That's your choice to make.

That said, most rational people can identify an opinion they disagree with without resorting to threatening the livelihood of the person espousing it.

The man made a $1,000 donation to support a view he believed in. He did nothing illegal or wrong and pledged promoting equality at Mozilla.

He then had a large concerted smear campaign run against him, with major sites threatening to block Firefox access unless Mozilla took action.

We have no way to know if you'd actually quit if you were in this situation; more likely you simply disagree with this view and see this as the easiest way to justify this situation as 'right'.

I disagree with Brandon Eich on this point, but I also disagree with how Mozilla and members of the LGBT community handled this.

The way this played out, and what it represents, introduces a chilling effect on honest political discussion/participation for anyone with opinions that might be considered offensive.

It sets a very bad precedent.

You can phrase it however you want and make it seem as innocent as you can. But you can't hide from the fact that he donated to a proposition that would curtail the rights of someone based on their sexual preference.

He made his choice and that stood against everything Mozilla stands for (freedom, privacy, etc etc). As a result of him making his choice he faced s lot of pressure, quite rightfully, and then he decided to step down. His choice.

You can speculate as much as you like about the ins and outs of it but it's just that. Speculation.

I don't think it is innocent; I think it's overtly offensive to many, including some of my best friends.

I also don't think this is a good precedent to set.

Yes, in this case it's all good and virtuous, but there is now an amorphously defined line for what you can or can't support politically.

So you think that if the programer has the wrong political views, his loops and arrays stink?

No, that would be akin to thinking someone who is gay shouldn't have the same rights as someone who is straight. Although not quite as bad as that since political views are chosen.

Anyone who holds such discriminatory views should recognise that it will reduce their ability as a team player; it may not be enough to justify them losing their job, but it definitely counts as a negative against their skillset.

Go back and purge all their commits for wrongthink. We can fix the bugs later. That way we can remove the unspoken name from the contributors list and shame them for eternity.

>"we need good people first then good code will come later"

- paraphrased from a node.js zealot

He wasn't working as a programmer.

He was the head of the company. The figurehead.

My problem is that the law isn't enforced evenly. Either you are allowed to discriminate based on race/creed/sexuality/politics or you aren't. As it stands, the BBC can discriminate like this:

>A range of British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) television departments, programmes, and radio stations are currently offering highly desirable, paid internships, but white people are prohibited from applying.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/670266/BBC-advert-white-peo...

Positive discrimination has been endlessly debated but to wheel it out here without even bothering to acknowledge the nuances of the debate is a touch lazy and intellectually ham-fisted, surely?

And to use the Daily Express to support any your point is going to reflect fairly poorly on your stance for anyone that is aware of it's reputation.

Also - are we talking about the US or the UK here? Mixing the two situations together in a single discussion is going to make a murky issue even murkier.

I'm not sure how "whites aren't accepted" is positive in any sane meaning of the word. For me, the situation is very clear - either you say "discrimination on racial basis is prohibited" and then "whites can't apply" must be prohibited too, or you say "discrimination on racial basis is OK, as long as it's against right class of people" - and then this should be in the open, not "can't discriminate".

The BBC is complying with the law. The law is not being enforced unevenly, because there's no enforcement action required there.

> Either you are allowed to discriminate based on race/creed/sexuality/politics or you aren't.

That's not what the law says. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents

The Equality Act allows people to discriminate if it's a proportionate way to achieve a legitimate aim.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/discrimination/what-are-th...