Why is "active" support relevant. Surely it is his views that make so many uneasy.
> 2. The CEO is the public face of Mozilla, and to some extent sets the agenda.
This is true, but of what relevance? Mozilla is not an organisation with an agenda about marriage or LGBTQ rights.
> 3. There are quite a number of developers and others in the community, some of whom work at Mozilla, who are either in or will consider a same-sex marriage at some point in the future.
I expect there are also some Mormons and Muslims who may wish to practice polygamy, perhaps even some Jews who feel obliged to enter in to a levirate marriage despite already being married. I suspect that any alternative CEO would probably support monogamous marriages only. Presumably the board must enquire as to any candidate's opinion on this matter and woe betide any CEO anywhere who doesn't support polygamy. They too could be in for this kind of treatment.
> 4. These people are disappointed (reasonably so) that a person who is campaigning against their civil rights has been appointed to a relatively important and visible position.
Brendan Eich is not and never has campaigned against their civil rights. Furthermore, before this appointment Brendan Eich already held a "relatively important and visible position." Brendan Eich simply donated money towards a campaign that he supported for reasons we do not know. He was joined in his view by a MAJORITY of voters at that time.
They disagree with you: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/03/29/mozilla-supports-lg...
> Brendan Eich is not and never has campaigned against their civil rights.
Brendan Eich has given $1000 to remove access to marriage from same-sex couples. Marriage being a civil right (Loving v. Virginia) and money being speech (Buckley v. Valeo), yes he has campaigned against their civil rights.
> before this appointment Brendan Eich already held a "relatively important and visible position."
He was CTO, he didn't get to decide of Mozilla's overall.
> He was joined in his view by a MAJORITY of voters at that time.
And he was just as wrong[0] as they were, why does the majority being idiotic make things any different?
[0] since it was a majority voting for something which was later found unconstitutional
>They disagree with you:
Perhaps I was careless with terminology, perhaps you took an unusual interpretation of what I said (see below.) I will let each reader draw their own conclusion. What I meant was that Mozilla is not an organisation established with the specific aim of advancing LGBTQ rights, nor equal marriage rights for all.
>> Brendan Eich is not and never has campaigned against their civil rights.
>Brendan Eich has given $1000 to remove access to marriage from same-sex couples. Marriage being a civil right (Loving v. Virginia) and money being speech (Buckley v. Valeo), yes he has campaigned against their civil rights.
Well done, you quoted some cases and used them to redefine "campaign" far away from any natural and commonly accepted meaning of the word. If you want to argue semantics not substance we could around in circles all day except that I am not interested and won't bother.
>> He was joined in his view by a MAJORITY of voters at that time.
>And he was just as wrong[0] as they were, why does the majority being idiotic make things any different?
The people of California were voting for what they thought marriage should be, not whether gay marriage was constitutional. They were therefore not wrong.
Their action was also constitutionally wrong. When voters vote on propositions, they exercise legislative powers much as elected representatives do. As with elected legislators, they are required to adhere to the state and federal constitutions, even though, as with elected legislators, they are not individually punished by law for their unconstitutional acts.
Mozilla has appointed as a CEO someone who not only doesn't support personal freedom, but who has actively contributed to the communist campaign against it...There are quite a number of developers and others, some of whom work at Mozilla, who are either currently or will consider in the future exercising freedoms that would be forbidden under communism...
Perfectly reasonable to campaign against this guy and those like him? Perhaps the Silicon Valley Reporter could publish a black list of communists and their supporters?
(I don't actually have a strong opinion on this issue. I used to think it obvious, but I realized my views were confused and inconsistent: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6819575 )
Or were you hoping that would be a problem for me?
Like people who are risk loving and prefer to take their chances rather than buy health insurance? People who enjoy mobility more than home ownership? People who enjoy sex with animals more than sex with people?
All regulations enshrine in law the inequality of a subset of persons - specifically, the subset of people who would (absent the law) engage in the prohibited action. If you want to argue that gays are a special subset who (unlike all the other subsets) deserve not to have regulations go against their preferences, do it. But the abstract principle you are appealing to probably proves far more than you want it to.
It's the other way around. It's gay marriage opponents who argue that heterosexuals couples are a special subset and deserve more rights than other couples.
It's the gay marriage proponents arguing that unlike medical devices or food preparation techniques, gay marriage is somehow beyond the purview of government to regulate. I'm asking about the principles underlying this strange exclusion.
I'm pretty sure that if you were to restrict gay marriage opponents to those that consider an issue of costs/benefits, the turnout in support of Prop.8 and similar legislative actions would be marginal. But feel free to show me wrong, my position is based mostly on personal observation and hearsay, not data.
By the way: http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/category/research/econ...
It's the gay marriage proponents arguing that unlike medical devices or food preparation techniques, gay marriage is somehow beyond the purview of government to regulate. I'm asking about the principles underlying this strange exclusion.
No, they don't. That wouldn't even make sense, since (civil) marriage is regulation. What they object to is regulations that apply differently to people of different genders. You may disagree on the (ridiculous, in my opinion) basis that "gay people can still marry other people, just not each other", but claiming that you don't understand the principle is little more than trolling.
The principle is the Supreme Court's 1967 decision that marriage is a fundamental right.
You don't get to state this as fact just because it helps your argument. I assume you're well aware people on the other side consider sexual orientation to be inherent, rather than a simple preference.
If it turns out that risk preference or mobility preference is also "inherent", would that make Obamacare or mortgage subsidies/know your customer laws a violation of civil rights?
As an aside: I don't think you're comparing homosexual relationships to bestiality, but you're getting close. I hope you understand why this could be offensive and non-productive in a conversation.
If you must know, I'm pro-gay marriage and against all civil marriage. And I have no position on the current issue.
What I meant is that I agree marriage is a preference, but only if there are no additional benefits or rights bestowed (by the government) upon those entering the marriage.
By the way, I know concern trolling is your schtick, but it just doesn't work out so well.
The simple facts here are:
1. Mozilla has appointed as a CEO someone who not only doesn't support same-sex marriage, but who has actively contributed to the campaign against it.
2. The CEO is the public face of Mozilla, and to some extent sets the agenda.
3. There are quite a number of developers and others in the community, some of whom work at Mozilla, who are either in or will consider a same-sex marriage at some point in the future.
4. These people are disappointed (reasonably so) that a person who is campaigning against their civil rights has been appointed to a relatively important and visible position.
5. These people, and other organisations and people within the community who support them, are making a clear public statement that this appointment is a problem for them.
That's the extent of it, and it's perfectly reasonable. I agree that there's no reason to hate or take this argument to extremes, but it's completely reasonable and fair to take a polite but firm public stance against this appointment.