> The only reason why Brendan Eich's contribution should be an issue is because he's now the CEO of Mozilla and people are afraid that his personal beliefs on the matter will affect Mozilla.
What proof do we have that his personal beliefs will affect Mozilla? Guilty until proven innocent I see.
Mixing "people are afraid" and "proof" doesn't exactly work. This isn't a criminal court; there's no need to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not even a civil court, so there's no need for a preponderance of evidence.
This person donated money to a campaign to remove from them one of the basic civil rights of man, and they're understandably worried about what might happen because of that. Additionally, they're unhappy with having a person who has done so in such an important and visible position of something they love.
And, in response, they're conducting a campaign to remove from Eich one of the basic civil rights of man - free speech (including political speech). You don't lose that right just because you become a CEO.
No government is restricting Mr. Eich's freedom of speech. In fact, no one is, at all. People are using their free speech to counter his. This is the system working as intended.
(Also, people desiring or acting to remove him from a position as CEO is not an issue of freedom of speech. There is no right to being a CEO.)
It's really kind of interesting how in the last few years people with shitty opinions get all mad and indignant if they get flack for it, as if "free speech" is really "freedom from criticism of speech".
> And, in response, they're conducting a campaign to remove from Eich one of the basic civil rights of man - free speech (including political speech).
No, they aren't. Eich exercised his free speech, and advocated that other people exercise their right to vote in a particular way.
They are exercising their right to free speech, and advocating that other people exercise their right to free association in a particular way.
They don't like the way Eich exercised his right to free speech, or the action it advocated, but they don't argue that he should not have been permitted to exercise that right.
Well, this isn't a court of law. This is about attempting to predict his future behavior, and how said behavior will materially affect the lives of thousands of people (both Mozilla employees and community members who are affected by Mozilla's role in the community).
Personally, I'm willing to give Eich the benefit of the doubt. But I also think that his actions as CEO during the next couple of months should be watched carefully, and held to a higher standard than if the CEO was someone who had done nothing at all with regards to gay marriage. Eich did something 6 years ago that negatively impacted a lot of people, and he needs to show that this action does not reflect his behavior as CEO, and the best way to do that is to be proactive about making things better. That doesn't mean maintaining the current health care benefits for gay employees (as he promised to do). This means implementing new policies to improve things for gay employees, or performing some form of community outreach related to this goal, or even publicly supporting a gay rights organization.
> Well, this isn't a court of law. This is about attempting to predict his future behavior
It has been like two weeks? I think we need to stop predicting. Since IAC is boycotting Mozilla Firefox browser by displaying message to Firefox user, will IAC now fire these employees? Will managers be forced to not to promote these employees? That would be against labor law but also hypocrite coming from the company that's blocking Mozilla Firefox, wouldn't it?
Let's stop the arguging. I can find someone among the gays who don't support abortion at all and if he or she is placed as CEO the pro-choice community will scream at him/her. This is now a never-ending drama.
Huh? We don't need to stop predicting yet; it hasn't been long enough yet to draw any conclusions about how he's guiding Mozilla in regards to this issue.
As for IAC, I don't understand your comment at all. Why would IAC penalize employees whose personal beliefs disagree with this public action? There's absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that a company requires all of its employees to hold the same beliefs that the company is publicly promoting.
Why would IAC penalize employees whose personal beliefs disagree with this public action? There's absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that a company requires all of its employees to hold the same beliefs that the company is publicly promoting.
You just made my point. Isn't a CEO also an employee? Just because he is the most powerful figure in the company doesn't mean he has to hold the same beliefs that the company is publicly promoting, which is equality and openness to all as a private citizen. He will have to hold the same belief as Mozilla as a CEO. Mozilla and its community accepts there are people who believe and disagree on marriage equality.
Huh? We don't need to stop predicting yet; it hasn't been long enough yet to draw any conclusions about how he's guiding Mozilla in regards to this issue.
Set a deadline. I'll give you a month to talk about this. Then? What's next? Exactly. It won't change anything. He's the CEO. He won't step down. Mozilla will continue to function. People will keep an eye on Mozilla. That's it. So tell me, what good is your prediction? More articles and speculations and rants and wars?
Why should you or anyone draw any conclusion? What conclusion? What good is your prediction to this non-stop no-win situation? Just as I said I can find a pro-life person to manage the company will receive the same doubt: what good is you or anyone continue to make "prediction"? If your prediction only causes more useless non-stop repeating arguments, that kind of prediction is just noise simply because nothing new will ever come out.
I get the feeling you haven't actually bothered to read anything I've said on this subject, because you're arguing as though I'm calling for Brendan Eich's head, when in fact I've said multiple times that I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and wait to see how he actually acts, rather than draw conclusions based on a personal action he took 6 years ago.
When you have a CEO who openly believes that a class of people (whether that's gays, women, hispanics, etc.) are inherently "bad people", there's cause for concern about how that might affect the running of a large organization (whose employees are bound to include people openly belonging to that group). His stance and position alone could be enough to alienate potential talent. Nobody can say he's "guilty of adversely affecting Mozilla" at this point, but the situation does raise those types of questions.
What proof do we have that his personal beliefs will affect Mozilla? Guilty until proven innocent I see.