Mozilla CEO steps down due to donations to an anti gay marriage bill in California

[aGameOfThrones]

Mozilla CEO steps down due to political backlash

After a slew of criticism and increased scrutiny over his donations to an anti gay marriage bill in California, Mozilla's newly appointed CEO Brendan Eich has stepped down. The company recently published a blog post that read, "Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn't live up to it." This is despite many assertions Eich has made in several interviews in the past week that he would not resign, even though multiple employees have come forward on Twitter and elsewhere asking him to leave. Popular dating site OkCupid also made their opinions clear by refusing Firefox users access to its website for a short period. In an interview with Re/Code, Mozilla Executive Chairwoman Mitchell Baker said that Eich's ability to lead has been compromised due to the increased scrutiny over the issue. She also told the publication that Eich's decision to resign was his own and not due to any pressure from her or the board. There is currently no leading candidate to replace Eich, though efforts to seek one are underway.

http://www.engadget.com/2014/04/03/m...eo-steps-down/

[Matt Collins]

Lame... People should stand up for what they believe in, not cower to the masses.

[RM918]

Lame... People should stand up for what they believe in, not cower to the masses.

Gonna have to disagree in this instance. The guy supported using government power to force everyone to abide by his personal beliefs via Prop 8, and he's getting the backlash for it. Probably not for all the right reasons, but he deserves it.

[tsai3904]

He contributed to Ron Paul in the 90s.

[thoughtomator]

Time to switch to another product, when the company that maintains one you use succumbs to political correctness. It's the harbinger of quality doom.

[James Madison]

Gonna have to disagree in this instance. The guy supported using government power to force everyone to abide by his personal beliefs via Prop 8, and he's getting the backlash for it. Probably not for all the right reasons, but he deserves it.

The question you have to ask is if he supported government power to expand the state ownership of marriage, would this have happened? No, he would have been given a freakin medal.

[EBounding]

Gonna have to disagree in this instance. The guy supported using government power to force everyone to abide by his personal beliefs via Prop 8, and he's getting the backlash for it.

How was he using government force? If two people want a State marriage license but don't meet the requirements, is a gun being held against their heads?

[angelatc]

This is the biggest reason why the liberals are demanding election donations be transparent. They want nothing but to hunt you down and literally destroy you and everything you have if you dare to disagree with them on even a single issue.

Anybody who supports this deserves everything that's coming to them.

[69360]

I'm getting so sick of this. Gays demand tolerance yet are the most intolerant of all. FWIW I support gay marriage AND I support Eich's right to oppose it. I'm fine with him donating against prop 8. I like and will continue to use firefox and java, they are both fine products regardless of silly divisive political issues. It's getting so you can't hold an executive position if you don't kowtow to the gays.

[brandon]

Glad he stepped down, now I don't have to feel guilty about using firefox.

[angelatc]

I'm getting so sick of this. Gays demand tolerance yet are the most intolerant of all. FWIW I support gay marriage AND I support Eich's right to oppose it. I'm fine with him donating against prop 8. I like and will continue to use firefox and java, they are both fine products regardless of silly divisive political issues. It's getting so you can't hold an executive position if you don't kowtow to the gays.

Tell a liberal that you don't buy tickets to movies or watch television because of the politics of the talent, and they'll laugh and insist you're making too much of a big deal out of politics.

As they slowly take over the rest of the world. They pushed Glenn Beck out of Fox, they've pushed this guy out of a job...and we don't push back? We are what is known in the used car business as lay downs.

[squarepusher]

I have people in the Reddit comments section, tell me that not supporting gay marriage is equivalent to support black slavery 200 years ago. Anyone else this this is ridiculous?

[hardrightedge]

Are they gays going to ban javascript...it was written with hate...

[Mr.NoSmile]

Huh. Didn't think the guy would buckle. Tolerance! But hey, I rarely use Firefox anyway...

[Lucille]

I'm sure he was strongly encouraged to "step down." I love firefox, but now I think I'll boycott it! Which should I use?

Tolerant only of their own views.

"I’ve just flown in from California, where they’ve made homosexuality legal. I thought I’d get out before they make it compulsory."
--Bob Hope

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/04/spelling-it-out.html

This is for the benefit of all the logical slowpokes. It is logic so basic that even those who are intellectually limited to the rhetorical level should be able to follow it:

• If you have the right to demand that I bake you a cake, then I have the right to force you to attend church, mosque, or synagogue.
• If you have the right to fire me because you don't like my political position on the legality of homogamy, I have the right to fire you because I don't like your political position on the legality of homosexuality.]
• If you have the right to deny me access to the news media because I don't believe in climate change, I have the right to deny you access to the media because you don't believe in God.

If atheists truly want a power struggle for the right to be intolerant, Christians will eventually engage and win. Because we will die before we will give up our beliefs and you will not. We invented the Crusade and the Inquisition, two institutions so historically intimidating that atheists still shiver and tell each other scary stories about them centuries after the event.

Uh oh...

[GunnyFreedom]

[RM918]

How was he using government force? If two people want a State marriage license but don't meet the requirements, is a gun being held against their heads?

He was /supporting/ using government force, as I said. The government should not be defining marriage, period.

[RM918]

This is the biggest reason why the liberals are demanding election donations be transparent. They want nothing but to hunt you down and literally destroy you and everything you have if you dare to disagree with them on even a single issue.

Anybody who supports this deserves everything that's coming to them.

Is the LGBT community largely hypocritical on this issue? Absolutely. Many wouldn't give a second thought toward voting for the government to point a gun at your head if you deny them services or disapprove of their personal life. It is still, however, wrong of them to do so and no less wrong when the other side joins in on the tug of war to get the government to enforce /their/ ideals.

If this guy was just putting forward his views, I wouldn't care that much. Ignore him. But joining in on the fray to have HIS morality made law? That's no better than his opponents. Get the government completely out of marriage, any action that goes in the opposite direction is just further tyranny.

[James Madison]

I have people in the Reddit comments section, tell me that not supporting gay marriage is equivalent to support black slavery 200 years ago. Anyone else this this is ridiculous?

Yes.

Gay marriage is legal in all 50 states -- the State may not recognize it -- but gays are free to associate with their peers and form private contracts, which is all marriage should be anyway.

[PaulConventionWV]

Gonna have to disagree in this instance. The guy supported using government power to force everyone to abide by his personal beliefs via Prop 8, and he's getting the backlash for it. Probably not for all the right reasons, but he deserves it.

You clearly don't understand what is meant by "gay marriage." He's not advocating force. There is no force involved in not giving marriage licenses to a group of people.

[PaulConventionWV]

This is the biggest reason why the liberals are demanding election donations be transparent. They want nothing but to hunt you down and literally destroy you and everything you have if you dare to disagree with them on even a single issue.

Anybody who supports this deserves everything that's coming to them.

How ironic, coming from you, the self-appointed science czar who can't or won't even defend her own beliefs about science when questioned. Yes, I'm talking about you deliberately avoiding my questions weeks ago and refusing to discuss even after I provided the parameters you asked for.

[PaulConventionWV]

He was /supporting/ using government force, as I said. The government should not be defining marriage, period.

Yes, so how is it supporting force to not give the government control of marriage for the gays? The government not giving out licenses does not equate to banning marriage, it only bans the marriage license. Do you understand the difference?

[PaulConventionWV]

Is the LGBT community largely hypocritical on this issue? Absolutely. Many wouldn't give a second thought toward voting for the government to point a gun at your head if you deny them services or disapprove of their personal life. It is still, however, wrong of them to do so and no less wrong when the other side joins in on the tug of war to get the government to enforce /their/ ideals.

If this guy was just putting forward his views, I wouldn't care that much. Ignore him. But joining in on the fray to have HIS morality made law? That's no better than his opponents. Get the government completely out of marriage, any action that goes in the opposite direction is just further tyranny.

You still don't get it. Please educate yourself on the difference between not handing out marriage licenses and making marriage illegal.

[The Free Hornet]

He was /supporting/ using government force, as I said. The government should not be defining marriage, period.

I'm in the "let marriage be whatever" camp and have to agree with getting government out of marriage. That said, once in, it is hard to referee the inevitable squabbles. Regulation really is like a shotgun marriage gone worse.

Here is the text of Prop 8:

Section I. Title

This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act."

Section 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution, to read:

Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

There's not enough to it for me to give a damn. I assumed the big issues were Federal anyway as they relate to tax and health insurance law. *shrug*

Damn shame to see the PC claim another victim. I do like how Prop 8 doesn't actually define marriage, and only sets which marriages California acknowledges.

Yes, so how is it supporting force to not give the government control of marriage for the gays? The government not giving out licenses does not equate to banning marriage, it only bans the marriage license. Do you understand the difference?

Marriage is a legal shelter that can keep government's hands off some of your money (in many circumstances). Using state force to limit who can get that shelter makes you the agressor. If it were a gun, you might understand. Might.

[Feeding the Abscess]

It's not just about his personal beliefs. He was the head of a company, and because of some of his stances, his consumers were facing reduced access to services. If this happened to enough people and with enough services, Mozilla's userbase could drop significantly, and Mozilla would take a massive hit financially.

Instead of crying about it, libertarians should be using this as a strike in our favor for a private property society. It'd be pretty hard for someone to make an argument that businesses all across the country would ban blacks, gays, etc from their stores/establishments after this was brought up.

[RM918]

You still don't get it. Please educate yourself on the difference between not handing out marriage licenses and making marriage illegal.

I know exactly what the difference is and as was pointed out by Hornet, we're unfortunately right now living in a non-ideal environment where marriage licenses /do/ matter, for tax reasons, heredity, custody, insurance, all manner of things. Unfortunately once you get the government in on defining what a marriage is or is not, something it should in no way be touching whatsoever, it needs to be applied equally.

This guy wanted marriage legally defined as between a man and a woman and he wanted gay couples not to have any of the recognition under the law that straight couples do, entirely due to his personal beliefs, and he's getting societal backdraft. Nobody's getting arrested, nobody's getting deported, this situation is entirely between private entities with no violence employed at all and so I see nothing wrong with it.

[fr33]

I'm in the "legalize gay marriage camp because govt licensing isn't going away any time soon" but I'm also annoyed by the gay mafia and their persecution of anyone that doesn't agree with them.

[squarepusher]

I'm in the "legalize gay marriage camp because govt licensing isn't going away any time soon" but I'm also annoyed by the gay mafia and their persecution of anyone that doesn't agree with them.

however comparing the plight of a gay person to that of a slave is reprehensible in my opinion

[56ktarget]

Funny how paulites believe in the magic of the "free market" until they disagree with what happens...

[Anti-Neocon]

Funny how paulites believe in the magic of the "free market" until they disagree with what happens...

I actually agree with the condescending liberal troll.