Of course not. But they should be labeled as people who are wrong on a certain issue, no more and no less. And that should have implications for the societal leadership roles that we entrust them with.
I have no vested interest in SSM. I just cannot condone the idea that bigotry is just a different kind of value from tolerance. Those who do have a vested interest in SSM are those who wish to have a same-sex relationship and be left in peace. Those who actively oppose it, like this guy, despite the fact that it affects them not at all, have an ideological axe to grind.
It would depend on what actions they took concerning whatever they were wrong about. I have some people in my family who oppose SSM based on their religious beliefs who are far from hateful people by nature. They would never be intentionally or maliciously cruel to anyone. They just haven’t been exposed to the realities of being a gay citizen in the US. They have no strong reason to question their beliefs. If they began anything like the Phelps family that would be another matter.
I agree. I think part of the process is making more people aware of the realities of any issue and giving them some motivation to seriously think about it. To present another perspective. I think a lot of people have no idea how the generational indoctrination against our gay citizens has harmed so many people.
In some Mercury News columns about this, it was mentioned that one of the reason’s Eich got into trouble was that he refused to discuss the issue. Not with his board, not with his customers, not with the community. Either he is totally clueless about the role of a CEO, or he really is a bigot. And yes, bigot, since the SSM marriage issue has moved on quite a bit since Prop 8, and if he had moved with it, there would be no issue.
Having worked in Silicon Valley for 17 years and in tech for 35, I don’t see a ton of religion. No one minds it as far as I can tell - but religion does not give anyone a pass for obnoxious positions here.
BTW, they also mention that Eich was offered a job at Mozilla, which he refused. A CEO who is damaging the company should leave - it probably doesn’t happen nearly as often as it should.
Surely, someone in this thread has posted this already, but I didn’t see it. It was posted by Brendan Eich on March 26.
[QUOTE=Brendan Eich]
Inclusiveness at Mozilla
I am deeply honored and humbled by the CEO role. I’m also grateful for the messages of support. At the same time, I know there are concerns about my commitment to fostering equality and welcome for LGBT individuals at Mozilla. I hope to lay those concerns to rest, first by making a set of commitments to you. More important, I want to lay them to rest by actions and results.
A number of Mozillians, including LGBT individuals and allies, have stepped forward to offer guidance and assistance in this. I cannot thank you enough, and I ask for your ongoing help to make Mozilla a place of equality and welcome for all. Here are my commitments, and here’s what you can expect:
• Active commitment to equality in everything we do, from employment to events to community-building.
• Working with LGBT communities and allies, to listen and learn what does and doesn’t make Mozilla supportive and welcoming.
• My ongoing commitment to our Community Participation Guidelines, our inclusive health benefits, our anti-discrimination policies, and the spirit that underlies all of these.
• My personal commitment to work on new initiatives to reach out to those who feel excluded or who have been marginalized in ways that makes their contributing to Mozilla and to open source difficult. More on this last item below.
I know some will be skeptical about this, and that words alone will not change anything. I can only ask for your support to have the time to “show, not tell”; and in the meantime express my sorrow at having caused pain.
Mozilla is a movement composed of different people around the world, working productively together on a common mission. This is important to our ability to work and grow around the world.
Many Mozillians and others know me as a colleague or a friend. They know that I take people as they come and work with anyone willing to contribute. At the same time, I don’t ask for trust free of context, or without a solid structure to support accountability. No leader or person who has a privileged position should. I want to be held accountable for what I do as CEO. I fully expect you all to do so.
I am committed to ensuring that Mozilla is, and will remain, a place that includes and supports everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, age, race, ethnicity, economic status, or religion.
You will see exemplary behavior from me toward everyone in our community, no matter who they are; and the same toward all those whom we hope will join, and for those who use our products. Mozilla’s inclusive health benefits policies will not regress in any way. And I will not tolerate behavior among community members that violates our Community Participation Guidelines or (for employees) our inclusive and non-discriminatory employment policies.
You’ll also see more from Mozilla under my leadership in the way of efforts to include potential contributors, especially those who lack privilege. This entails several projects, starting with Project Ascend, which is being developed by Lukas Blakk. I intend to demonstrate with meaningful action my commitment to a Mozilla that lives up to its ideals, including that of being an open and inclusive community.
[/QUOTE]
You said both pro-life and pro-choice, anyway. wolfpup said those that actively oppose same-sex marriage where it doesn’t affect them do so because they have an axe to grind.
So even assuming that men don’t have a vested interest in abortion (which Marley has declined to assume), it still doesn’t follow, because the point was about opposition, not about having or voicing an opinion.
I did provide an answer. wolfpup said the only people with a vested interest in SSM are those who want to get married, and people who oppose it have an axe to grind. You asked about abortion, which isn’t comparable.
I don’t know how vested it is, but I’m not married and have no immediate plans to marry, and yet I support SSM in large part because of an interest in the idea of the citizens of my country not being denied equal treatment under the law for an irrelevant distinction.
i.e. I’m not pro-gay, or even pro-marriage, but pro-equality.
I’m also male and pro-choice, incidentally, and largely for the same reason as above. Otherwise, the two issues are not especially analogous and I don’t see what magellan hopes to gain by invoking abortion in the first place.
I think your ridiculous question has already been answered about half a dozen times so far.
I might also add that I oppose misogyny, even though I’m not a woman; I oppose racism, even though I’m not a visible minority; I oppose anti-semitism, even though I’m not Jewish, and yes, I oppose homophobia, even though I’m not gay. Is it too much to hope that you can see the logic here?
In the abortion debate both sides claim, with at least some degree of reasonableness from their perspective, that the other position causes harm. If SSM is legalized, who is getting harmed again? The attempts to prove that someone is being harmed has been refuted in court and in the literature. That is where the argument breaks down.
**Thread Title: Mozilla CEO pays the price for not being in favor of gay marriage
**And, with my last involvement in this runaround of a thread, I will remind those involved of the fallacy in the thread title. The misleading notion that someone lost a job for not being in favor of something.
We live in the Land Of The Free. When one actively participates in the denial of freedom for people he don’t like, that person is an Un-American Fuck-stik.
“Conservatives”, please listen closely, this is important…
“Not being in favor of” something is not the same thing as “Actively attempting to deny the Freedom of someone else to choose that thing”.
Get it?
(That last question was rhetorical, of course you don’t. )
I like your last paragraph, and I would agree with each of the declarations you’ve made. But here’s what I was questioning:
[QUOTE=wolfpup]
Those who do have a vested interest in SSM are those who wish to have a same-sex relationship and be left in peace. Those who actively oppose it, like this guy, despite the fact that it affects them not at all, have an ideological axe to grind.
[/QUOTE]
The first sentence seem to be saying that anyone who is not directly affected by the issue should stay out of it. And if they don’t, they necessarily have an ideological axe to grand.
Perhaps I should pause there and ask you what you meant by the phrase, “have an ideological axe to grind”. Can you explain what you meant?
Other than couples who are getting married, who is affected by SSM? What does it mean to be affected (directly or indirectly) by the marriage of strangers? What form does that affect take?