Indeed, Brendan has actually gone to extreme lengths to not use his right to freedom of speech. Just look at all this "I prefer not to talk about my beliefs"[1][2]. With the CNET piece, the reporter was very kind, open and professional with him. He handed Eich the forum to come out with his views on a silver plate lined with silk. But Brendan chose not to use it, instead going for the "my private opinions as CEO are irrelevant". Well clearly, they aren't.

It's not about freedom of speech, but actually holding you accountable for what you say, which is a great thing.

[1] http://www.cnet.com/news/mozilla-ceo-gay-marriage-firestorm-...

[2] http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/01/mozilla-ce...

> He handed Eich the forum to come out with his views on a silver plate lined with silk.

Can you envision any scenario where he would be able to express his views that wouldn't have angered the mob even more, without modifying his views to be those of the mob?

> It's not about freedom of speech, but actually holding you accountable for what you say, which is a great thing.

For this, pg's "What You Can't Say" essay cuts both ways:

"The statements that make people mad are the ones they worry might be believed. I suspect the statements that make people maddest are those they worry might be true."

http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

Sure, he could easily have said, "My religion, of which I am a sincere believer, doesn't permit gay marriage. I mistakenly supported Prop 8 because I hadn't thought things through, and in the 6 years since I have come to realize that gay people deserve the same civil rights straight people do. I now see that religion is a private matter, and freedom of religion means that my church's views aren't a good basis for legislation."

And if he had said this in a blog post at any before becoming CEO, he could have skated through this easily.

On the other hand, if he still believes gay people to be inferior and not deserving of full civil rights, then yes, people could have reasonably questioned how he could be the boss of some of them.

Brendan Eich gave $1000 to support the following text to be amended to the CA constitution:

    Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

You take that to mean he supported this being amended to the constitution:

     Gay people are inferior and not deserving of full civil rights.

Which is a wonderfully built straw man, but not at all likely to be an idea that Eich would ever espouse. I don't know Eich, but his public record doesn't seem to support the supposition that he thinks anyone is inferior or that anyone should be denied civil rights.

If you really want to attack his ideas, attack their best interpretation, not their worst.

The goal and practical effect of Prop 8 was to keep gay people from equal treatment under the law. In particular, to strip them of the ability to marry.

We have no idea what Eich's ideas are, because he has refused to say. But I can and will judge him by his actions. And no, I don't believe that's a straw man. I don't believe it's possible to have a rational and consistent view that includes both the 14th amendment (explicitly naming equality before the law as a civil right) and using the power of the law to keep gay couples from marrying like any other couple.