Mozilla foundation's new CEO causes concern due to anti-gay-marriage views

in legal on (#3HA)
story imageThe guy co-founded Mozilla and served as Netscape's chief architect . He invented Javascript . He's been Mozilla's chief technical officer for 9 years. On March 24th, Brendan Eich became the Mozilla Foundation's CEO - and members of Mozilla's staff promptly demanded that he step down . Why? Because Brendan Eich is anti-gay-marriage.

The BBC , CFO World , and others are reporting that online dating site OK Cupid is notifying users of Firefox of the views of the Mozilla Foundation's new CEO - and requesting that they use another browser to access the site. It's not quite a boycott - users can still click through to access the site while using Firefox - but it's definitely a statement. This isn't the first time this kind of thing has happened. Hobby Lobby , Chick-Fil-A , and Costco have all experienced similar backlashes.

Mark Surman, XO of Mozilla, says:
"I worry that we do a bad job of explaining ourselves, that people are angry and don't know who we are or where we stand. And, I worry that in the time it takes to work this through and explain ourselves the things I love about Mozilla will be deeply damaged."

At what point do a person's political, personal, or religious views outweigh their qualifications for leadership - and does using Firefox in any way imply support of these views?

Re: Different levels (Score: 1, Insightful)

by on 2014-04-02 22:49 (#YJ)

I'm going to disagree with you there. Both sides in any debate have rights. A customer may have a right to buy something, but a store has a right to not sell and a right to refuse service. Sometimes, for the good of society, we curtail the service provider's rights. Examples would include Utilities, Telecom, Housing, Banking, Transportation. Big ticket items where there are de facto oligarchies entrenched are far too powerful to let them do however they please, so we have laws to (try to) limit that.

That doesn't mean that you can force a baker to sell you a wedding cake when doing so violates their beliefs. Suck it up and move on. Someone else will be happy enough to take your money.

Same thing on health care. No company should be forced to provide it, let alone dictated to which specific features it will/must include. Some companies will provide it, others will not. Let the market decide. Personally, I'd rather have the extra money in my pocket (Especially since I've been laid off four times in ten years. That's money that would have gone straight down the toilet, and instead helped me keep food on the table. Yeah, something bad requiring a hospital stay could have happened. I would have crossed that bridge when I got to it.).

By saying that you hope SCOTUS "knocks some sense into that company" what you're saying is that you're right, they're wrong, and you're willing to use the threat of force, via the government, to get your way.

Here's a simpler idea: Go shop some place else.

What I suspect will actually happen is that people will continue shopping at because they like the product selection and prices, and that's more important than maintaining your ideals. So instead of tightening your belt and going some place whose standards you agree with, you'll soap box against . Either you have integrity or you do not, and crying over morality speaks volumes.

There's one side of the debate that constantly screams about equality and respect over one's choices, yet it's ALWAYS apparent that it really only applies when they agree with you.
Post Comment
39, twenty or 86: which of these is the highest?