Of course it isn't.
If he was backdooring JS crypto libraries for the NSA, or shooting orphans, or selling crack, that would be seriously inappropriate behaviour and he would lose his job for it.
Many people might consider it inappropriate to be fighting against gay marriage - it's not just a political issue, it's a moral one.
Yet, we are forcing everyone to take a stand on this "moral" issue.
He can either support Bills of Rights, against Bills of Rights, or he can do nothing about it, in which case is pretty much in the same camp as the opposition. The only difference is he chose to not care and yet he will probably be judged for not helping human rights. And human rights, to many is a worthwhile ethic cause. Not an individual morality debate; just as gay advocates would think gay rights is a basic right of human. If Brendan chose to say "I have no opinion" he is neither against nor supporting gay rights but his decision will disappoint the gay advocates in which case the advocates will not be happy with Mozilla. Therefore, everyone has to take a stand even if it were "I don't have any opinion."
There is a limited prohibition against screening for political affiliations enforced by the Federal government when filling certain civil service positions, but that's about it.
For a good summary of what types of discrimination can and cannot trigger legal liability, see here:
So only people who pay for their rights deserve them. Noted.
Bang on, you read my mind.
The problem is not the right to deliver petitions. It's the practice of doing so with cash (or check!) included.
With your prescription of discriminated against minorities offsetting the donations of bigots to parties who would fortify or extend that discrimination, gay people would also have to worry about bankruptcy. There's at least 5 bigots for each gay person.
Outrage is cheaper and gets more attention. Kinda like when a toddler throws a tantrum.
Who says they didn't?
Did Eich imply that he wants special treatment because he donated - probably not.
Do the authors imply that they want special treatment because of this - it looks to me that way.
Again, they are free and welcome to boycott whomever they wish.
I'd say he likely wants special treatment for his particular brand of religious views.
> Do the authors imply that they want special treatment because of this - it looks to me that way.
What special treatment are they requesting?
As long as Mozilla products do not feature a "Not to be used by gays" warning, whatever Eich does in his time is irrelevant. He's free to spend his money in any way he likes. What prevented the authors of this article to spend $1000 to counterbalance Eich's contribution if they are so concerned?