Assuming for whatever reason that these things need concrete proposals and takeaways, and that criticism and analysis are not sufficient, maybe the idea is to suggest individual corrections in the readers' responses to things like this. Perhaps to not use the politics of an employee to judge a company unless, maybe, they were outspoken about those politics.

The point seems to be that pronouncing judgment for political expression only ends up making everybody more frustrated with the people with whom they disagree.

As someone who moves in circles heavily dominated by conservative evangelicals, I've been thinking about the parallels between this story and that of World Vision, the evangelical aid and development organization. They recently announced an intention to begin hiring married gay and lesbian people, if the marriages of those people were ordained by their congregations. This was described as a 'neutral' position in that they receive (or at least used to receive) support from quite a variety of churches including Episcopal, UCC, and ELCA congregations which support and conduct gay marriages where legal. But WV received a severe blowback from conservative church leaders and members, many who began withdrawing funding and child sponsorships over the desire to include married gay and lesbian people in their organization. Since the majority of their supporters come from more conservative churches, they decided after only two days to reverse course, lest they would no longer be able to support their core mission: to provide clothes, food, and shelter to those who need it around the world. This in turn disappointed and enraged liberals who had only cautiously supported the decision in the first place.

My point is that enforcing litmus tests, as described in the article, tends to divide people who have otherwise mutual goals to make the world a better place.

The main thing that needs to be done, is the public needs to learn & adjust its behavior. This is a sociopolitical problem, and I think it needs to be fixed by those means. Either through adjusting norms of socially accepted behavior (i.e. don't crucify someone for what they did 10 years ago) or through strong leadership from political figures/groups.

I think you will find the public will learn the opposite of what you want: This is an example to progressives that they too in some situation have the power to send strong signals about standards expected of those who expect to be in leadership positions - even in private companies.

This has been the case "forever" for moralists on the right, from long before McCarthy. Try to become a politician or high level exec in the US while showcasing features of your personal life that does not fit into a relatively conservative, Christian narrative. Your odds just became vastly worse.

This is one in a short, but growing, set of examples of situations where people have been successfully ousted for supporting relatively mainstream but still bigoted viewpoints.

Except for the fact that a large chunk of the support for _California's_ Prop8 came from outside the state (specifically: Mormon Utah), especially in the form of money. How do you counter that "sociopolitically"?

That aside, I can agree that someone shouldn't be crucified for a bad decision that is well in the past, especially if they've learned the error of their ways.

Ballot strategy is a different topic; I was specifically addressing how a grassroots movement (e.g. the online lynch of Eich) would have to be tackled.

Ballot strategy is more about the organized manipulation of swing voters, which is almost certainly what Utah did, so values & beliefs become less important than FUD & counter-FUD.

Ah, thanks for that clarification. I do think that people need to be unafraid to express their opinions, if for no other reason than the slightly cynical one of knowing who you're really dealing with. Sure, it's lousy that there is a figurative lynch mob for Eich. But I do think that that particular position is inconsistent with Mozilla's tenets.

In other words, I don't think that Eich fits very well as a guiding light for mozilla, a position which might very well be embodied by a CEO. He probably shouldn't have become CEO of Mozilla in the first place. I'm fairly certain there are plenty of corporations more aligned with his goals that he can work for, so it's not like he'll be out a job for long. Just wish it could have been handled better, that there had not been a virtual lynch mob, and the inevitable turning of Eich into a martyr for free speech, all the while ignoring that the repercussions for supporting discrimination aren't nearly as bad as some people are making them out to be.

OK, and how do you do that exactly?

Clearly calling people out publicly is not allowed. What's the proper approach for changing the public's behavior?

>> Clearly calling people out publicly is not allowed.

I have a possibly weird/complex take on this whole thing.

I think it was absolutely fine for the public/customers/partners to call out Eich to resign based on his Prop 8 vote.

On the other hand, I have mixed feelings about Mozilla employees calling for his resignation publicly.

Where I live, I think Eich would have a case for workplace harassment against those employees. I don't know what workplace harassment laws are like in the US, but publicly shaming a coworker for something legal they did that you don't morally agree with is usually grounds for some sort of action, regardless of that person's position of power.

I don't really know. I can speculate- well-reasoned & accessible pieces that avoid throwing around blame (public figure). Friends speaking with friends (grassroots). Political guidance/commentary from The Party (political figure).

All I'm hoping for right now though, is that people will individually start to recognize the pattern & begin to lose their bloodlust.

I think that's a good point. Realistically, once the cat was out of the bag and the initial PR response from Mozilla failed to connect, the matter was realistically out of their hands. They could've encouraged Eich to stay and weather the storm, ensuring that the controversy kept going and Mozilla itself remained in the background of the gay marriage question, or they could've let him do what he did, and now endure the controversy from the other side.