Mozilla makes a mockery of diversity and freedom

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • TriciaCT Trumbull, CT
    April 14, 2014 1:14 p.m.

    Brilliantly stated editorial! No one else is as ^^intolerant^^ as a "gay" activist (although leftists in general give them a run for that title) bent on ^forcing^ others to agree with their self-centered agenda.

    If they cannot forcibly change minds, then they are determined to bully, shame and intimidate all those of opposing views into silence. HRC and the SPLC now specialize in this type of “intimidation,” to cause those of opposing views to Fear for their jobs if they so much as dare exercise their rights to contribute to causes congruent with their own moral views.

  • Calif PETALUMA, CA
    April 14, 2014 12:33 p.m.

    I read about the resignation and didn't pay anymore attention it until now. I would classify this matter at the level of a Condoleeza Rice retirement announcement.

  • cris Hamilton, IL
    April 10, 2014 4:56 a.m.

    It is simple. Press delete. Done.

  • Utefan60 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 8, 2014 2:33 p.m.

    2 bits In the state of Utah a gay person can be fired at will by an employer. I don't see a correlation. This CEO was not fired, he resigned. Tell that to our LBGT brothers and sisters who have been fired only because they were gay!

  • Demiurge San Diego, CA
    April 7, 2014 11:43 p.m.

    The people commenting on his free speech rights, intolerance and the like really don't get it. The LGBT community didn't fire this guy - they don't have the authority. There aren't enough of them by themselves to get the the guy fired. This was purely a business decision based on the net value, pros and cons, of this guy as CEO. His own actions in the modern world contributed heavily to the negative assessment in his net value. He is free to contribute wherever he likes, and other people are free to express their opinions on that.

    What you really have trouble with is the face that supporters of gay marriage now outnumber those opposed, and this the market will reflect. In the past this might have been no big deal, but now it is a very big deal. Lesson? If you want to be a CEO don't support causes in opposition to the mass of your customers. They will make their displeasure known, and could cause your company money. That's a capital crime for a CEO.

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    April 7, 2014 4:39 p.m.

    You have to be joking! Lets see, Proposition 8 was all about diversity and freedom? What a joke! So, you are saying that diversity is good, then why deny gay people the right to marry? You think that freedom is important? You wouldn't know it when it comes to the gay issue. Oh yeah, I guess you would, as long as it is your freedom to tell gay people they can't get married! Your freedom to decide the lives of others based on your freedom of religion! truly, this is ridiculous! You are not talking about freedom and diversity! It is very much the opposite! Diversity would be the gay people you find in a population of Mormons! so, if you are ok with diversity, you certainly have not shown it! Freedom!
    I shouldn't get upset, but if people are so worried about equality, then why are they not willing to give me the right to live my life that is best for me. They all get to! you are definitely not worried about some people's freedom!
    It truly is sad! At least for me., but who am I? Somehow, I don't believe you.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 7, 2014 7:55 a.m.

    Good thing this guy did not live in Utah.
    In Utah, you can be fired at any time and for any reason.

    People in Right to Work States have no reason to complain.

  • Sven Morgan, UT
    April 6, 2014 10:03 p.m.

    The negative blowback that Mozilla is receiving due to their intolerant actions against Mr. Eich, confirms DN's analysis that Mozilla truly is "[making] a mockery of diversity and freedom."

    Looks like Mozilla doesn't see the hypocrisy and Irony in their official statement on this matter.

  • Howard Beal Provo, UT
    April 6, 2014 4:12 p.m.

    The arguments coming from both sides are hypocritical. So let's go with some common sense. Does he do his job? Does he do his job well? Has he made the company profitable? Has he used his position on any political issue to embarrass the company? Has he used the company to promote his political views?

    I don't see any of the answers to the above questions that could lead to a firing or forced resignation.

  • freedomingood provo, Utah
    April 6, 2014 3:59 p.m.

    Good Americans stand up for the constitution that guarantees equal rights and protection under the law. It's not absurd for anyone opposing freedom to face social consequences in this country.

    And don't even say "freedom of speech!" He was never harassed by the government or arrested for opposing gay marriage. That IS freedom of speech. You are not however, guaranteed freedom of consequences for your speech.

  • Schwa South Jordan, UT
    April 6, 2014 3:58 p.m.

    For years the religious right has told me that if I don't like their opinion, I can vote with my wallet and take my business elsewhere. Now that the culture has finally adjusted, and more people are willing to publicly shame a company for hiring an anti-gay CEO, the religious right claims it's unfair to this man's free speech that he be urged to resign.

    So I guess I have 2 questions.

    1) Are the religious right afraid that the gay community is going to treat them like they've treated the gay community all these years?
    2) Does the religious right feel that freedom of speech should come with an absolution of consequence as a result of that speech?

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    April 6, 2014 8:56 a.m.

    J in AZ

    The Foundation is non-profit. The corporation of which he was the CEO is a for-profit organization.

    The critical point, though, is that the board came to believe that his presence would harm their mission. They get to make that choice, just as any Board of Directors gets to make this choice for its corporation. You get to judge that choice as you see fit. No freedoms infringed.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    April 6, 2014 1:41 a.m.

    A corporation can terminate anyone whose presence might negatively impact its bottom line. That is called "Doing good business."

    No group of religious fanatics has any right to tell Mozilla what to do about how it conducts business.

    If you don't like it, switch to Chrome.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    April 6, 2014 12:25 a.m.

    "The current tactics of intimidation and retaliation used by Americans against Americans reminds me of both the Viet Cong and the Taliban. "

    If you think these tactics used against this CEO are anything like what the Viet Cong, or the Taliban, were doing you really need to study some history. I mean really.

    Hey, conservatives, you guys do realize that you believe in small government, right? You believe that businesses should be able to make their own internal decisions, right? You guys know that's what you believe, right? This business has the right to put anybody in as CEO, or remove them, for whatever reason the board chooses. You guys do realize, don't you, that this is what you BELIEVE in. The right of businesses to make their own decisions.

    You also realize that you believe in the right of people to not shop someplace, and to say why they won't shop there. You believe in the right to boycott. And for a business to respond to that boycott. Don't you guys even know what you believe in? NOTHING happened here that is against conservative principles.

    Or did you really want the government to step in?

  • J in AZ San Tan Valley, AZ
    April 5, 2014 10:24 p.m.

    LDS Liberal - The Mozilla Foundation is a 501c(3) non-profit organization. You'll need to come up with another motive.

  • 4 horse race Salt Lake City, UT
    April 5, 2014 3:26 p.m.

    An attack on anyone's 1st Amendment free speech rights, or freedom of religion rights, or the right to participate in our democratic process without fear of interference or retaliation is an attack on every American's freedom, liberal or conservative. The liberal appologists for this outrage are devoid of logic and left nakedly exposed dressed only in bigotry. Liberals need to ask themselves just how much hard-tought freedom they are willing to throw under the bus in pursuit of this issue. I fought in two wars to preserve every American's constitutional rights and to help export our ideas of freedom in South East Asia and the Middle East. The current tactics of intimidation and retaliation used by Americans against Americans reminds me of both the Viet Cong and the Taliban. Is your agenda really worth this? Do your precious ends really justify your freedom-killing means? Do you really think that losing our liberty won't come back to bite you also? Think again.

  • One opinion west jordan, UT
    April 5, 2014 2:00 p.m.

    Well written. I certainly agree. Those who feel everyone's opinion is worthwhile need to be able to handle the opinions that don't agree with theirs. No one should be able to tell us how to vote or who to contribute our own money too or else it would jeopardize our job with them. Mozilla has too great of a product to be so one sided and unfair. It was disappointing to see that they don't support an individual's freedom in their own private life that has nothing to do with their work performance. This attitude could be extended to what religion an employ belonged to or what choices they make in their private life.

  • Eldo Bountiful, UT
    April 5, 2014 1:49 p.m.

    Why do his personal beliefs have anything to do with his job at Mozilla? This guy was a co-founder of the company, so he's been there a while. He wasn't using the company product to push his views or further some agenda. I have used Mozilla products for many years now, and have never seen any sort of political message being pushed through their product.
    It's sad that people felt the need to have a man removed from his job because of his personal beliefs. It would be just as sad if this happened to someone who had donated to any other political cause no matter their belief. It's a scary thing when someone is removed from their job for what they do outside of the workplace (within legal bounds), especially if it doesn't affect how they perform their job, or the product they produce.
    It seems these days that everyone is so busy trying to push their side's agenda (on both sides), that they don't stop to consider that the agenda they're pushing may be causing harm to others.

  • Brer Rabbit Spanish Fork, UT
    April 5, 2014 1:21 p.m.

    I changed from using Firefox several months ago to Google Chrome. I did that due to the poor performance of Firefox, but now I am glad I did for another reason.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    April 5, 2014 12:38 p.m.

    These actions were a major affront to free speech, political rights, ad the democratic process. People should not be forced out of their jobs for taking political positions as private individuals.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 5, 2014 11:44 a.m.

    Oh for crying out loud....

    This was a business leader,
    A business,
    and a public relations nightmare impacting PROFTIS.

    This has ZERO to do with Government crack-down on religion.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    April 5, 2014 11:12 a.m.

    @Orem Parent: "The question is what do we do about this atrocity?"

    You are, of course, also addressing teachers who got fired simply for being gay and marrying their partner in a legal ceremony?

    You also, of course, are concerned about scoutmasters who were removed from leadership because they are gay?

    And I assume you support Starbucks – they have expressed an opinion and have a corporate policy. Are you boycotting the boycott and buying Starbucks on a regular basis?

    A travesty is a travesty. If you are upset about Mr. Eich being removed from his position for being anti-gay, then I'm sure you also support people who are gay and are removed from a position.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    April 5, 2014 10:26 a.m.

    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!

    (It passed the censors on the other DN Mozilla story, so it should pass for this one too.)

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    April 5, 2014 8:49 a.m.

    I don't use Firefox (not or any political reason, but because I don't like the program and it doesn't suit my computing needs -- that has been true long before this issue arose). That being said -- I don't care what the executive of a company says of what he things -- s/he has every right to believe and express politically those positions.

    I would appreciate information on an issue -- did he discriminate in hiring, or provide substandard benefits, or do anything else against the interest of his employees for prejudicial reasons? Those are reasons which would lead me to support his job termination, not any political position he might take.

    One further thought -- people have the right to spend, or not spend, their money where they choose, for political reasons or other reasons as they choose. Companies have the right to take actions based on their perception of how peoples' spending might affect their companies. That's how a free market economy works. People who otherwise support a free market economy are now complaining because free market pressures cost someone with whose political views they agree his job. That's the free market economy. Live with it.

  • glendenbg Salt Lake City, UT
    April 5, 2014 8:38 a.m.

    Would I be wrong to assume that the D-News will shortly be editorializing about the wrong done to World Vision? You may have heard - the organization decided to recognize legally married same sex spouses. Many "Christians" were so upset they stopped sponsoring poor children in developing nations. World Vision was forced to change its policy. I assume the D-News will be condeming those activists for their attacks on diversity - and also for harming suffering children worldwide. Right?

    Will we be reading a D-News editorial condeming the ongoing boycott of Starbucks by the National Organization For Marriage? Certainly that boycott (which claimed at one point to have cost $10b in stock value) is an attack on diversity and tolerance. Will the D-News editorial board condemn NOM for making a mockery of diversity and freedom?

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    April 5, 2014 8:25 a.m.

    Hate in the name of tolerance is still hate

    That is a concept politically correct culture simply cannot seem to comprehend

    I was introduced into homosexuality as an adolescent. I do not belong to any faith, But I have experienced the "tolerance" of extremist in the gay community first hand. They do NOT represent me any more than Westboro Baptist represents all religion.

    I sincerely apologize for the hateful things that "tolerant" people have done in my name

    They embarrass me

  • Chessermesser West Valley City, UT
    April 5, 2014 7:28 a.m.

    I appreciate all the well written comments.

    The potential of personal attacks does make a person hesitant to express his/her true feelings. And when only one side of the argument is heard, the outcome is not always fair. This type behavior doesn't work in marriage. Doesn't seem to work in the political realm either.

  • waikiki_dave Honolulu, HI
    April 5, 2014 7:11 a.m.

    The DN editorial staff is stewing about whether or not to publish my comment on this article so I will rephrase: The Mozilla BOD has the right and authority to dismiss the CEO if they feel that person's views and or positions do no reflect the values of their Company. In this case Eich supported a widely accepted position that Prop 8 is in fact a discriminatory piece of legislation that denies marriage equality to gay people. The BOD didn't like it and they let him know about it. Eich occupied a significant position of influence in the Company and his financial support made it clear concerning his homophobic views. Companies operate in a political environment and Eich should have understood that. Maybe he should have applied for a position in a more right wing neo conservative organization that would embrace his views on homosexuals.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    April 5, 2014 6:52 a.m.

    Is it wrong to fire somebody for a political donation? Does that infringe on free speech and a system that does allow dissenting opinions? Probably.

    At that same time, in the last year some dozen teachers have been fired from schools across the country for the "crime" of marrying their long-term partner. Usually this was done out of state, because the couple lived in a state that did not yet allow gay marriage.

    I don't remember people being upset about that. Well... yeah, there were people upset. Because each of those firings generated protests from students who were taught by those teachers and who saw no problem with a gay married teacher leading a math class or gym class or teaching science or social studies.

    The same folks who are now violently up in arms about Mr. Eich being fired supported the termination of those teachers.

    Sorry. If it was wrong to fire Brandon Eich for giving money to group that opposed gay marriage, then it is also wrong to fire teachers who entered into a legal gay marriage.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    April 5, 2014 6:27 a.m.

    Safari, Chrome, IE, Firefox all have published pro homosexual stances on marriage.

    I could find no stance for Opera, but they are in Norway. You decide.

    Perhaps less internet would the best choice to stay away from all the SSM promotions.

  • Lilalips Attleboro, MA
    April 5, 2014 6:10 a.m.

    I believe that people who share the values of Eich will have to come together and create products and ideas for other people who share those same values. If others don't want to use them… fine. Go somewhere else.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    April 5, 2014 1:42 a.m.

    The hypocrisy is rank.

    I am quite sure this paper (and many of the commenters) supported the law in Arizona that would have allowed a business to fire somebody for their sexual preference, yet they are outraged by this?

  • skrekk Dane, WI
    April 5, 2014 12:38 a.m.

    How is Eich's effort to deny his gay coworkers the civil rights he enjoys any different from an effort to prohibit mixed-race marriage, as Mormons like Mr Eich once did? Would any CEO today advocate that mixed-race marriage be banned, and that mixed-race couples be denied the full rights of citizenship?

  • intervention slc, UT
    April 5, 2014 12:25 a.m.

    I love the logic that it's discrimination to speak out against discrimination and oppression, using this logic we should all go out and give the Philips family big hugs and cheer them on when they protest military funerals. When you actively wok to take away others rights as this man did you are the oppressor not the oppressed.

  • Orem Parent Orem, UT
    April 5, 2014 12:10 a.m.

    The question is what do we do about this atrocity?

    Where is the petition we sign to get him his job back?

    When do we stand up to this bullying and denial of diversity and tolerance?

    When will enough be enough?

  • Austin Coug Pflugerville, TX
    April 4, 2014 11:27 p.m.

    Bob K,

    So you are saying that 52% of Californians should be fired from their jobs because they voted for Prop 8?

    The reason we vote is so people can share their opinion on one side or the other. When one side retaliates because they don't like how the other side voted...that is called bullying. Not sure how bullying is ever defensible.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    April 4, 2014 11:25 p.m.

    I can't imagine having to work in San Jose California. What a stink hole. You would be in fear of your job constantly for not only what you did but what you thought ...or what some think you thought. California is a scary scary place.

  • J in AZ San Tan Valley, AZ
    April 4, 2014 11:11 p.m.

    Marxist - If it is acceptable to run Mr. Eich out of Mozilla on a rail because his personal beliefs are different from the cool clique in that company, then it is equally acceptable for an SSM supporter to get hounded out of a firm where the majority supports the divine definition of marriage. In a free society, the knife has to cut both ways,

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    April 4, 2014 11:05 p.m.

    This is just liberalism showing it's ugly face. Liberals want no thought allowed unless it is their thought. Is that thinking closer to free America or the old USSR? Libreals are all about force not freedom and anyone foolish to have ever thought otherwise should get a wake up call now. Yes it is shameful but it is liberalism after all. Liberals - you must be so proud!!

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    April 4, 2014 11:00 p.m.

    Get used to it people - this is nothing less than the new Obama-nation showing its ugly face. Just wait - soon it will be government spying on how you vote and then inflicting punishment on you or forcing you into "re-education camps". If a CEO of a major company can get fired over his personal private views then that same Nazi - like behavior can spread to ANY company. Find yourself out of line with the thinking of the PC crowd and fear for your job or perhaps the IRS or both. Yes folks this is the total transformation of America so many ignorantly voted for 6 years ago. The transformation from a free nation to a nation where you dare not express any free speech. How does that hope n change look now comrades??

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    April 4, 2014 10:45 p.m.

    Re: Henry Drummond "When BYU fired a professor for writing an editorial criticizing the LDS Church's stand on Proposition 8 there was an outcry. Where are they now? How is this any different?"

    Exactly so. There is no difference. But consider that alternate views on SSM can get you fired about equally well. Do not many Utahns who support SSM fear to let their employers know for fear of losing their jobs?

  • LovelyDeseret Gilbert, AZ
    April 4, 2014 10:06 p.m.

    The people that don't see this as a mockery of diversity are the ones that get to arbitrarily decide who gets to be part of diversity.

  • justamacguy Manti, UT
    April 4, 2014 9:47 p.m.

    It is pretty ridiculous when a 1% tail can wag the dog. The door swings both ways. Mozilla's prejudice = Firefox + delete key on my computer. There are other web browsers out there.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    April 4, 2014 9:25 p.m.

    Opposing civil rights is the biggest mockery of freedom and diversity there is.

  • Canadiandy Alberta, CA
    April 4, 2014 9:08 p.m.

    Thanks DN. I just deleted Firefox. Presently viewing in IE.

  • I know it. I Live it. I Love it. Provo, UT
    April 4, 2014 7:47 p.m.

    Henry Drummond,

    A church school didn't fire an employee for having different opinions, but for speaking out against the church as an employer and as a faith.

    A Mozilla employee didn't say "we're wasting our time here at Mozilla, we have the wrong software philosophy". Had he done this, no one would be upset when he's fired.


    If someone thinks the LDS Church isn't tolerant for not being inclusive of Hindu beliefs by not calling Hindu's to be LDS Bishops... then they clearly don't understand the meaning of inclusive, the meaning of beliefs, perhaps the meaning of anything because instead of trying to understand something they didn't create... they want to redefine and claim to be the author of everything. We've moved past idol worshiping into self-worshiping.

    The truth is, we didn't create Marriage. We can't redefine or recreate it. And we most certainly can't replicate the love found in marriage between a man and a woman.

    General Conference can't come soon enough!

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    April 4, 2014 7:36 p.m.

    What I'm hearing is, "He only got fired because he has the 'wrong' belief."

    He got fired because a lot of people got upset about it and the company directors were concerned that it would damage their ability to compete. Should he have been fired for this reason? I don't know. People have been fired for being gay.

    The public reaction to Eich tells me that young people - and this is who dominates Mozilla's arena - really won't put up with a belief that is harmful to their family members, friends, and co-workers. They don't see being against marriage equality as an example of diversity. They see it as an example of bigotry and discrimination.

    So I don't agree that this is an example of a litmus test. A political candidate feeling required to say she's a person of faith in order to even be in the game is a litmus test. And since when is it mere political correctness to frown on demonstrably harmful beliefs? No. It would be politically correct if we were to let a harmful belief slide simply because it was religious.

  • Hatch Sandy, UT
    April 4, 2014 7:34 p.m.

    I just switched to chrome

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    April 4, 2014 7:21 p.m.

    "That he could lose his job for such a thing is not only shameful, it’s an affront to basic American principles."
    I agree completely.

    This is, sadly, only a recent one of an accumulating torrent of examples of a fight for freedom of thought and expression. The PC thugs that picket someone for voting differently than they believe is proper are guilty of **precisely** the same intolerance they so stridently oppose in others.

    Andrew Sullivan, someone who is gay and has been advocating for homosexual marriage for 25 years and was actually recently married homosexually, had it exactly right when in reaction to Eich's resignation he wrote, "If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us."

  • Rule of Law Pittsburgh, PA
    April 4, 2014 7:05 p.m.

    OK, so Sen. McCarthy was a government figure. What about the Hollywood blacklist? Movie studios are private companies. And yes, they justified the public shaming of Communists (and tried to get them to renounce it) by saying they wanted to take away the rights of Americans.

  • achick47 Abilene, TX
    April 4, 2014 5:59 p.m.

    I have followed this story from the time Mr Eich was given the position of CEO. Yes he has experience above and beyond what is required for the position. Yes he is a co-founder of the company. Yes he has made political contributions that compliment his political,moral,religious views as a private citizen. Yes he got fired because a group of people want to BULLY everyone who do not agree with their agenda. Do I agree with their agenda IT DOES NOT MATTER I believe Mr. Eich has a right to believe anything he wants and to spend his money anyway he wants. Maybe if he had supported the other side a different group would have gotten him fired, however the ones who believe that the Constitution was written and followed so that everyone living in this country legally can have an opinion and civilly go about their business probably would not have fought to get him fired.Sex,Race,Culture use the courts to change laws not HATE & BULLYING then folks will support your cause and change will happen in time hopefully. Peace and God Bless you all even the atheist among us.

  • williams64 Palo Alto, CA
    April 4, 2014 5:32 p.m.

    2 bits,

    My last comment here. I understand your frustration. There is some hypocrisy going on. However, you should not assume that everyone that spoke up against Eich actually was in favor of him being fired over this issue. It looks like a lot of people just wanted to try to get him to change his mind. Some did unquestionably take it too far.

    I think laws should protect Eich in this case, and if he sued he might actually have a case. However, I do think his position as CEO puts him in the public spotlight and that does make it pretty different from the scenario of a gay person losing their job for who they are. Arguably, Eich is not being fired for his religious or political beliefs (if he was, he wouldn't have been promoted in the first place since the company knew his stance on this issue). He's being fired because the company could be boycotted out of existence if he's not. It's a practical measure, not an issue of company-endorsed discrimination.

  • J in AZ San Tan Valley, AZ
    April 4, 2014 5:25 p.m.

    GaryO - Mozilla, like every other firm has the right to remove a corporate officer at any time. And yes, they did the wrong thing by forcing Brendan Eich out. In both scenarios that you proposed here, accepting the value of freedom of speech demands that we learn to live with ideas that we find hurtful.

  • MAYHEM MIKE Salt Lake City, UT
    April 4, 2014 5:21 p.m.

    Use Chrome.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    April 4, 2014 4:21 p.m.

    I do not think Mr. Eich should have been fired, but I can understand the anger of the people who called for his resignation. It is probably difficult to forgive someone who supported a cause that you felt treated you as "less than." That said, I hope I would have let bygones be bygones and moved on, particularly since he has never been documented as discriminating against anyone. The tide has turned and some people's past actions are now being seen as having been on the wrong side of history. Soon it will be as unthinkable to disparage the LGBT community as it now is to disparage people of a different race. Just as in my lifetime we've gone from having separate water fountains to relative racial equality. Times are changing and there is always a storm with change. Then things calm down and we wonder why people in the past were so resistant to change.

  • Cougsndawgs West Point , UT
    April 4, 2014 4:13 p.m.

    Your argument borders on absurd. There's a difference between freedom of speech and freedom to partake in the political process. This isn't about what Eich said it's about contributing money legally to political positions he supports. As a business owner do I now have the right to fire one of my staff who has supported money and time for defending Amendment 3? The message being sent by Mozilla is chilling: "don't contribute funds to a political position we disagree with or you will be fired/forced out". All while our government will watch and smile and not lift a finger while someone loses their job. If that doesn't scare you concerning our constitutional and protected rights, nothing will. Just like Krystallnacht referenced above (thank you 2 bits) the fact our government will not protect Eich and his right to the political process is exactly what makes this unnerving. Like I said...can companies now fire individuals in the tea party or people that voted for Amendment 3 in Utah? It's absurd to think about, yet that's exactly what happened here.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 4, 2014 4:10 p.m.

    Palo Alto, CA

    No... I was pointing out that it doesn't have to be state sponsored to be bad.

    I was also pointing out things intolerance makes us think is OK... but the level of the two... isn't comparable.


    Are you saying there was no which hunt here??

    Sure it wasn't done by the Government... but that doesn't make it OK either. That was the whole point of my earlier comment.


    I think what they did (If it was based on his politics) was wrong. A lot of people agree.

    I'm not saying it was State sponsored. But that doesn't make it OK. I'm just saying it's "IN-Tolerant". And it was.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    April 4, 2014 4:08 p.m.

    I agree with the article. Freedom is for us all, in equal doses. Mozilla should have rode this out, just like honey maid did with their 'love' campaign.

  • Bob K portland, OR
    April 4, 2014 4:08 p.m.

    2 bits
    Cottonwood Heights, UT
    "It's a sad day when $1000 can cost you your whole career. Joseph McCarthy really would be proud.
    A private $1000 donation... cost him his whole career (because of intolerance of opinions that don't match with theirs)... That's just sad."

    A-- it did not cost him his career. It cost him a job that he himself made untenable.

    B-- because he refuses to say that his catholic church was wrong, and contributing to the cause it espoused is wrong, he can have any job there except boss.

    People do not deserve to work for a man who sticks to a belief that took away their rights.

    It is NO different than if he contributed to the "take away the lds tax exemption" even though he had mormon employees

    Open your eyes, folks!

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 4, 2014 4:04 p.m.

    Kinda reminds me of the guy who got his hillbilly show suspended for talking about his religious beliefs in a magazine article and offending the same community. And they claim to be the tolerant ones...


    Here's the irony....

    You don't like being fired from your job for being gay... but you support firing someone for donating to prop-8 political campaign?? That seems VERY inconsistent..


    Not only do you not want to be fired for being gay... you want LAWS preventing employers from firing you!

    You can't really run around firing people for not supporting prop-8... and then want laws to protect you!


    And before somebody goes there... I'm NOT for firing people for being gay. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy.

    Maybe we need a law preventing gay people from firing people for not supporting Prop-8??


    Wait a minute... I just read that he donated to Pat Buchanan's campaign and more... I take it all back. In that case, what happened was TOTALLY justified!

  • williams64 Palo Alto, CA
    April 4, 2014 3:56 p.m.


    You're of course quite correct. But the left has never been the sole distributors of public shame so to phrase it as the left has "been doing it for a long time" is kind of misleading. It's more like, everyone does it and has done it and gets mad when it happens to them. I'm simply pointing out reality. The right loves to trumpet freedom and liberty when their positions are under attack, as this article does, but that is misleading. Liberty and freedom are not under threat as a result of Eich being outsted, and to make that claim is to devalue those concepts to the point of meaninglessness. Stick to the facts. Yes, a person is being subjected to very public shame over a private belief. It's regrettable but this has happened countless times to people of all political persuasions throughout history. Lets talk about that issue and not make this into something it's not.

  • anotherview SLO, CA
    April 4, 2014 3:57 p.m.

    "I think I can see where he's coming from. It doesn't have to be a State sponsored thing to be likened to how other totalitarian regimes acted in history. Krystallnacht was not a state sponsored thing. It was when civilians intolerant of Jews went out to bashed their Jewish neighbors... and the state just watched."

    The comparison to and oversimplification of Jewish persecution is (and citing Joseph McCarthy) is over-the-top. Preceding Kyrstallnacht there was a long propaganda campaign--by Hitler--blaming the Jews for Germany's defeat in WWI and the subsequent economic depression. There were also ever increasing restrictions on German Jews. The Brown Shirts--a paramilitary Nazi organization participated in Krystallnacht.

  • williams64 Palo Alto, CA
    April 4, 2014 3:33 p.m.

    2 bits,

    You're seriously comparing a man being shamed out of a CEO position by the internet with Kristallnacht? There is no comparison. None. The actions taken during Kristallnact were violent and illegal. Against the law. That is, for the state to stand by and do nothing was for the state to abandon the law. By contrast, today we have a company yielding to public opinion, expressed non-violently and through entirely legal means. No laws are being broken, so the state has no reason to get involved. Again, there is no comparison.

    McCarthy was a representative of the government misusing state power to lead a witch-hunt. There is no similar politician leading investigations against individuals who are opposed to gay marriage. Just because you think someone is being unfairly treated in both cases doesn't mean the situation is the same. It's not the same. It's not even remotely the same.

  • Deanvrtc Vancouver, WA
    April 4, 2014 3:21 p.m.

    Williams64 has stated the lefts position perfectly...and they are very good at it, as most media gives them a bully pulpit. He states.."Just as you have the freedom to say what you want, other people have the freedom to shame you for it". Well said Williams64...exactly what the left has been doing for a long time. Its sad when someone has to "shame" a person into silence about a dissenting moral opinion.
    Perhaps those who share Eichs opinion, need to stand behind him, so the "lefts" perceived shame will turn into a rightful congratulations!

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 4, 2014 3:07 p.m.

    Re: "And by the way, this is not state action, so comparing it to totalitarian governments is way over the top"...

    I think I can see where he's coming from. It doesn't have to be a State sponsored thing to be likened to how other totalitarian regimes acted in history. Krystallnacht was not a state sponsored thing. It was when civilians intolerant of Jews went out to bashed their Jewish neighbors... and the state just watched.

    Kristallnacht, was a series of coordinated attacks against Jews throughout Nazi Germany and parts of Austria on 9–10 November 1938, carried out by non-Jewish civilians. German authorities looked on without intervening. The name Kristallnacht comes from the shards of broken glass that littered the streets after Jewish-owned stores, buildings, and synagogues had their windows smashed.

    The intolerance and the state just watching... is the similarity. It doesn't have to be "state sponsored".

    His only crime was a political contribution... and this is what he gets??

    Joseph McCarthy really would be proud.

  • williams64 Palo Alto, CA
    April 4, 2014 2:49 p.m.

    I take great exception to the last paragraph of this article. This has NOTHING to do with the legal concepts of liberty and freedom. Eich still has the legal freedom to say whatever he wants. No one can take that away. But freedom is not a guarantee that there will not be consequences to your actions. What we have here is a case of cultural norms of behavior evolving in a way that is gradually making an anti-gay marriage stance the public equivalent of being against interracial marriage. There's legally nothing to stop a person from financing an effort to make interracial marriage illegal, but it's well understood that the result is going to be public shaming. That's where we're headed with an anti-gay marriage stance. So while it may bother you that cultural norms are shifting in a way that you don't like, you kind of just have to deal with it. Just as you have the freedom to say what you want, other people have the freedom to shame you for it.

  • Cougsndawgs West Point , UT
    April 4, 2014 2:43 p.m.

    I could understand Mozilla forcing him out if he made anti gay statements or showed bigotry in hiring or promotion/evaluation processes, but forcing him out because he supported a political side over another? What's next, fire a person who is affiliated with conservative organizations or votes for tea party candidates? Disgraceful Mizolla...guess who isn't getting any of my business in the future?

    I'm a tolerant individual, and have made clear on comment boards that I feel gay and lesbian individuals should be allowed to marry. I don't feel it's my right to tell them morally how to live their lives, as long as their choices don't infringe on my rights, which I don't think SSM does. I don't lay this at the feet of the LGBT community because many of them are not hostile or aggressive in their position. I'm proud to call many of them my friends. I lay this at the feet of the liberal agenda who have chosen "diversity" as a clarion call for preferential treatment instead of civil rights, and exclusion of ideas for groupthink mentality. That's right, "diversity" so we can discriminate.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 4, 2014 2:40 p.m.

    It's a sad day when $1000 can cost you your whole career. Joseph McCarthy really would be proud.

    A private $1000 donation... cost him his whole career (because of intolerance of opinions that don't match with theirs)... That's just sad.

    He's not the first. He's just the latest to be picked off and had careers destroyed by these radicals who can't tolerate anybody who wasn't on their side on Prop 8.

  • Sports Are Great Salt Lake City, UT
    April 4, 2014 2:38 p.m.

    Henry Drummond,

    You're comparing apples to oranges there pal. The firefox CEO didn't criticize his employer. You really had to stretch to try and make that comparison work. Sorry, I know you wanted to take a dig there, but it failed.

  • strangethingintheland Morristown, NJ
    April 4, 2014 2:25 p.m.

    I thought most employers had a policy of non-discrimination based on religion. I'm not saying that Eich's support of Prop 8 was religiously based, but I can certainly imagine prospective employees being in that situation. Is this a message to them that they need not apply for employment? At a minimum, it sounds like a potentially hostile work environment.

    Th article mentions that Eich is the author of Javascript and hence has some technical credentials. My understanding is that he was in fact a co-founder of the company. If true, the irony seems even deeper, as many founders seek to instill their values in their company. To be found inconsistent with the values of a company one founded, even though one has held the same position throughout, seems the height of absurdity.

  • splitme2 West Jordan, UT
    April 4, 2014 2:09 p.m.

    I too agree with this article. When I read about Eich a couple of days ago I thought it was very sad. Maybe he just didn't want to stay somewhere that preaches one thing and lives another. Do as I say, not as I do.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    April 4, 2014 2:10 p.m.

    Do I think he should have been forced to resign? No. Do I think this opinion is hypocritical? Yes. Why is it acceptable for a company to reflect its values by refusing to allow insurance coverage for contraceptives but it is "totalitarian" for a company to expect its senior employee to act in a way that complies with its values? And by the way, this is not state action, so comparing it to totalitarian governments is way over the top. You can't just be for "freedom" when the freedom is something you like and be against it when the freedom is something you dislike or you are as hypocritical as the "liberals" you are complaining about. And before anyone says I that I am also a hypocrite because I think he should have been fired, please reread the first 2 sentences I wrote.

    April 4, 2014 2:05 p.m.

    I agree wholeheartedly with this opinion. The LGBT community and those that support their push for same sex marriage rights expect you to conform with what they want. But if you don't and you show support for the other side, they do whatever they can to force you out. They want tolerance for their cause, but are not willing to show it in return.

    There is no reason that Eich should have been forced out. His support for traditional marriage was not linked in any way to Mozilla. He has a right to show support for one side or the other, without it affecting his employment. Does this mean I can go ahead and force one of my employees to resign if they support SSM?

  • gee-en Salt Lake City, UT
    April 4, 2014 2:04 p.m.

    Excellent, excellent article.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    April 4, 2014 2:03 p.m.

    Can't disagree on this one. When BYU fired a professor for writing an editorial criticizing the LDS Church's stand on Proposition 8 there was an outcry. Where are they now? How is this any different?

  • Rufio Saratoga, UT
    April 4, 2014 2:00 p.m.

    In a blog post Thursday, Mozilla's executive chairwoman, Mitchell Baker, apologized for Mr. Eich's appointment, writing, "We have employees with a wide diversity of views. Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public…"

    All true, until the belief or opinion is not aligned with the liberal agenda. No longer does the fact of skills or knowledge mean equal opportunity but we must now face the bigotry of the left.

  • AZKID Mapleton, UT
    April 4, 2014 1:56 p.m.

    Let me be the first to state my hearty approval of this opinion piece. Well stated, DN. Well stated.

    Now, queue the supposedly "tolerant" left, to jump all over this opinion piece as being "intolerant". Who, pray tell, are the intolerant ones?