That is the problem, the inability of a lot of people to disagree with each other. This completely good/bad classification of people. People can be wrong about gay marriage, abortion, climate change, immigration and a lot of different issues and still be right about a lot of other things and have other virtues and be good persons overall.

You’re right. The difficulty here is that you can’t be wrong about gay marriage and also be be a trusted leader of gay people.

If you hold strong opinions that are counter to your company’s manifesto, you might not want to be in charge of it.

Of course. But as a CEO if you decide to wear your politics on your sleeve (which nobody forces you to) then you are making a statement which will likely beget a response.

If a dutch CEO would come out to vote for Geert Wilders' PVV (our ultra rightwing populist party) I'm pretty sure that would have an immediate effect on the company and on its remaining employees.

Employees as a rule want to be associated with companies and CEOs that they feel have their interests at heart. Plenty of them can be 'bought', which is why so many terrible companies with terrible leadership flourish. But Mozilla made it quite plain that they weren't going to be 'that sort of company' and if you say that loud enough and often enough then there are certain things you should not do.

>But as a CEO if you decide to wear your politics on your sleeve (which nobody forces you to)

So you have to shut up and kowtow to the popular opinion?

Society is going to weird places.

Brendan Eich chose to apply for a leadership position in an organization which wears its stance on diversity issues on the proverbial sleeve. For some Mozilla folks that I know, this stance was a contributing factor in deciding where to work. Going on public record with an opposing stance on this was obviously controversial.

Given that access to health care is a major pain point for queer people in general and health care benefits are employer provided in the US made the matter even more pressing.

So yes, if you choose to apply for a position in an org that has a public stance on an issue, choosing to wear the opposing flag on your sleeve may not be the best move. You’re however, absolutely entitled to your opinion - you just have to deal with the results of your statements.

We used to literally blacklist people over their political leanings. Had congressional hearings and everything. This is just people being vocal.

To be clear, the blacklisting was not, in theory, over "political leanings": it was for belonging to an organization that explicitly advocated the violent overthrow of the U.S. government. There were a lot of issues with the McCarthy era, but this detail is important and generally glossed over.

I see your point but seen in historical light, if he would have more successful (than current management) in bringing Mozilla profit, the same employees might still have their jobs.

The 'argument from alternative universe' is not one that can be won from either side of a debate. What happened happened, this is where we are. All the people here arguing that Eich should not have been ousted are making an argument that might have held up but we will never know. Maybe half of Mozilla would have resigned and then they would not have had those particular jobs either, maybe Eich would have come around after a discussion with employees that were directly affected by his donation.

But we'll never know so this is not a fruitful branch of the discussion.

I think you are confused about your spot in the thread.