Forcing someone to apologize for something that is not universally considered to be wrong is a good example of bullying. As is calling publicly his behaviour "sociopathic".

> He was clearly working against his employees' best interest.

This is hardly considered to be a firing offense for a CEO -- in fact, in many cases this is considered to be good by many people, e.g. by anti-tradeunionists when CEOs fights with unions.

> Many productive employees threatened to quit because they didn't want to be represented by a person who explicitly expressed hatred towards them or their friends.

Saying that he explicitly expressed hatred towards anyone is misrepresenting the facts, and is another example of bullying.

"Everyone who questions my obviously compassionate and righteous cause is a dangerous sociopath" — Many sociopaths

To elaborate, you're implying there's a different, valid side to this argument. I'm curious to hear it.

This isn't a disagreement over optimal taxation rates. There are people committing suicide because they've been demonized by people like those Eich paid money to support. There is real harm being done.

The only reason anyone knows about his ciews is because political donations are public, not because of anything he did at work.

But this was the CEO of a company unapologetically supporting a hate group aimed at many of his own employees. Then people have the balls to claim he was "bullied" out of his position as head of a major Internet company?

This isn't crazy programmer Ed going on about some conspiracy theory, this is the CEO of your company supporting hate directed at you and your friends. You can just wave Ed away. This guy is going after your fundamental rights. Screw that.

There likely wouldn't have been a Mozilla corp or org if he hadn't founded the company and as Mozilla grew he did nothing to hamper its growth into a highly diversity-friendly company. Privately he had issues, likely religious, about the definition of marriage and this was, culturally, a mainstream view at the time.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9041105

Sure, but arguably they're benefiting the company then. In what way does denying some people fundamental rights that other people are allowed to have benefit Mozilla? It's a different situation.

> Saying that he explicitly expressed hatred towards anyone is misrepresenting the facts

It really isn't. Did you see the Prop 8 campaign? Do you know the kind of offensive garbage anti-gay groups spew, even today? They regularly call homosexuals pedophiles, rapists, accuse them of having an "agenda" to convert others to homosexuality, or that their god hates them. These groups are a wellspring of hate, and Prop 8 was no lily-white exception. The "National Organization for Marriage," a major supporter of Prop 8, has been classified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group.

That's what Eich was paying to support. If giving material support to a cause forwarded by hate groups doesn't classify as expressing hatred, I really don't know what does.

I understand that this won't change anyone who's already formed an opinion on abortion but lying about your opposition shows a weakness in your position.

To some people, Planned Parenthood aborts fetuses. To other people, Planned Parenthood murders babies. I personally am much more in the former camp than the latter. But would you want the people who believe the latter to get you fired from your job because they read your Hacker News comment and plaster it all over conservative newspapers that "wavefunction is an apologist for baby murderers!"? I certainly wouldn't.

The nuance that always gets lost in these discussions is that different people have different points of view, and the same words may mean different things to them. Combine that with the lynch mob mentality and you have a powder keg.

Would you be opposed to pregnant women taking this drug?

There is no legitimate argument against gay marriage.

So, what makes an argument legitimate? In order for one to suggest that there is no legitimate argument against gay marriage, you'd have to rationalize what it is that we in the west know better than those living in less-wealthy, less-industrialized societies outside our corner of the globe.

Using that as a rulestick, no one will be negatively impacted by homosexuals getting married. Studies have been done, plenty of places around the globe have tried it with no negative consequences. The courts agree. There's no government interest in preventing gay marriage.

Most of those other societies incorporate substantial religious influence in their legislative and/or judicial processes. It doesn't require "rationalization" to demonstrate that this is harmful to human progress.

EDIT: Apparently that's a little contentious -- only 47% self-declared atheist (http://redcresearch.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/RED-C-pres...), but given that 9% of those surveyed did not respond to the question, the majority of respondents to this specific survey question did self-proclaim themselves as atheists.

Even today -- decades after the state/social pressures against religious affiliation disappeared -- most former soviet states still have very large atheist populations.

Yes, I think people, in a position where PR is a part of their role such as CEO, that work toward things that cause substantial outcry that prevent him from doing his job, should probably not be in that position.

Or are you saying that you'd think someone working against the ideals of Planned Parenthood in their own time would be suited to lead it?

You might disagree with the reasons, but the reality is, he couldn't do his job because of the outcry. So, the fundamental question becomes: Do you think someone should get fired for not being able to do their job?

That position of power, and Mozilla as a whole, would likely never have existed without Eich.

You seem sharp set to demonize Eich and otherwise be combative with others in all these comments. Have you ever considered that your attitude would harden peoples' hearts against you rather than warming them?

Do you think you will you ever be able to drop this victim act and heal and move on with life?

If that's your understanding of people who vote against gay marriage, then you really have no idea what's going on in this country.

Maybe you think that sucks. Well, in fairly short order, gay marriage is being legalized over their objections. That's a good thing. But to believe that it's being fueled by sociopathic animosity—to turn millions of Americans into movie villains because they haven't yet learned what you already have—is an act of arrogant blindness. And it's a harm to you as well—by not understanding why they believe what they do, by turning them into fictional caricatures, you lose all hope of changing their mind, and helping them learn what you learned.

I have no doubt that, over time, quite a lot of them will see the errors of their ways, and support gay marriage. But it will be despite you, not thanks to you.

But that isn't to say that religion has (or should have) no influence, because it influences the believers, who then support laws & lawmakers. Nor is always it possible to separate the beliefs that someone holds for religious reasons, vs. beliefs they hold for other reasons. But it does mean that a law needs more than religious reasons to stay on the books. Thankfully, gay marriage seems to be one that is mostly held for religious reasons, so laws preventing it can be dismantled (versus, say, marijuana prohibition. It's more than just religion, so it's harder to dismantle).

But if all you take away is that people against gay marriage aren't driven by sociopathic malice, then that's still an improvement.

The downvotes from cowards and/or homophobes do crack me up though. This is a discussion forum, folks. If you disagree, let's discuss it!