> That is not discrimination.

Genuinely curious, how isn't that discrimination? Since when did it being his own money in his free time stop it being a discriminatory stance?

It may be a discriminatory stance, I am not certain since I am not an US citizen and haven't really dug into the details of what that law would imply.

It is not discrimination because there is not any individual being discriminated against. He did not use his position to discriminate against gay people for example.

He outright did the exact opposite and wrote that he was going to push for equality at Mozilla. I do not believe that he would discriminate anyone at Mozilla that was married to someone of the same sex.

I believe that a person can have professional courtesy.

This seems like a very 'pick and choose' definition of discrimination. I don't think it holds up — professional courtesy within one particular job and an outward political attempt, using his vast wealth and influence, to prevent a certain group of people from having certain rights, these don't have any relation to each other.

"private money" ... his salary, paid in small part by my donation to Mozilla, going to a cause that I definitely don't support. Seems we are full circle.

Is it your argument that he should only be paid his salary if he passes a litmus test? Or should he be paid his salary for the work he agreed to perform in exchange for it? In any case, I don't know that firing him was about his opinion (I hope not), but about the distraction the press coverage caused. I found it unfortunate nonetheless, even as a gay activist.

No, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy in being concerned that donations to Mozilla can go to funding causes somebody doesn't believe in while also being upset for firing the CEO for funding causes somebody doesn't believe in.

I contacted Mozilla and told them I would never give them another nickle as long as their CEO was evil. I find it hard to believe you were ok with it.

If you spend your salary on supporting a cause or movement with which we disagree, you are fired!

Well that makes you a homophobic and you should be forced to take another lower position at your company. Also, people are going to post your name and image and say that you are a gay-hating bigot.

Because that is just, right? You supported the same thing as Brendan.

Happy to be an example against discrimination. :)

People should be held accountable for such views. It should be clear to anyone that having "an opinion" which discriminates a whole group of people is not that same as sharing an opinion about Star Wars..

> People should be held accountable for such views

Well, in my country (and I think in the entire EU) what you want is very illegal and is taken very seriously. I think you choose a very fitting username. ;)

Hate speech is illegal in the EU. They haven't taken such opinions lightly when announced publicly.

Edit: btw with held accountable I don't mean that is should be illegal. I meant that people have a right to react to "injustice"

What do you talk about? Hate speech is not illegal, at least not at EU-level. Where I live, we don't even have a term for hate speech because it's not really happening here that much.

So people should lose their livelihoods for having controversial views that the elites in big cities don't like? It isn't even as if his opinion was interfering with his professional responsibilities.

Same-sex marriage was a very hot topic just a few years ago, should we unperson everyone who was ever against the cause? Even though the entire point of having freedom of speech and association is to allow safe political discourse?

Where would you draw the line? Next do we start firing everyone who supports Trump? Every conservative? Anyone against late-term abortions?

It's a shame that you don't seem to appreciate the value of diversity of thought.

> Even though the entire point of having freedom of speech and association is to allow safe political discourse?

It's to reduce the need for violent revolution against the government by making such discourse that challenges the government safe from retaliation by the government. It is not to make discourse free of consequence more generally. That may in some cases be desirable on its own merits, but it is not part of the “entire point of having freedom of speech”.