On what basis is the claim justified that "he was fired" at all?
And, if he was fired (or, at least, given the choice to resign or be fired), what evidence is that that it was because of the donation (whatever it might provide "evidence" of), and not because of Mozilla board's concerns about the way he responded to the controversy over the donation? Managing corporate image is, after all, part of the CEO's responsibility.
Just because a person is a bigot doesn't necessarily mean that s/he is a bad person.
I've met racist people and even I am able to maintain some level of respect for them. This is what being open-minded is.
Hurting people just because they have a different philosophical belief than yours is the same kind of narrow-mindedness that leads to racism and religious fanaticism in the first place. Back in the past, if you said the world was round, people would classify you as crazy by virtue of you having an opinion that the majority did not believe. This kind of narrow-mindedness holds back open dialogue and progress.
As 'bad' as it is to be your definition of a bigot, to denote all bigots as having a broken moral code is as negative as bigotry itself.
I hate how people have this misconception that you have to hurt people to make them change.
BTW, I am not taking a position about whether removing Brendon was the correct decision (I don't have enough information to have an opinion about that), only that is was justifiable.
Here is what I am seeing: "The discrimination against Brendan was based on something that he did." [therefore the discrimination is morally justifiable]
He did what he thought was right by his own standards.
I don't suppose you are for punishing people who do things based on what they believe is right.
Rather, you want to punish Brendan, in part, because of the nature of his belief.
If Brendan had NOT donated, would you have wanted him to resign?
Perhaps not, because, then you would argue, it is okay for him to have bad ideas, so long as he doesn't act on them.
It is because Brendan had donated to a cause which you disagree with, that you want him to be punished. Because a donation to a cause, in itself, is not "morally" reprehensible. You wouldn't punish people for donating for a cause.
Rather, your problem is with the cause he donated.
Your problem is not with Brendan, it is with the anti-movement against taking gender out of the equation in legal marriage.
Brendan has a different standard than you do.
It is clear that you believe Brendan has a bad standard.
But who is to say Brendan's standard is better or worst than yours?
It is with this line of thinking that you might reconsider whether it is, in fact, "morally justifiable" to discriminate against Brendan.
I understand that. What I am saying is: his standards are broken.
> Rather, you want to punish Brendan, in part, because of the nature of his belief.
No. You can be a bigot in private if you want to, that is your right. But that's not what Brendon did. He 1) took action to try to get his (and other's) bigotry enshrined into law (successfully, I might add) and 2) when called out years later, he stood by his bigotry. That is why I believe his ouster was justified.
> It is because Brendan had donated to a cause which you disagree with, that you want him to be punished.
No. There are a lot of people who donate to a lot of causes with which I vehemently disagree. If everyone who donated to a cause that I disagree with were fired no one would have a job.
The reason this issue is different is that reasonable people can no longer disagree about it. We've done the experiment. We have gay married people now, and none of the horrible things that were supposed to happen when gays got married have come to pass. There is no argument against gay marriage that has not been utterly and completely debunked, except religious ones, and in the United States making laws based on your religion is out of bounds. Opposing gay marriage is completely indefensible on any grounds other than personal bigotry (or, if you prefer, personal belief, but I believe in calling a spade a spade).
> But who is to say Brendan's standard is better or worst than yours?
My standard is the Constitution of the United States of America, specifically, the fourteenth amendment. You can be a bigot here, but you may not seek to enshrine your bigotry into law. If you don't like it, move to Russia. State-sponsored anti-gay bigotry is alive and well there.
There are no such rules. You may feel that way, but People get to seek to enshrine any damn thing into law, if they like. If it is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court will strike it down. That's how the system works.
P.S. Using more words doesn't make your argument better or your source more authoritative. You can just call it "the Constitution", without fear of miscommunication.
Let me quote you:
Brendan Eich was not fired because he made a political donation [...] he is a bigot
This is silly. It's nothing of the sort.
In fact, in light of the fact that all of the objective arguments against gay marriage have at this point been completely debunked, I don't see too many other possibilities.
In fact, even if discrimination against opponents of gay marriage were not morally justified on its own merits, it would be at least as morally justified as the discrimination against gays that Brendan Eich once wanted to see enshrined into law.