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:


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:


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Wow, the hypocrisy

of her wording is astounding. And I'm not a proposition 8 supporter, just not blind to irony.

Defend Liberty!

When the backlash comes for these fascists

I will be breaking out the popcorn.

Cyril's picture

Btw, I noticed an LGBT interest group

Btw, I noticed an LGBT interest group in the very company I work in.

I guess they aren't morons and they're well accepted, because I've never heard about any lobbying about them, either way - pro or against, re: the business. I don't even know who they are, except for a couple of them. They do and fund their events, and other stuff, by themselves, and it's seemingly completely voluntary. Just like the other soccer dudes do, etc. But again, I am lucky to work with intelligent people. My socialist radar has yet to find any, in there.

(And my radar is good, let me tell ya...)

Anyway, so much so exemplary, I thought once to start a stinky cheese eaters interest group, but someone told me I might just end up being the only member, and that wouldn't be because of intolerance...

The day things change to the opposite direction (mentality-wise), I'll quit.

That simple.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Just wait

In 5 years you will lose government job if you donated to Ron paul in 2008.

I believe, it is a fact that all government IT technicians with security clearances have been scrutinized and if they gave money to the liberty candidates their are no longer deemed "trusted".

Engage in Secure Exchange

Free market repercussions?

What if this goes viral in groups that support marriage between a man/woman only? What if people start dumping Mozilla over this issue?
This will be very interesting to watch.
This pc crap is sooo out of hand.

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

Cyril's picture

"This pc crap is sooo out of hand."

This pc crap is sooo out of hand.

You think it is?

Eerie. Same thought here!

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius


What alternatives to Firefox would you recommend? I don't want to use products from hate groups.

I'll be looking into this

Review of Chromium vs Chrome:


How to get Chromium:


Got it from a Townhall comment HAHAHA

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

thanks for mentioning it.

I've been trying out this: http://www.slimbrowser.net/en/ Though I don't know if their company culture is any better, at least this browser seems to load things a lot faster.

"Brendan Eich is just the beginning.

Let’s oust everyone who donated to the campaign against gay marriage."

"Some of my colleagues are celebrating. They call Eich a bigot who got what he deserved. I agree. But let’s not stop here. If we’re serious about enforcing the new standard, thousands of other employees who donated to the same anti-gay ballot measure must be punished.

More than 35,000 people gave money to the campaign for Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that declared, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” You can download the entire list, via the Los Angeles Times, as a compressed spreadsheet. (Click the link that says, “Download CSV.”) Each row lists the donor’s employer. If you organize the data by company, you can add up the total number of donors and dollars that came from people associated with that company...

Thirty-seven companies in the database are linked to more than 1,300 employees who gave nearly $1 million in combined contributions to the campaign for Prop 8. Twenty-five tech companies are linked to 435 employees who gave more than $300,000. Many of these employees gave $1,000 apiece, if not more. Some, like Eich, are probably senior executives.

Why do these bigots still have jobs? Let’s go get them."

- William Saletan, a Jewish native of Texas, graduated from Swarthmore College in 1987.

TLDR: Liberal calls for a mass "purge" against anyone who supported Proposition 8 financially, and wants to get them all fired from their jobs.


Ecclesiastes 1:9 What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.


That was enlightening. Whee are all the DP gay lovers now?

Sad thing about this is...

I hear prop 8 wasn't about rights. Civil unions in CA supposedly had all of the same rights as marriage. The only difference was the use of the name marriage. The gay hate groups want to force people to approve of their behavior to the point that they seek a special privileged status. Thought police.

When retaliation is brought against someones voting choices, they are not seeking a free society.

that's actually not true

US citizens are allowed to sponsor their spouses for immigration. If you only have a civil union, you are not able to do this. So no, it's not really the name.

If religious institutions had wanted to "protect" the name of marriage, then they should have begun complaining when the federal government started using the word "marriage" within the wording of laws. A really simple concept, separation of church and state. I think this is one of the main differences between Libertarians and Republicans. A lot of Republicans are very accepting of candidates who cannot avoid sticking their religious beliefs into legislation (e.g., think Rick Santorum, etc.)

perhaps.. It's only what I heard, but...

If you are correct about the immigration thing, it would seem to be a somewhat irrelevant difference in that most of the people promoting the concept of gay 'marriage' are not involved with foreign nationals when they're making spectacles of themselves and suing churches. Also, even if there was a more significant difference between marriage and civil unions, there's technically no real lack of rights for gay people, in that they're able to marry someone of the opposite gender just like anybody else is.

same logic would be used against interracial marriage

Just want to point out, if marriage was defined "between a man and a woman of the same race" you could argue that there is technically no real lack of rights for inter-racial couples, if they were only allowed civil unions, since anyone is able to marry someone of the opposite gender of the same race.

I would agree that there is no lack of "individual" rights for gay people - the current law does seem to treat all individuals equally. I think there is inequality in how the law treats pairs of people: e.g., one pair of persons (opposite gender pair) can get legal advantages that are not allowed to a same-sex pair. I think another big difference between the civil unions and marriages, is that a married person can pass their assets to their spouse when they die, and the spouse is not taxed. In civil unions, if you inherit something from the partner, you need to pay federal inheritance taxes, which can be quite high.

Of course, as a libertarian, I am opposed to estate taxes, and to be quite honest, I do lean towards the open-borders policy when it comes to immigration (i.e.,if you get rid of the free lunch, welfare state, then theoretically the people who choose to come to the US are going to be those who want to work and be productive) - so if federal govt. were more libertarian, the legal advantages of marriage would be moot, and nobody would have to be arguing over this nonsense.

I disagree with your equating it to racial issues.

The following is an excerpt from here: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/07/19/gay-is-no...

"Unalterable Definition

An additional problem with the "gay is the new black" argument is the complete disconnect between same-sex "marriage" and anti-miscegenation laws. First, there is a categorical disconnect. Miscegenation literally means "the interbreeding of people considered to be of different racial types." Ironically, the fact that homosexuals cannot "interbreed" shines a spotlight on the problem inherent in their logic. How can forbidding people who actually have the ability to interbreed be the same thing as acknowledging the fact that two people categorically lack that ability?8

Second, there is a definitional disconnect. The very definition of marriage eliminates the possibility of including same-sex couples. The word marriage has a long and well-recorded history; it means "the union of a man and a woman." Even in cultures that practice polygamy, the definition involves a man and several women. Therefore, while anti-miscegenation laws denied people a legitimate right, the same cannot be said concerning the denial of marriage to same-sex couples; one cannot be denied a right to something that doesn't exist.

It should be noted that the right to marry is one of the most frequently denied rights we have. People who are already married, 12-year-olds, and people who are too closely related are just a few categories of people routinely and/or categorically denied the right to marry. Hence, the charge that it is wrong to deny any person a "fundamental right" rings hollow. There has always been, and, by necessity, will always be discrimination in marriage laws.

Third, there is a historical disconnect. As early as the time of Moses, recorded history is replete with interracial marriages. In our own history, the marriage of John Rolfe and Pocahontas in the 17th century,9 along with the fact that anti-miscegenation laws were usually limited only to the intermarrying of certain "races" of people (i.e., black and white), stands as historical evidence of the legal and logical inconsistency of such laws. Thus, unlike same-sex "marriage" advocates, those fighting for the right to intermarry in the civil rights era had history on their side.

Fourth, there is a legal disconnect. One thing that seems to escape most people in this debate is the fact that homosexuals have never been denied the right to marry. They simply haven't had the right to redefine marriage. But don't take my word for it; listen to the Iowa Supreme Court in their decision in favor of same-sex "marriage": "It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry, it must be to someone of the opposite sex."

There it is: not only in black and white, but in a legal decision. Homosexuals haven't been deprived of any right. How, then, do those on the side of same-sex marriage continue to make the claim that this is a civil rights issue? The key is in the next paragraph:

[The] right of a gay or lesbian person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a person of the opposite sex is no right at all. Under such a law, gay or lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a committed personal relationship, as influenced by their sexual orientation, and gain the civil status and attendant benefits granted by the statute.

I feel the need to remind the reader that this is a legal decision, since phrases like "gay or lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a committed personal relationship" tend to sound out of place in such a document. Further, this is asinine logic. For example, following this line of reasoning, one could argue, "I have the right to join the military, but I am a pacifist. Therefore, I don't really have the right (since it would be repulsive to me). Therefore, we need to establish a pacifist branch of the military so that I can fulfill both my desire to join, and my desire not to fight."

However, this reasoning is critically important in order to make the next leap in logic. "[A] gay or lesbian person can only gain the same rights under the statute as a heterosexual person by negating the very trait that defines gay and lesbian people as a class---their sexual orientation."

"Pick your battles"

I think the overall point here, is being missed. What the Mozilla CEO incident shows, is that some gay couples feel that being able to get married is SO important to them, that they actually forced out a CEO. I gave you an examples of two very tangible items at stake on whether they can be married vs. civil unions, i.e., if they want to get married to a foreign national (and by the way, this is NOT that uncommon) and the inheritance taxes.

So, after all you have written regarding the reasons behind the law, etc., is it so important to you to keep it illegal for gays to get married, that you would just as soon watch those people vote for somebody like Hillary Clinton over Rand Paul (in a hypothetical match-up, if in fact they did not match on that issue) ? There is this concept of picking your battles. A gay couple who is not necessarily in agreement with socialist economics, if they have to make a choice of a lesser evil, is extremely likely to choose the lesser evil of socialism rather than give up on the perks of marriage.

The thing that needs to be weighed, is how much does it affect you adversely, vs. how the people who want this type of marriage are affected by it. Other people's choice about whom they wish to marry does not really affect me, so there is no way I am going to be a person standing in the way of other people's business. The CEO from Mozilla basically did get into their business by donating money to actively prevent gay couples from marrying, so why should anybody be surprised that eventually there would be some type of successful retaliation from the people who felt they were meddled with?

They should pick theirs better.

I'm under the impression that California unions are different from other states. If the gay people really care about the things you mention, then why don't they just emphasize making those things part of civil unions instead of trying to force approval and redefine marriage with newspeak? I don't care what they do in their private lives and I don't care if civil unions have the same legal features as marriage, but I don't like the way they are trying to force their lifestyle down peoples throats forcing their way into churches and peoples lives by suing them for not approving and for not wanting to participate in the celebration of their behavior. Inheritance taxes can be avoided with legal trusts. They aren't looking for equality, they want something more. They want their views to trump everybody elses. They want special rights and a protected status, and they want everybody who doesn't approve to pay for it and be shamed. Supporting a traditional definition of marriage doesn't stop gay people from having their relationships and it doesn't stop them from pursuing adding more features to civil unions. It's merely a step to avoid newspeak. Many people have religious beliefs which shape their views of marriage and society, and to persecute people for adhering to their religion is sort of like a hate crime.

seems like it was the path of least resistance

My impression is that they went for marriage because it appeared simpler than changing a lot of individual laws. Every statute with the word "married" would have to be changed to "married or in a civil union." The correct solution IMO, would be a single law that any marriage is a civil union for legal purposes, and replace the word marriage with civil union in ALL other laws. Then if some gays still want marriage, they could create their own church, (similar to Henry VIII when he wanted a divorce.)

But, I have not heard much from either side, gay groups nor religious groups, about that type of solution to eliminate the conflict.

Special rights … yes, I do see some of that from gay groups, but it isn't the gay wedding cakes, etc. It is things like the free housing for people with AIDS, lobbying for AIDS research (prioritizing disproportionately over other diseases) that really crosses the line. Also, the push for "hate crime" legislation by definition is the best example of converting a perceived inequality of the justice system into advantageous laws for a select group of people. But the argument that pushing for marriage is a part of that agenda, I don't buy it. You cannot deny many religious groups not only opposed gay marriage, but they also obstructed civil unions.

Finally, regarding forcing approval into peoples lives - comparing organized religion to the gay community - yes you do seethe latter pushing their weight. e.g., kids in public schools in NYC now are required to have HIV education, (notices get sent home with 1st grade children!) However, non-religious people in the US have had religion forced down their throats for decades: 1. Being forced to say the pledge of allegiance, "one nation under God" in school, 2. "In God we trust" on the money, ... the list would be endless. Some posters on this website even argue that the US is a Judeo-Christian country and that it should be accepted. While there definitely are some pretty nasty personalities amongst the gay extremists, there are also an awful lot of offensive religious extremists who have been stirring the hornet's nest for decades, e.g., the anti-sodomy laws that had been on the books until very recently, was a clear invasion of people's privacy (and 50 years ago, the people who advocated those laws were not even viewed as extreme.)


I don't think marriage is the real goal of many of the activists. Marriage is just one piece of the the puzzle in the attempt to force approval. There are those who want homosexuality promoted to small children in schools as healthy normal behavior, and this has already been going on. My brother said that a school in his town was encouraging small children to perform gay kissing several years ago. I don't think they should be encouraging any kind of sexuality with small children, let alone homosexuality. School should be about education, not social engineering. I don't think it's appropriate to compare religion with aberrant human sexuality. Religion is normal and widely accepted in most societies. I suppose people who hate sidewalks could say that countries with sidewalks are stirring hornets nests and forcing sidewalks down peoples throats, but that says more about the person than the country. It's not as if atheists are forced to have their kids pray, go to church, or pay tithes. Some are just overly touchy about any mention of a tradition they don't observe. If they don't believe in God, what difference does it make if the word is mentioned in a traditional pledge? Why not consider the pledge tradition rather than religion? Though I don't really think any sort of pledge of allegiance to a country is appropriate for kids, I'm not offended that kids say it.

maybe i heard it here

or at the ron paul C4l training in valley forge

amazing the power, command, media presence that 1 to 2% of the population commands

look at the power that little group wields

on tv, in mags, radio, newspaper damn near daily,,, look at all the laws and rules put in place for this group
people, gov't, business, schools and more have bent over backwards to accommodate this teeny group

elections biggest issues surround this group, make and break campaigns when 98% don't fall in this group

it just blows my mind when I think about it

and how everyone is into groups instead of individuals

Stakeholders - Agenda 21

Read any of your state/local govt documents and it mentions the 'stakeholders' - little groups that control the voice of the govt entity that over-ride the voice of the community and, of course, the individual. If you're not a part of a group you will not be heard. This comes from the UN's Agenda 21 on how govts are to do business on anything.

'The Consensus process: Developing an appropriate response'


I don't really think people have grasped the insidiousness of Agenda 21 and how it has pervaded everything.

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


Mozilla is a floating body of the Internet sea at the moment anyway - ( WebKit is the reason ) so they did him a favour.

What they did was still wrong. You may disagree with the man but you should respect his beliefs.

Cruel irony.

I hope he gets a better job.

Cyril's picture

Anyway.. this isn't such a big story as far as Eich is concerned

Anyway.. this isn't such a big story as far as Eich is concerned.

Really it isn't for him - Whoever knows who he is, also knows that he has literally hundreds of companies lined up waiting to hire him as a CEO. And throughout the world, btw.

What is despicable is how that reveals some more the spreading of nowadays' collectivist mentality trends, that everybody is prone to suffer. Soon or late.

INCLUDING in this country.


"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

In the interest of Equality, we can't allow freedom.

As often happens, a word, "Equality", that begins with a capital letter means the opposite of the same word, "equality", beginning with a lower case letter.

Apparently, the opinions of some are more Equal than those of others.

A propositional society can't allow freedom of speech. A system devoted to a proposition can't allow criticism of the proposition.

There are usually fundamental problems inherent to any proposition that requires the application of FORCE to ensure observance. The proposition has something fundamentally WRONG with it.

Natural loyalty does not have to be enforced.


Mozilla employees used Twitter to cast a vote of no confidence, that is a strange way to force a resignation. Looks like it could have been discussed, and the logical conclusion; (Support what you want, let us employees try to persuade otherwise, but we do not throw force you to make a decision.) I do not think his decision was forced, I think he did what he did willingly, after this show of support.

Cyril's picture

You're correct, actually. And let me show you how that works

You're correct, actually. And let me show you how that works:

Brendan Eich seemingly DID surrender to the thought police in his own company.

Thus, it was ALL VOLUNTARY from him.

And because I'm French I SURE CAN tell when someone surrenders, can't I ?



I HEREBY DECLARE that, from now on, I - and the other French - are the only ones allowed to make jokes about the French and surrendering.

If you are not French, you better watch what you say, you intolerant anti-French freak!

See how that works?


aka... Heck, this is Amerika ! Woohoo.

You're welcome !

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Once more, the world caves to

Once more, the world caves to the militant homosexual movement.

Love the whole rainbow thing that's supposed to mean DIVERSITY. Diversity, as long as you agree with US!

funny, no?

"Diversity" = We are all the same.

"diversity" = We are all different.

Cyril's picture

You got it right, my friend.

You got it right, my friend.


"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius