20 votes

Mozilla CEO Forced to Resign Because of his $1000 Donation to ProtectMarriage.com

Brendan Eich has resigned after less than 2 weeks as the CEO of the Mozilla Foundation. It recently came to light that Mr. Eich donated $1000 in 2008 to ProtecMarriage.com, an organization supporting California's Proposition 8 ban on homosexual marriage. The LGBT activist community called for boycotts of the Firefox web browser, and Mozilla employees used Twitter to cast a vote of no confidence in Mr Eich's leadership. The announcement of his resignation came in a blog post by Mitchell Baker:

https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/03/brendan-eich-steps-...

In the post, Ms. Baker states:

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. This is meant to distinguish Mozilla from most organizations and hold us to a higher standard. But this time we failed to listen, to engage, and to be guided by our community.

Apparently, Ms. Baker fails to see the irony in her statement on openness and diversity, while simultaneously announcing the forced resignation of Mr. Eich based on his free speech.

Full story here:

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9247429/Controversial...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

All of you claiming it's

All of you claiming it's "ironic" that he was pressured to resign for his "diverse" point of view are missing something. It isn't just expressing a "point of view" to support the use of LAW to enforce it, which is what Prop 8 was all about. It was attempting to wrest control of the coercive power of the State to put down a group of people, plain and simple. No libertarian can support that.

Now, should he have been forced to resign over it? Whatever, I don't care either way. I use Safari :)

For all the down votes, I

For all the down votes, I assume it's from those who on the one hand, pretend to support liberty, while on the other think the State should regulate interpersonal human relationships because Jesus hates gays. What a quandary - to be libertarian AND a Christiano-fascist. Must be difficult, all that cognitive dissonance.

Something I've noticed...

I used to be called up for jury duty Every Year, like clockwork. Since I discovered Ron Paul and have donated to him, other liberty candidates and organizations - I haven't been summoned for 3 years now.

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign: that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. ~J. Swift

ChristianAnarchist's picture

I've started to use "Chrome"

I've started to use "Chrome" over this incident even though I don't think a browser by "Google" isn't such a good idea based on the way Google likes to keep data on all of us. My phone (since I hate the closed OS by Apple) is Android which of course is also "Google". There are no easy options these days...

It's a bit tough for me as I've been a Firefox user for maybe 10 years and Mozilla before that. After a bit I'll most likely drop the Chrome and use Firefox again as my main browser.

Beware the cult of "government"...

Tolerance

Progressive believe in tolerance for every minority,... except the intolerant.

Libertarians believe in tolerance for every minority,... including the intolerant.

Are Progressives consistent on this? Is the Main Stream Media? Consider this. A white congressman tries to join the black congressional caucus because he represents a primarily black district,... and he is refused?!?! (Black Caucus: Whites Not Allowed http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0107/2389.html) Or as Chris Matthews insists,... only the powerful can be racist. So who is racist then? Who is a bigot? Who is intolerant?

Does any other set of people implement 'Black Lists' more than entertainment people? How is THAT tolerant!

"The dearest ambition of a slave is not liberty, but to have a slave of his own."
Sir Richard Burton

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

So what is the libertarian Browser

Firefox was my go to freedom browser but now I find out its a gay product. FREE MARKET I do not support gay anything. That said gay browser better than Explorer NWO NSA browser. Or Chrome NWO NSA browser.

sovereign

The IRONY

Firing someone for desiring a marriage to be defined as man and wife as it has been for as long as man and woman has existed. I know this because of pro creation birth of babies has kept humanity in existence yet she is so diverse as to accept someone with a common view.

Its the Bizzaro world for sure.

sovereign

nothing ironic about it.

nothing ironic about it. having an opinion or sacred belief is one thing, supporting the enactment of coercive legislation to ban a particular interpersonal human association is an act of aggression, plain and simple.

Look, I get the hypocrisy of those who attack a man for the reason I stated above, yet support others who support OTHER forms of aggressive legislation, like wealth redistributive measures, but the argument for anyone claiming to be libertarian remains the same.

The question is, do you want your government defining words?

Do you want political action to do so?

The redefinition of words reaches into your minds and disrupts your thought processes. And your children's. It is mind control. It disrupts communication. Without authority, it alters the meanings of thoughts recorded from the past or uttered in posterity. It is diabolic. It attempts to userp the mental images, thoughts and feeling formerly associated with the word.

Do you want them to tell you what "marriage" means?

Everyone knows that, by definition, "marriage" is between a man and a woman. Just check your dictionary. Check your bible. Check your history books. Check with your grandmother. Check your own memory. Check everything.

Now, if a persons says to me, "I want to partner with a person of my on sex. AND, i want legal rights equal to those of a married person." I say. Ok, fine. It is a free country. But then I ask, "What shall we call this union?"

If the response is "marriage", then I change my position. I immediately recongnize this as an act of aggression. It is an attempt to change the definition of a word through political action. It is an attempt to change the very image in my head when someone utters the word "marriage". It is an attempt to marginalize my beliefs and demonize my religion. It is aggressive.

Now, had another word been selected; for example, "garriage", my response would be much less negative. And then, my opposition "might" rightly be accused of denying another of "equal" protection under the law.

But the word that was chosen was "marriage". And choosing that word is an aggression. And demonizing those who object is further aggression. Robing them of their ability to support their family is even more aggression.

So, separate but equal is

So, separate but equal is your argument. Really? If you think the definition of words have been static over the centuries you need to read ANYTHING on the study and history of language to educate yourself so as not to look foolish my friend.

I really just fail to get why so many of you worry so much about OTHER people's relationships with each other and what they do or don't want to call it. How on God's green earth does it affect yours in any way?

mariage is between a man and a woman... by definition

And no amount of tantrums or political action changes that.

Marriage is what it is.

Come up with your own word.

And the definition of marriage has been pretty static my friend.

If you think a bunch of judges and technocrats and "activists" should have domain over the freakin dictionary, then you have lost your mind.

I work in healthcare and I've

I work in healthcare and I've seen "marriages" between two women that are more binding and sacred than I've seen in a whole host of "marriages" between a man and a woman. Both in the way they treat each other and the loving and nurturing care they give their children. I've seen married couples that abuse each other and neglect or overtly abuse their children in ways I didn't even know could exist previously.

What does marriage mean? It's a fucking WORD man. What right do you have to dictate another human being's relationship or what they wish it to be called? What's even more comical, yet perplexing, is how deeply threatened you are by it? I mean, seriously, why? It's on this issue you see the real fascist come out of the self-proclaimed "libertarian."

The Mozilla Firefox Boycott – More to the Story

The Mozilla Firefox Boycott – More to the Story

http://www.dailypaul.com/316128/the-mozilla-firefox-boycott-...

Correlation does not prove causality!

Never Resign

Make them fire you. It's a big mistake to resign unless you really don't like your job and would resign, anyway.

It would be nice if this case went to court and caused the FEC regulations requiring campaign finance reporting to be overturned by the Supreme Court as an unconstitutional chill on politicial speech.

Now the employer has standing. They were severely injured by these regulations, it appears, and ever more so if they get sued by their ex employee.

Way to go, activists! Get that FEC reporting overturned! Free speech! Free speech!

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

My take

The facts of this case in my opinion goes as follows: 1) Mr. Eich donated money to a political organization. 2) Donating money to political organizations is recognized as free speech by the Supreme Court. 3) Employees of Mozilla did not agree with Mr. Eich's political opinion, and thus expressed their opposition. This is their right to free speech. 4) Mr. Eich resigned due to the mounting pressure from his employees opposition.

Keeping these facts in mind now we must consider the claim made by the OP that Mr. Eich was forced to resign for using his freedom of speech. I don't believe any of Mr. Eich's rights were violated in this case and I feel that this headline is sensationalized. My reasoning is as follows: 1) According to the article, Mr. Eich was not forced to resign, whether you believe this or not is not really important. I say it is not important because in a free society businesses may choose who they hire and fire based on the fact that they possess property rights over their companies. For the same reasons that Protectmarriage.com would not hire someone who supports gay marriage as their CEO, because they would not fit their companies value system; Mozilla probably decided that hiring someone who doesn't support gay marriage wouldn't fit their value system. 2) It would appear that most of the employees who were voicing their opinions did not like this hire. Does it really make sense for a business to alienate it's employees? From a purely business standpoint this would make no sense. It's business 101. If the employees hate their boss, why would they work for him? 3) The argument that he was forced to resign for free speech assumes that there is something illegal about firing someone for free speech. Don Imus, a sports radio host, was fired from his job for calling the Rutgers women basketball team "a bunch of nappy headed hoes." Clearly he has a right to say this. No one is arguing this. I would defend to the death Mr. Imus's right to say this. But it is also his company's right to use their free expression to fire him. A parallel example would be the case of a man showing up at his office dressed in full Ku Klux Klan attire shouting racist obscenities at his black co-workers. Does he have the right to do this? Of course. Should he expect to not be fired? Of course not.

So in summation, Mr. Eich had every right to speak how he choses. But Mozilla had every right to fire him, based purely on their property rights, and their right to make the decision that made the most logical and economic sense for them moving forward. Just because you have a right, doesn't mean you should use it, and it certainly doesn't mean you can't be fired for it, because all of those workers have freedom of speech as well.

a part 5 for your first paragraph

5) all those who refuse to be led around by the nose by the LBTG "movement" or the leftist media promptly refused to ever touch Mozilla.

Take Chick Fil A. Business is booming despite the LBTG ... sales up 14 %.... 114 new stores since they were demonized by the LBTG and buddies.

I don't even like the stuff. I still try to eat there once a week.

Why? Because I am not going to be bullied.

Those of you offended by this action; Figure out every way you can hurt this crap company. Send their rabid rabble rousing employee activists to the unemployment line.

And if you don't? One day you will find yourself losing your job over your minister's quotation of the Apostle Paul. Or, all bible translations from 2030 on will have conveniently cleansed out any references found objectionable by the pagans, just as the official Chinese bible currently omits certain books found objectionable.

I seriously doubt that is is all the result of a groundswell of indignation on the part of the companies rank and file. Rather, it is probably the result of bullying on the part of a very vocal and determined minority... proper up by well funded and well connected outside influences bent on destroying anyone on that contribution list... and damned determined to protect "their people" on the inside.

If this is "freedom", then freedom means my gang is better than yours.

The irony in this story. Those people can't see past

the ends of their noses. I'd just say atheists vs. pagans, CrimsonTider. Some so-called pagans are deeply spiritual individuals. Some believe in God, the Father - perhaps in the Name of The Great Spirit, perhaps Creator or some other Name; also, like me, a Christian, the Spirit That Moves Through All Things - not only among humans but throughout the animal, plant, & mineral kingdoms. As I see it, it is rationalist atheist types who neither believe in God nor anything else that isn't visible to the naked eye and measureable in material terms (that is, measureable with instruments available to us as of the year 2014) who would like to both rewrite history to conceal our religious/spiritual heritage and to banish God and any reference to the Divine from the public sphere.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

Mostly true.

"As I see it, it is rationalist atheist types who neither believe in God nor anything else that isn't visible to the naked eye and measureable in material terms" UNLESS of course there happens to be a man wearing a lab coat telling them about the invisible or immeasurable 'whatever it may be'.

I thought you might be interested to hear this TED talk

by Rupert Sheldrake. The irony is that he was *invited* by TED to speak on the subject of "challenging existing paradigms"... and so he gave his little talk that "challenged existing paradigms"... and, for challenging existing paradigms, it was banned. lol https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg (There are some good interviews on line re his response.)

Anyway, as to there being men wearing lab coats talking about "the invisible or immeasurable 'whatever it may be' - I don't have a problem with that. If you're alluding to references to God, as a believer myself, I certainly don't have a problem with that. And neither have some of the greatest scientific minds (although it's not a fashionable belief system since maybe the 1960's).

Or maybe by these invisible and immeasureable "whatever it may be's" you're talking about what we (only now) know to be, say, radio waves, microwaves, magnetism, light that actually reflects a spectrum of colors (no pun intended), or electricity. Years ago I was fascinated by Kirlian photography. These days it's sound frequencies and water memory. Also what one might call our "etheric body." Well, whatever one calls it, I mean the LIFE force - something so strong it can push a bean sprout through pavement. We don't yet know how that is possible, that is, without our explanation referencing something mysterious (whether it has a scientific NAME or not)... that we know exists and yet can't explain. Well, maybe one day! :)

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

Let me clarify,

as to not offend someone who shares the ability to accept good science and God, which is a direct reflection of myself.

My problem is with Anti Theist who ridicule believers because they can't physically see or prove that God exist, yet they have no problem accepting just about anything someone in a lab coat would say. Even if it can't be seen, nor has it been proven. Seems as though anti theist can't come to understand that their 'faith' in man is just as much a 'religion' as is being a theist.

Ah!

I see. :)

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

Couldn't have said it better

Couldn't have said it better myself.

She said he wasn't forced to resign by Mozilla

Whether you believe her or not is up to you.

I tend to think when the SHTF and this story went viral - after a few days or a week of that they all talked about it, and it was pretty clear he could not be an effective leader anyway with this hanging over his head.

So headlines like the one on this post are misleading imo. Again, unless you assume she is lying.

Don't see anything out of the

Don't see anything out of the ordinary here. I'm likely going to be downvoted to hell for this, but free speech does not imply that there are no consequences attached to exercising this right. Just like how Nystrom is free to censor his website, the people calling for Eich's resignation are also free to exercise their free speech.

Eich exercising his free speech does not imply that there should be no consequences. Because people that disagree with Eich also have the right to exercise their own free speech in response.

If I have a problem with what happened, it was the extreme form of the free speech that occurred, where extreme action was demanded (and yes, this is STILL free speech, but an undesirable form). I dislike that, because it stinks too much of political correctness to me. We should be able to agree to disagree and exercise our free speech without resorting to such extreme actions.

Just the free market at work here

But seriously.

His customers don't support him as the CEO due to his action/stance/rhetoric/affiliation/whatever.

Members of his community (AKA customers of his product) voted and "forced" him to resign. They have free speech also.

Ron Paul was criticized for not supporting the Civil Rights Act because he wanted to allow for private property and free speech.

This guy got his free speech, exercised it, and was voted out - as I would hope someone would be if they opened a "No Colored" restaurant.

Jacksonian's picture

Ms. Baker rewrote the blog!!!

Mitchell Baker REWROTE THIS BLOG, it's totally different now then when I read it this morning, thankfully this poster copied the ironically hypocritical section that no doubt Ms. baker clued into.

Pathetic!

You want people to be tolerant of your beliefs and actions, yet you attack over and over and over, people who stand up for tradition beliefs.

Where is the tolerance you people look for yourself.

Worst part is, you have so much support because you have so many lonely angry middle aged queers that want everyone else to be hate filled just like them!!!

Your all a bunch of losers!!

Standards of what?

Two guys f**king & sucking is a higher standard? What sort of offspring does that produce? Ms.Baker?

Jacksonian's picture

Democracy at work.

_____________________________________________________________

"Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public."

Mr. Eich's views though are apparently worthy of being stomped out of existence because it seems a lot of people disagree with him.

Therefore he will be removed as CEO and you can go back to happily using Mozilla without any concerns whatsoever about him slowly changing the browser into a covert instrument of the anti-LGBT agenda.

We would like to thank our outspoken and intolerant users for showing us how we failed at being a company comprised of people who only hold to the current form of tolerant and politically correct views at all times.

______________________________________________________________

Gotta love how majority rule upholds the rights of others!!!

Townhall article calls for boycott

I said it would happen

It's Time for Christains To Blacklist Mozilla Firefox...

Let the games begin!

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison