It was never really a prong, though, in the strictest sense. More importantly, it seems like a non sequitur in the context of talking about whether or not people use Mozilla products.
:dubious: Since opposition to SSM is all about malice and bigotry of course the reaction would have been different. Just as the reaction would be different depending on if someone was fired for supporting or opposing interracial marriage. This is after all morally and rationally speaking one of the most one sided issues around, with the anti-side having no remotely good arguments at all for their position.
Let’s put that to the test: Would you be more supportive, or less, if he contributed to support same-sex marriage?
Ok.
I spoke imprecisely. (And speculatively.)
I sense that there would be some support for a legal framework that would protect a fired worker who lost his job for monetarily supporting same-sex marriage initiatives, but no support for a legal framework that would support a worker fired for monetarily supporting anti-same-sex marriage initiatives.
Perhaps I am wrong.
No, it would be the same. You’re simply playing pointless word games with perspective. It accomplishes nothing, it’s not useful in any way, and it doesn’t even work from a “certain point of view” ideology.
In both cases (this one and your hypothetical) the outcry is about being against marriage equality. It’s not public vs CEOs or public vs corporations or even CEOs vs Boards of Directors. It’s about the bad press that comes from acting against prevalent public opinion when you’re trying to sell something. All reversing the roles does is change which actor is the “bad guy”, it doesn’t change the reasoning behind it. If I swap the names of Sherlock and Moriarty, does the new Sherlock suddenly become the hero of the story?
Exactly. As I’ve said before, there are some political issues on which there’s legitimate disagreement. Bricker and I, for example, disagree on the wisdom of charter schools, on the extent to which government should cover health care costs, on the continued relevance of unions, and many other subjects; our disagreements are energetic, but I think we both hold respectable, defensible positions.
And then there are other political disagreements. Someone in 1960 who tried to keep Ruby Bridges from going to a whites-only school, even if their opposition consisted of nothing more than a strongly-worded letter to the editor, was a bigot, and did not hold a respectable position. If the person actively tried to keep Miss Bridges from exercising her rights as a citizen, I have no problem with having some economic pressure applied to them personally.
Similarly, this, Eich man has decided to contribute actively to an effort to deny rights to his fellow citizens. He’s “suffered” for his actions (and by “suffered” I mean “lost an incredibly lucrative job and having to cry into his giant stacks of hundred dollar bills”). But his suffering is nothing compared to the suffering of gay couples at the hands of him and his fellow bigots.
Looking at this series of events and focusing criticism on the economic pressure applied against Eich is totally ass-backwards.
There’s no evidence that he was fired, so that’s a false equivalence.
The same: I support the right of the company to fire him regardless.
I would be disapproving of a company that did either. But I would be LESS disapproving in this case than in a case in which the company fired the pro-SSM person.
In case that’s double negatively confusing: I wouldn’t like either firing. I’d support the legal right to make either firing.
With this case, I can sympathize. I can sympathize much less with the Christian company.
Good point.
If he was constructively fired – “asked to resign” – my point stands. If he decided on his own to resign, then no one is injured, and there is no complaint.
Both sides say he chose to step down. I doubt we’ll ever know 100% either way.
Legally, you support the same rights for both sides. Personally, you support one cause over the other. That’s not double negatively confusing to me-that’s just being a decent human.
Sure. And your objection is valid. If he did indeed choose to step down, that’s on him.
I believe it’s possible to oppose same-sex marriage and be a decent human being.
Before discussions here convinced me otherwise, I did not favor same-sex marriage. Admittedly I may be a prejudiced observer, but I think i was still a decent human being. I had simply never heard and understood the compelling argument showing why my position was in error.
I got Bricker to concede a point! What do I win? 
Just teasing.
To answer your theoretical though; I would view that employee as being in the right since they are helping expand the protections afforded by marriage rather than trying to inject their religious beliefs into law.
At the time when Eich made this donation to the Prop 8 campaign, Obama (still a Presidential candidate at the time) clearly stated his strong opposition to Prop 8 in a formal announcement. He stated his support for same-sex civil unions throughout his first campaign. He called for the repeal of DOMA. He supported expansion of federal hate crimes laws to cover hate crimes against gays. He supported same-sex couple adoptions. He repealed “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”.
Yeah, Obama must be a homophobic bigot just like Eich. He should step down. :rolleyes:
The decency does not lie in the morality, but in the delineation between morality and legality-supporting equality for friend and foe alike.
Just my opinion.
He shoulda just said his views have evolved, made a $10,000 donation to a pro-SSM group, kept his job. Problem solved.
[QUOTE= Miller]
I can’t speak for anyone else, but in those circumstances, I’m pretty sure my reaction would still be, “Man, homophobes sure are assholes.”
[/QUOTE]
To clarify your position, it is OK to fire someone for opposing SSM, but not for supporting it. So you don’t endorse the position that people should/should not be fired for their political positions. This is a special case, and it depends not on principle but on whose ox is being gored. Is that correct?
Regards,
Shodan
Mozilla freely chose not to have this particular CEO anymore.
Exactly. The thread title is misleading. For instance, no doubt there are fast-food corporations whose chief executives “don’t support” gay marriage. And then there’s Chick-Fil-A. Something that goes far beyond “not supporting”.
Point being, this was not a private or personal belief, this was flagrant activism. One could argue that he has the right to free speech, but first of all let’s call it what it is, not try to disguise it as a personal belief that wasn’t anyone’s business. Secondly, having exercised his right of free speech and made the nature and strength of his beliefs known, Mozilla stakeholders got to exercise their right to publicly wish he would go away. Which he had the good grace to do.