Mozilla Faces Negative Reaction to CEO Ouster

Mccarthy

Are we facing a new kind of McCarthyism that is run by mobs?

 

Mozilla ran into a bit of chop because of the ouster of its high-profie CEO.

Brendan Eich, the inventer of JavaScript and all-around tech icon, was forced to resign his position as CEO of Mozilla and his membership on the Mozilla Foundation board because it was discovered that he had made a completely legal donation of $1,000 to the Proposition 8 campaign in 2008.

Mozilla tried to paint a self-righteous gloss over the whole thing by issuing a statement that sounded, oddly enough, like it was written by a computer. The statement contained vague references to “people who were hurt” and how Mozilla hadn’t been faithful to its “values.” Then there was an icing of claptrap about inclusiveness and diversity.

This latter is especially gag-inducing, considering that claims of “inclusiveness” and “diversity” are being use to justify big-brotherish group think and ruthless enforcement of lock-step conformity.

It turns out that at least 7,000 people were outraged enough to write about their non-support of Mozilla’s behavior on the Mozilla web site. Prominent gay marriage activist Andrew Sullivan also spoke out against what happened.

From the perspective of Mozilla itself, throwing Eich under the bus (It’s getting rather crowded under that bus, btw.) isn’t quite as high-profile as firing Steve Jobs from Apple was, but it’s just as stupid. Dump the guy who invented JavaScript and has ably led the company to challenge the big boys in the tech world because of completely legal, entirely private, low-profile political activity? Now that’s thinking.

I want to emphasize that this donation was so low-profile that it took six years for it to become an issue. They had to do research to find out about it.

Is that the new world of “inclusiveness” and “diversity?” Does diversity and inclusiveness mean you are free to think what you want as long as it agrees with the gay rights movement and you don’t do anything in your private life that someone can dig up and use against you to prove that you don’t agree with the gay rights movement?

Are people who support traditional marriage supposed to hide their beliefs and be afraid to exercise their right as free Americans to engage in political action on behalf of those beliefs for fear of losing their livelihood?

If this can happen to someone like Brendan Eich, is anyone in this country really free?

From The DailyCaller:

Mozilla, the company that operates the web browser Firefox, experienced its highest level of negative customer feedback the day after its embattled co-founder Brendan Eich resigned as CEO after gay rights activists objected to his appointment.

On Thursday, Mozilla forced Eich to resign just two weeks after hiring him. At issue was a $1,000 donation Eich gave in 2008 in support of California’s Proposition 8, a successful ballot initiative which banned gay marriage.

The decision to remove the man who invented the web scripting language JavaScipt did not sit well with many customers — many of them pelted Mozilla’s website with a surge of negative feedback.

On Friday, 94 percent of the sentiments registered on the site were “sad,” while six percent were “happy.” That translates to about 7,000 negative responses, compared to nearly 500 positive responses.

“Your abject and pathetic condemnation of an individual’s right to hold and support their own view on the world is simply unbelievable,” read one user’s feedback at the Mozilla site.

 

 

 

 

  • Bill S

    There really is no legitimate reason to oppose the marriage of any two people you don’t know. That should be common knowledge. The Bible and the Catholic Church have no bearing on whether or not same sex couples should be prohibited from marrying. It is a grave injustice to donate money aimed at taking away someone else’s rights that he doesn’t even know.

    • Mark R

      I couldn’t care less on what two people decide to get married. I do care about an internet lynch mob coming after a guy for something he did a few years ago, privately, with no relation or connection to his work life. Should all the millions of people who supported Prop 8 now lose their jobs? Should anyone who has supported any sort of political cause begin dusting off their resume for fear that their boss will now be looking up just what political causes they support?

      • Bill S

        Should all the millions of people who supported Prop 8 now lose their jobs?

        They should, but they probably won’t. What I do know is that they should be ashamed of themselves.

        • Mark R

          They should lose their jobs because they have a different viewpoint than you?

          Strong fascist sentiment is strong indeed.

          • Bill S

            I was being facetious. But I do not have any well wishes for anyone who supports anti-gay laws.

        • Smithgift

          What happens after they lose their jobs? They should go on welfare? They should starve?

          • Bill S

            They shouldn’t go on welfare. They should starve.

            I’m being facetious.

            • hamiltonr

              That’s way too cruel to be facetious Bill.

              • Bill S

                Sorry. I would never wish any bad on anyone. I just think that supporting proposition eight is a very inconsiderate thing to do.

    • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

      You are not even bothering to try to argue anything any more. This is a series of disconnected commandments with no elaboration and no background, issued with a tone of command that would perhaps suit God on Mount Sinai, but sounds nothing but ridiculous coming from any Bill S.

      • Bill S

        All I know is that giving money to support a cause that would invalidate the marriages that were already performed and deprive others of their rights says a lot about a person. He’s not anyone I would want to give my business to.

        • Dave

          Bill, they didn’t have any marriages at that point. It was only after Prop 8 and the will of the voters of California were overridden by a gay state judge with an obvious conflict of interest that the marriages were performed.

          • Bill S

            From the San Jose Mercury News:

            The Supreme Court’s decision in the DOMA case immediately provides full federal benefits to same-sex couples in the 12 states that have legalized gay marriage and would apply in California with Proposition 8 overturned. It also would grant federal benefits to the more than 18,000 same-sex couples married in 2008 before Proposition 8 was passed..

            Proposition 8 was also intended to invalidate those marriages and not give them state recognition. Shame!

        • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

          Please go on. Do without Java (his invention).

          • xJane

            Oh, please, can I?? (Not because of his views but because of the havoc Java wrecks on my devices.)

            • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

              You can if you’re clever enough. I had to enable Java on mine (with no ill effects), which mean you can do the reverse if you want to. Let’s see you try – hic Rhodus, hic salta.

              • Smithgift

                My obsessive compulsive geekery requires me to point out that JavaScript (Eich’s invention) is not the same as Java. Java is the thing you have to download to run certain programs. JavaScript is what makes webpages interactive client-side. Disqus, I’m pretty sure, runs off JavaScript, so yes, you could not even post this without the work of Eich. I would say he was incredibly qualified for his position he had at Mozilla, but no, the Bigotry Inquisition had to have its say.

                Since when is it more important that people have politically correct views on an irrelevant subject than actual technical qualification for the job?

                • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

                  For a very long time now. It was already a requirement in British academia three decades ago.

          • Bill S

            Oh. Silly me. He invented Java. I guess he could support an oppressive law intended to void 18,000 existing marriages and prevent many more without any repercussions from those who work for him or give him their business. He earned it.

            • hamiltonr

              Yes. He can support any law he wants. Because he is an American. As you often do, you are supporting tyranny Bill. This time, it’s the tyranny of the mob over this man’s civil rights to engage in the political process.

              • Bill S

                Mozilla can’t win either way. They are going to lose business from one side or the other. This gay movement is a little bit like the French Revolution.

                • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

                  …and a frog is a little bit like an ox. (If you haven’t read Aesop as a child, I guess it’s too late now.)

                  • Bill S

                    No. I missed that fable. I don’t know what that means.

        • FW Ken

          But they don’t have any rights unless the courts grant it to them.

          • Bill S

            Well, they did have the rights all along. They just were not recognized and honored until the courts said that they had to be.

            • FW Ken

              Now you are appealing to a transcendent law, Bill. Sorry of like a “natural law” if you will. Funny thing for an atheist to do.

              • Bill S

                There is nothing transcendent about the right to marry. Logic and reason are not transcendent.

                • FW Ken

                  Nonsense. Logic and reason have nothing to do with this. As you have said many times, it’s the courts that dispense these “rights”, and now you appeal to a higher power.

                  • Bill S

                    Applying logic and reason ( which we have acquired through evolution with those displaying both surviving the natural selection process ) is not “relying on a higher power. And yes, I trust the judicial system as the most reliable means of securing our God-given (as you would call them) rights.

                    • FW Ken

                      Oh, dear.

                      Logic and reason are processes enacted upon presuppositions. On the one hand, you are claiming that courts give us those rights, then claiming some source for knowing what those rights are before the courts grant them. That means (logically), that you have a set of presuppositions garnered from some source or another. It can’t be “logic” or “reason”, because we are talking about presuppositions.

                      By the way, logic and reason are pretty poor survival skills, as a plain reading of history suggests. But that’s another discussion, I suppose.

                    • Bill S

                      I’ll admit to the presupposition of equal rights for all and that no American should be subject to the rules of someone else’s religion.

                    • pesq87

                      This is a distinction I think is worth mentioning – to my knowledge, the courts don’t “grant us” or “dispense to us” the fundamental right to marry. they explain to us that as citizens we’ve had this right all along, that it comes with being a citizen.

  • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

    And then you get Yahoo who put out a Katie Curic interview with Pres LBJ’s daughters on what LBJ would have thought on the gay marriage issue. Of course, of course, of course, LBJ would have been sympathetic to gay rights. Yeah, right, and the moon is made of swiss cheese.

    http://news.yahoo.com/katie-couric-lbj-daughters-civil-rights-interview-001003293.html

    Jimmy Akin has links to where to voice your complaint and dissatisfaction to Mozilla:

    http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/how-you-can-push-back-against-mozilla-firefoxs-gay-marriage-thuggery

  • Linda Kreger

    Sometimes I just get discouraged. I have no right to believe what I believe unless it is deemed politically correct by the far Left with which I completely disagree. That they have the power to fire an executive for supporting his American freedom to act on what he believes is no different than firing a gay person because he is gay. No different!

  • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

    It isn’t new. This has been going on for ten years, it’s the standard Modus Operandi of the left wing, has been for decades now in other arenas.

  • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

    [geek secularist sarcasm on]I had forgotten he invented Javascript. For that alone, he must die![/geek]

  • xJane

    It’s called a boycott. When I was Catholic, we regularly got lists of companies that supported PPI who we were encouraged to stop patronizing (and lists of companies that supported prolife causes who we were encouraged to start patronizing. This is no different.

    • Dave

      A witch hunt to take away someone’s job is not a boycott. If you are talking about what Christians are doing to Mozilla – yes, that is a boycott.

      • xJane

        Richard Stearns. Michael Eisner. Howard Schultz. Not to mention all the politicians.

        boycott v. to withdraw from commercial or social relations with (a country, organization, or person) as a punishment or protest

        This one just happened to work (usually, they don’t) and happened to be one that you disagree with.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X