Apologies don't work that way. The right apology is something like: "I try to be a good person, but sometimes I don't get it right. 5 years ago, I did something hurtful to many of you. I did it because of ... What I didn't realize then and do realize now is that ... Thank you for helping me, and to those of you who I made the world a worse place for in the past, I'm sorry, and I'll do what I can to make things better in the future."

I'm not convinced that Eich believes that he did the wrong thing in 2008 - that as far as I can tell, if he were to wind the clock back, the only reason he wouldn't write that check is the trouble that it's causing him now, and not because he's gained some understanding of things.

Silence, via shaming or suppression by a privileged status quo, perpetuates the prevailing stigmas and only serves to reinforce the very ignorance that birthed the attitudes.

While it might be uncomfortable for a privileged majority, we could all do well to at least be more open to dissenting opinions.

In this case, 8% of OKCupid’s “business” is directly related to the issue, so it seems precisely appropriate.

This is mostly faux outrage. Brendan is one man, an easy target to scream and shout at.

Notice how nobody is protesting outside mosques and embassies where under Islam, the penalty for simply being gay, let alone getting married, is DEATH.

I would warrant that a larger proportion of HN's audience feels some kind of connection with the technology world than they do with that of Islam, and it feels more reasonable to clear your own back yard out first before complaining about the state of your neighbour's.

As of 1999 in Iran, more than 4,000 lesbians and gays had been executed since the 1979 Islamic revolution. ... As of 2009, homosexual relationships, acts or behavior are illegal in 36 Islamic countries. 10 impose the death penalty.

I'm not saying that Jewish and Christian religious texts don't also contain similar punishments, however, it's quite clear that anyone who believes in all the things the Qur'an says would have to believe that it's acceptable to put atheists and homosexuals to death for no other reason.

Similarly in most judeo-christian religions you see similar opposition to homosexuality being treated on an equal footing to heterosexuality, not to mention the rest of the sexual repression commonly found in those religions.

(If his personal beliefs do pollute his work then do as you will, run the guy out of town on a rail if you must)

Just a disclaimer: I fully support discrimination against bigots such as refusal of service.

I'm not even sure what I think about it, but I can't reject silverstorm's point out of hand.

Why, specifically, is it okay for Eich to fund the oppression of homosexuals and not okay for people to say that they find that upsetting and therefore would prefer not to use or serve products he's associated with? What level would his bigotry have to ascend to before people were no longer obligated to use these products or, at least, not tell anyone they're not using them and why?

"big·ot·ry ˈbigətrē/Submit noun 1. bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself."

Gays who want to oppress anyone for not thinking like them are also being bigots by that definition. Marriage has been between a man and a woman throughout the history of humans. I think Gays should have legal equality. They can not usurp a word that has had such a clear meaning throughout the core existence of humankind.

I see this repeated often in these discussions, and it's a breathtakingly arrogant assertion. How the hell do you know? Have you spent years studying anthropology?

In fact, sexual mores have varied quite substantially throughout the thousands of years of human history and the hundreds of civilizations that have come and gone in that time. I think if you actually look into the matter, you'll discover this "fact" you keep repeating is anything but.

Retreating to dictionary definitions does not make a point, nor does asserting that prejudice by an oppressive class against an oppressed class is the same as the converse.

Well, yea, actually, it made it quite clearly, hence my post.

>> nor does asserting that prejudice by an oppressive class against an oppressed class is the same as the converse.

Oppression is oppression, elegance and articulation do not change that. Your attempt to say that my belief and understanding of the meaning if a single word describing a single legal institution is oppression underestimates what I was stating originally; that we who believe and understand the meaning of the word marriage are being oppressed by a very vocal, sometimes very vocally belligerent and socially irreverent group in context minimally and notwithstanding.

Are you being beaten to death for your sexual orientation? Are you having your fostered children of many years removed from your family? Are you being denied the right to be with your spouse in the hospital or on their deathbed?

You are in no sense "being oppressed". This is the way in which your "oppression" is not oppression, and one of many reasons why retreating to dictionary definitions of words is a cowardly, useless way to argue.

In the same sense, one might say that overthrowing a fascist dictator is more morally justified than overthrowing a peaceful democracy to install said dictatorship. Both are violence against a government, but they exist in different moral contexts.

Pretty much every law in the common law system, including the constitution, is a law that denies rights to subsets of the population.

The only question is whether you are in favor of such regulation. I'm personally not in favor of regulating homosexuality or marriage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Michael Walzer asks "Should we tolerate the intolerant?" He notes that most minority religious groups who are the beneficiaries of tolerance are themselves intolerant, at least in some respects. In a tolerant regime, such people may learn to tolerate, or at least to behave "as if they possessed this virtue". Philosopher Karl Popper asserted, in The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1, that we are warranted in refusing to tolerate intolerance. Philosopher John Rawls concludes in A Theory of Justice that a just society must tolerate the intolerant, for otherwise, the society would then itself be intolerant, and thus unjust. However, Rawls also insists, like Popper, that society has a reasonable right of self-preservation that supersedes the principle of tolerance: "While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger."

(Or possibly don't - I personally think this entire stupid affair is being blown our of proportion. What the guy does in his own time is his own damn business. If and only if he somehow lets it bleed into his work, sure, you can do your whole outrage, let's boycott Firefox dance).

Look, the guy has a traditional view of marriage - the same view the human race had for thousands of years. Sure, some people want to redefine that, and they're well within rights to do that - nothing wrong with that.

However, this silly overbearing PC nonsense is getting old - we already get this faux outrage from the Moral Police every time the gender issue crops up.

Look, I get we want girls in tech - diversity helps, and it sucks they're not encouraged more to go into it.

Personally, I think this whole marriage thing is overblown. E.g.:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10729717/Brian-Sewe...

This isn't going to go away. At best he's going to be seen as the guy who doesn't support gay marriage in a world where this sort of view is becoming more and more untenable.

And last time I checked, when Prop8 went through, wasn't he with a majority of Californians...lol.

I don't get how the supporters of gay marriage something think (or try to claim) that their view is automatically right, arguments be damned.

Marriage has been defined as a man and woman for thousands of years.

Yes, that can be changed, and they're well within rights to do so - maybe the human race is changing.

But to claim that, we don't need to stinking arguments, and just say, we must be right seems a bit stupid.

Surely, if you're going to redefine something that important, you'd want to lead with your arguments, and not, oh, it's just natural we're right, and your position is untenable.

Mozilla supports equality for all, including marriage equality for LGBT couples, but his new CEO does not? I'm sorry, but it just does not compute.

If they had ANY clue, they'd have thought of this ahead of time. e.g. Brendan donates $2k or $5k to a gay charity requiring a public record (as the Prop 8 donation did) three months ago, someone notices two months ago, he can then stay as gnomic as he likes. Something like that. But, y’know, literally nobody in the upper echelons of Mozilla thought of this.

That neither Eich or the board thought of this ahead of the time does, actually, suggest they're not up to the job. This is SIMPLE STUFF.

Evidence suggests that they've been spending months fighting a battle pertaining to picking an insider as CEO, which ultimately caused three members to resign from the Moz Co. board.

Which explains why they were so unprepared for anything else.

e: Bogus theory by Ars and WSJ, Mozilla issued a statement that the shake-up of board members was planned well in advance amongst themselves for various reasons.

Maybe they were occupied finding a man with the necessary technical and leading capabilities, plus the experience and whatever else I may have forgot?

Unless they all share the same opinions as Eich and they feel that being against gay marriage is like being against anchovies on your pizza. Then it would never have hit them that this was a serious problem.

Is HN [amongst others] calling for all people who disagree with legislation on homosexual relationships being called marriage to forfeit their rights to employment; or perhaps all those that consider homosexual sexual activity to be wrong? That seems like the logical conclusion here.

Is this going to be continued with all beliefs - ousting those that disprove of drunkennes or drug taking or polygamy or adultery?

Why should a company pry in to an employee's private beliefs and associations in the way you're suggesting?

You can without a doubt hire a murderer as your CEO. It will always be my opinion that you should at least think very hard about doing so before you make the final decision.

If you run for president and you're a satan worshipper, then it would be my opinion that you will lose. If you own a cookie company and want to hire a murderer as a CEO, it would simply be my opinion that you may lose sales. If you don't care about my opinion, or don't care about sales, and go ahead and hire a murderer as CEO, then that's perfectly fine. At the end of the day, it's really up to you.

But if someone out there wants to organize a boycott because the CEO isn't a vegan, that's also fine.

"I'm envisioning the board standing around with glassy stares, 'I have no idea how this could have happened. We totally vetted his geek cred.'" - rone

To me, it's like watching someone kick a puppy and then considering him for CEO.

"hey, how about this guy? He kicked a puppy."

"Is there anything about him that we need to be aware of?"

"no, not that I know of."

Calls for boycott are happening AFTER it was released. I think it's the content (or lack thereof) of that letter that makes it ineffective.

> If they had ANY clue, they'd have thought of this ahead of time. e.g. Brendan donates $2k or $5k to a gay charity requiring a public record

So now we prefer lying bigots to honest bigots? That reeks so much of hypocrisy, it is disgusting.