What if had been donating to the KKK instead? Do you think he could accurately represent his employees of color?

Or for a less cut-and-dry example: If he had donated to Pro-Life organizations, would you expect him to be accepted as CEO of Planned Parenthood?

Your socio-political views and activities have consequences. If you believe strongly enough in them, you will weather them. His views and activities certainly had consequences for a lot of California families.

There are probably lots of pro-life CEOs running companies that are not related to abortion.

And there are probably lots of anti-gay people as CEOs of companies that don't make equality and openness a core value of their mission statement.

If I walked into my office tomorrow and told people that I think women aren't humans, abused some racial minorities, my livelihood would be affected because of my socio-political views.

And I'm okay with that.

No, that's not okay.

I very much disagree with the KKK, but I believe in a society where they have the right to think whatever they want about non-white people, without getting harmed.

Oh really? You'd rather live in a society that gives discrimination a free pass?

False dichotomy.

"Not given death threats" != "Giving a free pass".

If you want to kill people who you disagree with, are you any better than them?

Can we have some perspective here? His livelihood has been at no point under threat. Unless you have some evidence that the CEO job was somehow keeping him from the poorhouse, this is just a ridiculous term to use here.

He still works for Mozilla (as far as I can tell) and he almost certainly still has a significant say in how it's run through the shares he almost certainly has (I can't find any specifics on it in a cursory search, but it would be astounding if it were not so).

But when he made that donation, he was tying himself to a cause. As an officer of a company he is a face of that company. This is true in all companies and for all causes, and it was his choice to make the donation and the company's choice to appoint him to a position where that donation would reflect poorly on them.

> He still works for Mozilla (as far as I can tell)

Nope.

> he almost certainly still has a significant say in how

it's run through the shares he almost certainly has Shares? We're talking about Mozilla. It belongs 100% to the non-profit Mozilla Foundation.

I'll grant you I was misinformed on the latter, but can you point to some source on him not working for Mozilla at all anymore? Nothing I can see says anything but that he stepped down from the CEO role and his board position on the Foundation (which would be where he could still have a say in the running of Mozilla, I don't think it was the goal of the boycott to have him leave the Foundation board so it seems a little excessive to me).

That is a shame if so, as his technical contributions are still clearly valuable.

[edit] https://brendaneich.com/2014/04/the-next-mission/ answers my own question.

Would you expect his views not to have consequences? I will gladly stand up for his right to hold opinions I disagree with, but the right to an opinion is not a shield from the consequences of those views. The board had just as much right to hold the opposite opinion and how they want the culture and outward face of their company to look like.

Where have you been living the past, I don't know, all your life. Many socio-political views are untenable and would affect your livelihood negatively if they are known publicly. The only thing that changed is that being against gay-marriage specifically, and gay-rights generally, is now seen in the same light(at least in certain parts of the country). Brendan Eich found himself on the wrong side of history before he even realized this. Too many trips to Indonesia maybe?

He was not stamping out widgets in a factory. He was supposed to be leading a diverse group of hackers and technologists at a bastion of future-looking/open culture.