This is so upsetting, it's infuriating. Here we had a wonderful chance for someone brilliant like Eich to lead one of the most important organizations in defending us against looming omnipresent state surveillance, and a bunch of social justice warriors went and ruined it. Pat yourselves on the back guys, you won!
Would you support a company whose CEO was a dazzling, intelligent, brilliant racist? Or anti-semite?
I don't understand how being brilliant means that everyone should ignore that you're also a bigot. Presumably if he had no talent then he'd be fair game?
Is he a bigot? "A bigot is someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust or hatred." I don't think he does that. He just wrongly thinks the state shouldnt recognize same sex marriage.
It was a ballot initiative in 2008. We have a constitution to prevent the will of the majority violating the rights of a minority. Its too bad it was up to voters. But he still has a right to take a side without fear of economic retribution.
Economic retribution from the government the first amendment does not protect your rights with respect to things like keeping a job. If you call your boss an asshole to his face on a regular basis, you are going to be fired.
Which is why we have laws (separate from the amendments) which ensure people can't be fired for their race/gender/etc. These laws have nothing to do with the first amendment because they don't involve the government.
Liberals would not like it if the Catholic Church used its members to lobby for a person to be fired for their stance on abortion. Don't use Firefox, fine. But actively lobbying to take away someone's livelihood is not a proportional response in this case.
I'm ignoring your partisan labelling/strawman/etc.
On the second point, that's why employers aren’t allowed to ask those questions (nor use them in their evaluation of employees). Those are the protection laws I mentioned above. Which don't protect executive members, as they run the company. Hence employees shouldn't, and can't, be fired for their political opinions (unless that's somehow part of their job).
Proportional response? Sure. Here is a guy who paid money to make it so people can't see their significant others when they are dying, so that they don't have the recognition of the government as being married, to institutionalize oppression, and the untold misery which comes with it. He didn't apologize, he still holds the same views now. Yes, people should lobby a company, any company, to remove someone who would inflict such misery on his fellows. Yes, people should lobby a company like mozilla which says its an avid supporter of freedom to remove someone who would not support equal freedoms for every single person. These companies are corporate citizens, and their opinions are shaped by their executive board, and we can tell them we won't do business with them because of their opinions.
Edit: If you read the above, the response to the question should be obvious. Is it a board member? Then sure, good luck with that though, considering they would loose business if they followed the complaints, but not loose any if they ignored them (yea hospitals don't really care about customer retention). If it's an employee, and that employee didn't do anything wrong (like say, perform an abortion when not asked to; or badger someone with their political view) then no.
It was trivial amount of money for an $83MM campaign. It may signal which side of the issue he was on. It does not inform us of what he is thinking or his motivations.
I don't know why this got downvoted. The "how can you be tolerant when you don't tolerate intolerance" thing needs to be made fun of relentlessly until it stops being a thing.
How do you know Eich is intolerant? Maybe he is just misguided on an issue that really shouldnt be up to him. No one said tolerate intolerance, but considering the response to Eich, some proportionality is needed.
Um, how could his actions not suggest intolerance? He contributed money to a campaign which essentially persecutes a minority. In what universe is that not bigoted? "He didn't mean it" is a ridiculously flimsy defense.
Maybe he thinks marriage should be between opposite sex for religious reasons but has no problem with civil unions that grants the same legal benefits. While not a progressive view, not the same as a Klansman.
@SolarNet You seem pretty absolute in determining who is a bigot, and do not recognize that there is a spectrum. Obviously one's religion does not justify bigotry. But it does distort one's world view and can explain why someone might support Prop 8 without being a person who hates and is disgusted by homosexuals. Education is the best response to this, not economic sanctions.
Using religion as an excuse for bigotry still means you're a bigot. Religions are personal things, and should only affect your life, not other people's.
