Gay Rights: Is it time to Boycott Firefox?

[esmith]

Thankfully, I had already switched from Firefox to Chrome some time back. I think it would be funny to see all these businesses start to lose business because of denying service to homosexuals.

WHAT????? Please explain in your own words, that is if you can, how Firefox is denying service to homosexuals. I would hazard to guess that OKcupid is denying service to homosexuals by advocating switching to web services that are a piece of crap.

 

[Revoltingest]

Found today....
Mozilla CEO's exit tests Silicon Valley's tolerance
The whole debacle strikes me as intolerant thuggery by OkCupid.
There's no evidence that Eich's personal views caused the company to be anti-gay.
Heaven forbid that there be diversity of thought, & that non-PC views of individuals
generate retaliation against a pro-gay company. Makes me crave a Chick-fil-A burger.

 

[Revoltingest]

Bill (ugh!) Maher weighs in too....
Bill Maher: "There Is A Gay Mafia -- If You Cross Them, You Do Get Whacked" | Video | RealClearPolitics

 

[technomage]

The whole debacle strikes me as intolerant thuggery by OkCupid.

"Intolerant," perhaps ... but to my mind, being intolerant of bigotry is certainly acceptable.

 

[Revoltingest]

"Intolerant," perhaps ... but to my mind, being intolerant of bigotry is certainly acceptable.

That's the dilemma....how far does one go in objecting to what another believes & does?
Getting a guy fired for his personal life strikes me as going too far. What next....a pro-gay
marriage loyalty oath as a requirement to keep one's job at Mozilla?

 

[Apex]

"Intolerant," perhaps ... but to my mind, being intolerant of bigotry is certainly acceptable.

Two wrongs do not make a right.
Being a bigot to bigoted people still makes you a bigot.

 

[technomage]

Two wrongs do not make a right.
Being a bigot to bigoted people still makes you a bigot.

I disagree, Apex. Refusing to put up with bigotry is not, itself, bigotry.

 

[technomage]

That's the dilemma....how far does one go in objecting to what another believes & does?

When what a person does hurts other people makes a good dividing line for me.

 

[Apex]

I disagree, Apex. Refusing to put up with bigotry is not, itself, bigotry.

It can be. It all depends on how one goes about it. Making it impossible for a person to financially support their family because you do not like their views strikes me as bigotry.

 

[technomage]

It can be. It all depends on how one goes about it. Making it impossible for a person to financially support their family because you do not like their views strikes me as bigotry.

In Eich's case, he and his family are fine. But how far would you go with your views? If the local Klan member opens a store for white supremacist paraphernalia, should I force myself to purchase his wares (even though I vehemently disagree) in order to make sure his family is fed?

Choices have consequences. In Eich's case, he made a choice--and it has consequences. It's not about a person's _views_, it's about their _actions_.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

"Intolerant," perhaps ... but to my mind, being intolerant of bigotry is certainly acceptable.

Only to a point. When someone just holds a view is fired from their position, and their personal views are not effecting the company, it can only be labeled as hypocrisy. Much like the Chik-fil-a guy, his company should never have been protested just because he said he doesn't agree with homosexual marriages. That's cool. I don't agree with his religious views. But what he was not protested for was the fact he uses company profits to fund anti-gay groups. His dad was even doing that, but there was no wide protest until he just blurted out his stance.
Expecting others to bend to your thoughts is pretty Orwellian. Better be careful should they turn the thought police on you.

 

[Apex]

In Eich's case, he and his family are fine.

This is not always the case. And it still does not make it right. There are cases where pro-gay rights groups have forced businesses to fire individual employees (i.e. waiters/waitresses) despite the fact that the employee's views did not affect their place of employment in any manner. These are not well off people. They are people living pay check to pay check. This is bigotry, plain and simple.

But how far would you go with your views? If the local Klan member opens a store for white supremacist paraphernalia, should I force myself to purchase his wares (even though I vehemently disagree) in order to make sure his family is fed?

Choosing to not give your money to a particular business is not the same as forcing that business to close down, or fire employees. Also, your analogy is not quite accurate. You are presenting a case where the business itself is bigoted. The case in the OP, and the ones I am referencing, the business has nothing to do with the views that are being opposed.

Choices have consequences. In Eich's case, he made a choice--and it has consequences. It's not about a person's _views_, it's about their _actions_.

This is not an excuse for bigoted and hypocritical behavior.

 

[Penumbra]

The man that donated $1k to ban gay marriage in California became CEO of a progressive company in a progressive industry (American tech sector in general). He's otherwise highly qualified, because he invented Javascript and co-founded Mozilla, but he's apparently anti gay rights.

A number of employees publicly disagreed with the CEO choice because of this. Mozilla offers same-sex health benefits to employees, so it would indeed be kind of alarming if you or your co-worker friend is gay and works at mozilla, has gay spousal benefits, and the new CEO is known to have contributed to an anti gay marriage political campaign. For example, the company Mobil had gay spousal benefits but then Exxon acquired them and cancelled them. So they can be lost. I think in states where gay marriage is legal, companies have to give same-sex couples benefits now, though. So that might be less of an issue. But in general, it's reasonable that employees might want want someone with those views being the primary public face of their organization.

Three directors left the board when he became CEO, but the company states two of them were planning to leave.

Then OKCupid did that boycott, and so in addition to the employee remarks and articles about the board, it all went very public.

Eich said he wouldn't leave, and the next day he stepped down, so the board must have fired him.

What's interesting about this, is that apparently it's at the point where in this industry, it's so socially unacceptable to be anti gay rights, that you can lose a high profile job over it. Of course, anybody who has donated to an anti civil rights group, or has donated to a campaign to ban interracial marriage, in any industry, would be kicked out with little public debate about the issue, because those things are extremely socially unacceptable now and would be terrible for company image.

So, just like some companies wouldn't want a CEO in favor of racial school segregation back in the 1950's or 1960's (and now all wouldn't), and just like how some companies wouldn't want a CEO in favor of banning interracial marriage back in the 1970's (and now all wouldn't), it's reached the point where some companies don't want an anti gay rights CEO in the 2010's.

 

[Revoltingest]

It can be. It all depends on how one goes about it. Making it impossible for a person to financially support their family because you do not like their views strikes me as bigotry.

I wouldn't say that......"vicious sanctimonious intolerance" seems more fitting.

We all have our ideas about what speech & conduct hurts our interests. If some progressives are OK
with giving a worker the boot for private advocacy against their causes, I wonder how they'd feel if
the Koch Bros were to require all their employees to vote Libertarian, & never donate or otherwise
support for Pubs or Dems. Is what's good for the goose also good for the gander?

 

[Penumbra]

I don't think continuing to use Firefox amounts to an endorsement of the personal opinions of its executives

perhaps that true but boycotting certainly says i disagree with him. this is important. America is in cultural civil war.

Mozilla gets almost all of their revenue from that little Google search bar on top of Firefox's screen. So not using Firefox and in particular not using that Google search bar, if done in large numbers, directly reduces Mozilla's revenue.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I wouldn't be so quick to applaud Silicon Valley and what they call diversity. If you are over 30, they do not want you.

 

[Penumbra]

I wouldn't be so quick to applaud Silicon Valley and what they call diversity. If you are over 30, they do not want you.

I work as an engineer and it's kind of known unfortunately that as one ages, it becomes more difficult to be appealing to employers, especially in our line of work. Someone who is 40 or 50 with 20 or 30 years of experience will command a large salary, whereas someone who is 25 with 3 years of relevant experience can in many cases get the job done well for half the cost. So a lot of companies seem to keep really experienced people around for key positions as principle engineers or managers where all that experience is critical, and then try to get as many younger, less costly employees as possible for the lower ranks.

Boeing created a stir in my industry when it was issuing all sorts of layoffs while hiring new grads in comparable numbers. Fire the engineer making $100k to hire an engineer making $60k.

In my organization the manager is often looking for engineers in the $50k-$70k range and gets applications from some people with 30+ years experience. We interview them and all that but they often don't have the most relevant experience for our needs and the ones that make it through to the end understandably want more than $70k. I mean, we have people in their 20's that were promoted from within making $90k so it would be like a slap in the face to have a 50 year old guy working under them for $70k. Our lead engineering spots where people make $80k+ are filled already, are promoted usually from within anyway, so they're often just looking for less experienced people, which often means people in their 20's. We did just hire someone in her 30's, though.

Personally I'm going to move out tech in my 30's.

But anyway, that's a bit different from being actively against some group. Not all tech companies do what Boeing does, and CEOs would be careful of what they say publicly about ageism, compared to a CEO being publicly known as anti gay rights or other things due to political contributions. That doesn't damage their image as much as a CEO that is on the losing side of a cultural shift.

 

[technomage]

This is not an excuse for bigoted and hypocritical behavior.

You're using those words to mean something entirely different than the dictionary definition.

Again, I do not propose punishing anyone for their beliefs. But when a person acts, their actions have consequences. If they do not want to face the consequences of their actions, they should learn to choose those actions more wisely.

 

[Badran]

The man that donated $1k to ban gay marriage in California became CEO of a progressive company in a progressive industry (American tech sector in general). He's otherwise highly qualified, because he invented Javascript and co-founded Mozilla, but he's apparently anti gay rights.

A number of employees publicly disagreed with the CEO choice because of this. Mozilla offers same-sex health benefits to employees, so it would indeed be kind of alarming if you or your co-worker friend is gay and works at mozilla, has gay spousal benefits, and the new CEO is known to have contributed to an anti gay marriage political campaign. For example, the company Mobil had gay spousal benefits but then Exxon acquired them and cancelled them. So they can be lost. I think in states where gay marriage is legal, companies have to give same-sex couples benefits now, though. So that might be less of an issue. But in general, it's reasonable that employees might want want someone with those views being the primary public face of their organization.

Three directors left the board when he became CEO, but the company states two of them were planning to leave.

Then OKCupid did that boycott, and so in addition to the employee remarks and articles about the board, it all went very public.

Eich said he wouldn't leave, and the next day he stepped down, so the board must have fired him.

What's interesting about this, is that apparently it's at the point where in this industry, it's so socially unacceptable to be anti gay rights, that you can lose a high profile job over it. Of course, anybody who has donated to an anti civil rights group, or has donated to a campaign to ban interracial marriage, in any industry, would be kicked out with little public debate about the issue, because those things are extremely socially unacceptable now and would be terrible for company image.

So, just like some companies wouldn't want a CEO in favor of racial school segregation back in the 1950's or 1960's (and now all wouldn't), and just like how some companies wouldn't want a CEO in favor of banning interracial marriage back in the 1970's (and now all wouldn't), it's reached the point where some companies don't want an anti gay rights CEO in the 2010's.

What's your opinion on the boycotting Mozilla part particularly?

I ask because, basically, i agree with everything you said, but at the same time i wouldn't boycott Mozilla over this issue, had i been using it.

 

[Sunstone]

I've heard some folks say that such things as government imposed environmental regulations are not needed because it's better to leave it up to consumers to boycott those companies that have poor environmental practices. I wonder if the same folks are now saying that the consumer boycott of Mozilla over the issue of gay rights is justified?