do with tolerance for diversity. They are bowing to the forces of
to CatsBecause there is no my way or the highway mentality in just
religion just secular causes you don't agree with? 3 words. Pot. Kettle.
Black.re: LDS LiberalBingo.
This is where democracy is headed. Now that unlimited political contributions
are allowed, we must choose products and services run by companies with
executives that are aligned with our political views. No longer are social,
political, economic topics separated in America. If you support traditional
marriage, stop using Firefox. If you support Sabbath Day observance, eat
Chickfila. If you support the rights of the unborn, .... etc. This is the
world we live in.
@MaverickRe: "it's funny how repubs love the free market when
it's for stuff they like then demand government intervention for stuff they
don't like"...Didn't ask for GOVERNMENT intervention.
Just asking for the Left to be more tolerant of people they disagree with.===Comparing it to Hobby Lobby controversy...
apples-oranges. HL fired no one... HL just didn't want to be forced to
break their religious covenants (by order of Government).If your
insurance doesn't pay for contraceptives... just buy them yourself.
It's not a big deal. They aren't expensive, and if you think
it's worth it... seems like YOU should be willing to pay for them.===LDS LiberalHL didn't tell it's employees what
to do. They can sleep with whoever they want. No threat of firing They just don't want to aid in ending lives prematurely. If employees
want to do it... they can. I don't see why HL not being forced to do
it... is such a big issue to you.===RE Mozilla CEO....
you pretend he's a big anti-gay activist... he just donated a little money
to a political campaign!
@ TekakaromatagiOur beliefs about LGBT's weren't right
until we recognized they were wrong. The beliefs have always been odious. Now
that we recognize this, why would we want to tolerate them? So we can say
we're respecting diversity? That's absurd. Religious beliefs must be
expected to meet the same standards as our secular beliefs, particularly when
they impact people who don't hold these religious beliefs themselves.@ ClarkHippo"You said - 'I am glad that there are
consequences for acting on beliefs that cause harm for no good reason.'
Okay then, my question to you is, where do we draw the line?"Your concerns will be justified when we all become CEO's and how we are
perceived in our respective markets can impact our company's bottom line.
Had Mr. Eich been in Accounting or the secretarial pool, he'd still have a
job. BTW, this can't be said for gay people in many counties
and states across the land, including yours and mine. They don't have to
believe or do anything. Merely being gay is enough to get them fired. Now
there's a line to be concerned about.
@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.
@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?
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."
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.
ClarkHippoTooele, UTOne 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
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
@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
@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.
I just took Mozilla off of my computer! I hope they go out of business.bye bye Mozilla.
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?
@ ClarkHippoThe 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.
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.
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.
Excellent Blue Rampage. Google is even more of a supporter of LGBT rights than
@LDS LiberalYou 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?
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.
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!
@ ClarkHippoI 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.
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.
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
@idablu -- It's interesting that you can't see that a gay person might
feel like a vote to deny them the right to get married IS a vote to oppress.
Imagine that YOU were denied the right to marry for what felt like an arbitrary
reason (perhaps your religion or your hair color or whatever). Wouldn't
you think that was oppressive? Try to put yourself in someone else's shoes
and think how they might feel. In my opinion, "standing up for my
religion" does not mean forcing others to behave in a way that complies with
my religion. It means ME living my religion the best I possibly can.
Divisiveness, anger, and an insistence on political purity are not the way to
persuade, although it has become popular. I don't like it from the far
right (tea party, Rush Limbaugh, etc.) and I don't like it from the far
left (the activists who demanded that Eich be fired for this one act.)
Come on. What power does the gay rights crowd have that you don't? You
can't name a single one.