Did Eich make any statements at all? I recall he was cancelled out because someone found a donation of his to a political cause. He literally just gave money to a cause.

Imagine if who you supported on Patreon or Ko-fi caused you to be harassed until you quit your job? Imagine if someone says you're a hateful bigot because you openly donated to a podcast. Imagine if a donation to the Trump or Biden campaign caused all your employees to turn against you?

If he was firing homosexuals for being gay, that would be one thing and unacceptable. I grew up around Christians who would say they find x or y morally wrong, but that wouldn't prevent them from working with people who supported x or y, or believing they were human beings who are entitled to their own opinions.

Real tolerance is accepting people who have different beliefs about core issues, and working with them despite those differences.

The cause he donated to was to deny LGBT people fundamental human rights. That makes one a bigot.

Look up the Popper's paradox of tolerance.

A piece of paper promising fidelity is a fundamental human right? At most it is a religious construct, by definition not fundamental and far from universal. At a minimum, it is a government or social formality. And in both cases, it is designed to provide stability for the offspring birthed of such a union in societies unaccepting of bastard births.

A marriage is a legal contract, not a piece of paper promising fidelity. Fidelity has not mattered legally for a while now.

Romantic pairing is a common enough human thing that it makes sense to have legal constructs to protect both parties. If you are affording these protections to opposite-sex couples, then it is blatant discrimination not to do the same for same-sex couples. There is no rational basis for making such a restriction, after all.

Legal marriage, as in a civil arrangement, isn't really a right. However, being treated equally under the law is a right.

I am an atheist and yet I am married. I know other atheists who are married. Marriage can have religious aspects, but it doesn't have to.

  > Romantic pairing is a common enough human thing that it
  > makes sense to have legal constructs to protect both parties.

Why does either party need protection in a romantic pairing? I've been in dozens of romantic pairings but I did the religious ceremony only with the pairing that was expected to produce children.

Wait, "pushed Obama"? So Obama actually needed to be "pushed", because he was of the same opinion as Eich? But it's OK for the President of the United States to be of such opinion, because unlike CEO of Mozilla, he has no authority over the vast giant powers of Federal Government that actually decides what is allowed and not allowed in the country... Priorities!

I'm not going to dig into this, but from other comments on this post, it seems he did make statements that walked back the position specifically regarding lgbtqqiaap+

He wouldn't even say he wouldn't do it again.[1]

[1] https://www.cnet.com/news/mozilla-ceo-gay-marriage-firestorm...