"We have a strong Indonesian community. We're developing Firefox OS to go into market there. I have people there on the other side of this particular issue."
He clearly still sees this as just being two sides of a coin, like a choice between Pepsi or Coke.
It's tolerable when you have a sincere personal belief ... however misguided it may be, but it's quite another when you donate money and vote to take away someone else's rights to their own beliefs, actions, equality and dignity through the force of law.
What I hate most about this whole situation is that the only action I can take is to step away from all Mozilla products, which in turn hurts all Mozilla employees, the majority of which I fully respect and support.
But as CEO, he's the public face and voice of the entire company, and I can't respectfully support a company that would elect a bigot to lead their entire organization.
Well, Indonesians do too. Do they, as a society have that right? Or perhaps only what the US decides is a right should be enforced?
How about things that other societies have abolished already, like the death penalty or the world's biggest incarceration rate (predominantly on blacks)?
They have a right to their opinions and personal beliefs. They do not have a moral right to enforce discrimination against consenting adults that are doing no harm to others. They enforce their position through the force of state, like Iran does when they execute their gays, but that does not make it right.
I'd rather our government wasn't in the business of granting special rights to couples that decide to cohabitate. But since they are, I expect it to be equally available to all couples, regardless of their sexual orientation.
> How about things that other societies have abolished already, like the death penalty or the world's biggest incarceration rate (predominantly on blacks)?
I'm against both of those things as well. I'm also against the drug war, the massive income inequality gap, software patents, trade law that is allowed when it benefits corporations (outsourcing) and artificially restricted (via DMCA) when it doesn't (importing and region coding), and many, many other things.
I personally feel more strongly about the rights of same-sex couples to marry than I do about not executing a convicted murderer (especially once you adjust for how many are affected by each issue), but I would certainly consider it a negative if Eich were to come out in support of capital punishment.
I think a whole lot more people would be upset if Eich donated to maintaining the disproportionate incarceration rate in place on African Americans.
...
Does everything have to devolve into slippery slopes? Taking away marriage rights from same-sex couples is fundamentally and unequivocally wrong. Eich is legally allowed to discriminate against them through law, for now. Just as we are legally allowed to protest his appointment to CEO of Mozilla.
There was a reason at some point that government/society felt it important enough to grant privileges to couples consisting of a one male and one female that agreed to combine assets and liabilities. What was the reason? My guess is to encourage offspring and stable families. If that is the reason, does it still work and apply today? That's the question we should be asking.
Applying what's happening with the marriage discussion to the illegal substance arena, without taking a moment to pause and reflect, we'd be clamoring for extending and banning alcohol and more substances instead of considering repealing bans on some/other drugs (marijuana in particular).
"How many are affected"? How about "how MUCH they are affected"?
And what about those waiting in death row (or executed) only to be found innocent later (including those not so lucky to have a re-trial or a dedicated defense team): http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/The_Innocent_and_the...
A CEO could say "support our troops" and donate to that (which leads to tens or hundrends of thousands of deaths, invansions etc), and noone bats an eyes. But another is against gay marriage and everybody loses their minds.
>Does everything have to devolve into slippery slopes?
A slippery slope would be "if you do X, X*N will happen". I didn't say anything like that.
What I said is: there are tons of controversial issues -- from gay marriage, to the death penalty, to incarceration rates, to gun control, to supportig wars etc.
If you are against people for only one of those causes, while letting others with different opinions on other causes alone, then you are actually discriminating against them.
If you want to be consistent you can't just "prosecute" CEOs who backed a bill against gay marriage. Except if you think, and I cannot even fathom how one would, that that's the definining issue and everything else is secondary.
I'm not really sure which right, but probably no.
> How about things that other societies have abolished already, like the death penalty or the world's biggest incarceration rate (predominantly on blacks)?
Yes, let's play oppression olympics.
To decide how they want their society shaped, including what rights they grant to whatever minority.
Apparently some people in other countries think they should run other people's countries for them and bring them their democracy and their moral code. As if they weren't one of the last countries to abolish slavery, or enforce Jim Crow laws that continue (masked) until this day. Or as if they didn't consider homosexuality mental illness until a few decades ago.
It seems that whatever some countries have decided for themselves (no matter how late they are to the party) should be enforced to everybody else.
As for other stuff, which they are still backwards (e.g the death penalty, lack of gun control, stand your ground laws etc) those are OK, since they are doing it.
>Yes, let's play oppression olympics
Better than playing: "whatever I decide is OK, is OK, everybody else must follow my lead. Oh, and I get to do whatever I want myself".
I have no doubt Linus Torvalds will accept (and have accepted) patches from "straight", LGBT, anti-LGBT, white, black, white supremacist, capitalist, communist, anti-communist, 9/11 truther, birther, etc. as long as patches are technically sound.
Similarly, it seems Eich thinks (and I agree) Mozilla should accept patches from bigots. It does not mean Mozilla should elect a bigot as CEO, but I can imagine how such distinction can be lost on someone.
Well, knowing what we know about working conditions at FoxConn and so forth, I don't see huge amounts of developers boycotting iOS.
Which, if anything, is a far more serious issue than this. I mean, does anybody seriously expect - under the Eich regime - Mozilla itself to start advocating against gay marriage? Are new versions of Firefox going to block gay-interest websites?
The notion is patently ludicrous - to my knowledge, Eich has never even vocalised his opposition to gay marriage. That $1,000 donation was unknown for four years. Since then, we have had these rather gnomic, evasive statements (which, I agree, means he still holds those opinions). And $1,000 is a bit stingy - a brief glance at the relevant records[0] reveals several six-figure donations.
I'm a card-carrying leftie pinko, I believe that people should be able to shag/date/marry whomever they wish regardless of their genital plumbing, and I despise things like Prop 8. If Brendan Eich still holds these opinions, I'm happy to call him a bigot. But let's get a grip. Prop 8 didn't pass because some hacker donated a grand to the campaign. It passed because a lot of people share those opinions, and because there are - unfortunately - far more vocal and better organised advocates for them. Until someone can demonstrate that Eich will have a demonstrably more pernicious effect on the struggle for gay equality now that he has a more prominent c-level job title at Mozilla than last month, I'm going to call this a storm in a teacup - a distraction from the fight for LGBT equality in fact, a symptom of the social media world's tendency to reduce politics to hounding celebrities for one reason or another.
[0] http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx...
I would certainly consider it if Apple -weren't- making huge efforts in that direction with their Supplier Responsibility program (which no other tech company that uses Foxconn appears to even have, much less be devoting resources to.)
As if every other phone on the market are made by affluent white English-speaking college graduates.
Oh, and remember that FoxConn make other things too -- for example, the PS3, PS4, 360, XBone, Wii and WiiU. We'll have to boycott those platforms too.
That would be quite an unusual thing to say - that even heinous companies shouldn't be boycotted if the inconvenience is large - so I must have misunderstood.
It may seem I am cherry-picking your words, but as you are taking a stance based on his words, I think we are entitled to do the same with yours.
I self pick based on my own assessment of intellectual honesty and rigor. I have no doubt that our society will be considered similarly unenlightened a hundred years from now -- all we can hope for is some sympathy points for integrity and progress.
Hence?
In the era of big data I am forced to say that you really need to back that assumption.
(The most compelling argument I've heard against gay marriage is "Eew." Colour me unimpressed.)
But I suppose it's useful to drag out the racism comparison to demonize Brendan Eich, although you don't want to stretch the metaphor too far since it might make people wonder how "inclusive" the American technology industry is of black people, "old" people (i.e., older than 35) etc.
There are many ironies to be found and enough hypocrisy to go around, but none constitute a compelling counterargument.
There are plenty of gays who argue against gay marriage and a vociferous number who are for it. It's called debate. Some against argue that gay marriage is homophobic.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/02/same-sex-ma...
(Might be paywalled but the arguments can be found elsewhere on the web - though I would not expect you to search for them.)
"We have profound reservations about same sex marriage not just because of the harm it does to a vital heterosexual institution but also because we reject the implication that in order to be equal and respected homosexuals should conform to heterosexual norms and be in effect the same as heterosexuals. In this sense we believe same sex marriage to be homophobic – it demands recognition for gay relationships but at the price of submitting those relationships to heterosexual definition. This serves neither homosexuals nor heterosexuals."
Visitation rights, marriage & tax benefits are relevant concerns in this debate but comparing it to slavery really glosses over how terrible slavery actually was.
There aren't huge plantations at stake, make no mistake there is big money involved. Social security, inheritance, and real-estate are just a few of the issues making sure gays are leaving billions on the table. Ultimately, the currently enforced laws favor the majority; straight people.
Marriage equality is sub issue of a massive human rights epidemic which we aren't directly addressing in this thread. The current CEO actively supports organizations which make the epidemic all the more dire for people in many areas of the world. While gays in the US enjoy relative freedom, it is illegal and punishable by death to be gay in 15 countries, and just illegal with life sentence in a dozen more.
During every major recent genocide, gays where almost always highly targeted for killing in the most heinous ways; just to name a few; during US slavery, WW II, and African Apartheid. Just as slavery continues around the world, so does the merciless torture and killing of gays. While we can pull a segment of American history and say with impunity, 'definitely more blacks died in miserable conditions with horrible treatment and torture', gays have had a worldwide and human history long story that nearly matches the brutality, just not the shear numbers.
While our politicians argue about where gay wedding can take place, this is just one of the final chapters in a very long story about a fight just to exist. To characterize this issue as just a visitation rights, marriage and tax benefits issue, as you say, 'really glosses over how terrible [homophobia through out history] actually was.'
Marriage inequality is certainly not as bad as slavery, but it is definitely the prevailing major civil rights issue of our time, at least in the US.
And once it's resolved, there will be a new rights issue that commands a majority of interest: whether that be transgender rights, immigrant rights, or something else.
To say that other things were worse, and diminish the importance of current issues, is to diminish the great march of progress we are currently enjoying.
Only "being free" and "choosing your government" is a right, whereas mariage is a made-up custom, and as such it has historical connections to certain morals and can also be seen as a religious related practice for some.
>If the CEO of another tech company was revealed to have political interests in slavery, would we feel the need to tip-toe so carefully?
If states still had slavery (in the same way states prohibit gay marriage), then yes, we would. Far from being a solved issue, it was something put on vote. If it's one vote, then it's undemocratic to demonize one side of the ballot.
Furthermore, if you're so fired up about civil issues, how about a few that are important to me: the death penalty and gun control. Should a CEO be fired for being pro/against those?
How come a gay man's right to marriage (an antiquated institution if I ever saw one, and a kitchy fair with tons of made up customs for straight and gay men alike) is more important than a 15 year old kids right not to be institutionally murdered in TX, or some other state?
Seems to me some issues have better marketing, and people just go with the flock to the acceptable crusades, and if they have to lynch one or two that are against the flow in the process, so be it.
My personal feeling - speaking as a gay man and therefore somewhat personally linked, but also as somebody who has not once suffered bullying or mistreatment because of it - is that there are two crucial reasons gay marriage should be legalised, and neither are to do with "made up customs".
Firstly the legal side: inheritance law, hospital visitation rights, insurance, etc. etc.
Secondly, the impact it has on how people view homosexuality. A step towards equality is a step towards not seeing gay kids bullied, gay teens killing themselves, gay adults being harassed in the work place, etc. And that's a huge deal in my opinion.
Legally, however, gay marriage doesn't solve all the problems. Ideally, "civil unions", granting all the rights above, would be allowed between any number of mutually-consensual partners - e.g. Mormon polygamy, Hippy communes, ... This would also bring additional recognition and acceptance to these people.
I don't think this is true, and anyway it's completely irrelevant. The post-1950s definition of marriage is a result of secular progress, and was definitely not defined by religion.
> I don't see a problem if religion retains the right of defining marriage - a union between a man and a woman.
I see a huge problem, which is that "religion" isn't an entity. If you want religion to have the right to define marriage, you must allow pro-gay churches to define it the way they see fit, too.
(I should add that as an atheist, I would fully support laws limiting religious weddings to a union between a man and a woman. I'm not interested in dragging religions kicking and screaming into the 21st century.)
As for Mormon polygamy and hippy communes -- absolutely! As long as it is willing, consenting adults, I am all for it! But, right now, lets take this small step.
This is not actually true. Marriage is a very very old concept.
It wasn't long ago that marriage was also widely accepted as an asset for parents to sell. It was relatively recent that monogamy wasn't assumed, and that the maximum number in such unions was two.
The bottom line is -- being homophobic is starting to reach the same point in popular culture as racism and sexism. Our society as a whole is becoming far less tolerant of such nonsense, being against gay marriage is treated like being against interracial marriage. Even 61% of young Republican leaning 18-29 year olds are in favor of marriage equality.
It follows a similar trend to interracial marriage (slow start, then a rapid increase in acceptance). In 1986, less than 35% of American's "approved" of interracial marriage. A mere 5 years later, the number was about 50% .. and 20 years later that vast majority approve of interracial marriage, with more than 30% having a family member involved in an interracial relationship.
That is when it hits home for people, when a friend of family member comes out (today, being in love with the same sex... in the 80s, being in love with another race) -- it becomes personal, and when it becomes personal, you can no longer abstract 'those' people -- now it is your friend, your sister, your cousin, the best man at your wedding, etc.
You can rail against marriage being crap (it is, I agree) -- but that isn't the point. If you are against marriage, I am with you 100% -- lets get rid of it as a government regulated institution! But, if it is around, it has to be an option for all. I think it is far too close to religion to be certified by government, but that ship has sailed long ago... gotta work within reality.
Also, undemocratic to demonize one side of the vote, are you kidding? That is the oldest democratic tradition!
As for why it gets more "marketing" than the death penalty and gun control. It gets more "marketing" than the death penalty because it touches more peoples lives. It gets FAR less "marketing" than gun control, gun control just has lots of marketing on both sides, a massive constitutional question, and is not trending towards consensus... marriage equality unequivocally is trending towards consensus... it will be a decided issue before it ever has the "marketing" of gun control.
While I am freaking ranting... this quote is idiocy "Beliefs that are protected, that include political and religious speech, are generally not something that can be held against even a CEO." -- NO. Just NO. If you believe something that society finds laughable or horrible (Lizard people run the world, X race is superior, Z are bad at math, the Holocaust didn't happen, etc)... and you support it out loud, with money, in public. Of COURSE it can be held against you -- you don't have a goddamn right to that job, and part of your job is to be the face of the company.
/rant
>While I don't feel comfortable lynching someone based on contextually irrelevant beliefs
You say the words but somehow you manage to do the exact opposite.
In his blog (https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/) he writes
>I intend to demonstrate with meaningful action my commitment to a Mozilla that lives up to its ideals, including that of being an open and inclusive community.
I believe that, until proven wrong. So how about judging him by his actions as a CEO? Instead of a private donation? IMO its the only correct thing.
That was point one. The second one I want to make is about elephants and blind people. Elephants are big– so big that blind people are only able to perceive a part of them. So they all disagree about what the elephant is. And gay marriage is an elephant and opinions are elephant parts. I doubt this elephant has just two parts labelled "Equality For Everyone" and "Hate And Bigotry". Please don't make the error of boiling down a complex issue to two sides.
Saying "there's many sides to the story" is a lame excuse that people (especially politicians) use to avoid making decisions.
That might be true, but it's also true that making decisions based on a strongly opinionated argument led to literal witch hunts. With burning and everything involved. (And OS-flamewars, these are even worse). I guess the best option is to find a healthy balance between choosing a side and considering conflicting points of view.
In this case, I think there are some angles of view that might be contra-marriage but not hateful. That's all I wanted to say– I don't think Eich is a bigot, his reason might be different than the one that a a lot of people placed in his mouth.
But if you're going to be the CEO of a very public organisation, things like this (or, say, shooting an elephant, hiring hula girls for trade show, using racial epithets, whatever) will bite you badly in the ass and you really need a good narrative beyond "the lurkers[1] support me".
[1] Indonesians
"I hadn't thought about that. It seems that's a dead issue. I don't want to answer hypotheticals."
I think that response speaks for itself.
While I don't feel comfortable lynching someone based on contextually irrelevant beliefs, most of us see gay rights as an issue principally comparable to issues of slavery and suffrage. It's the denying of rights to "other people" for dubious reasons.
Hypothetically, if the CEO of another tech company was revealed to have political interests in slavery, would we feel the need to tip-toe so carefully?