Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Was Eich a Threat To Mozilla's $1B Google "Trust Fund"?

timothy posted about 8 months ago | from the are-you-now-or-have-you-ever-been dept.

Mozilla 564

theodp (442580) writes "Over the years, Mozilla's reliance on Google has continued to grow. Indeed, in its report on Brendan Eich's promotion to CEO of Mozilla, the WSJ noted that "Google accounted for nearly 90% of Mozilla's $311 million in revenue." So, with its Sugar Daddy having also gone on record as being virulently opposed to Proposition 8, to think that that Google's support didn't enter into discussions of whether Prop 8 backer Eich should stay or go seems, well, pretty much unthinkable. "It is the chilling and discriminatory effect of the proposition on many of our employees that brings Google to publicly oppose Proposition 8," explained Google co-founder Sergey Brin in 2008. "We should not eliminate anyone's fundamental rights, whatever their sexuality, to marry the person they love." Interestingly, breaking the news of Eich's resignation was journalist Kara Swisher, whose right to marry a top Google exec in 2008 was nearly eliminated by Prop 8. "In an interview this morning," wrote Swisher, "Mozilla Executive Chairwoman Mitchell Baker said that Eich's ability to lead the company that makes the Firefox Web browser had been badly damaged by the continued scrutiny over the hot-button issue, which had actually been known since 2012 inside the Mozilla community." Swisher, whose article was cited by the NY Times in The Campaign Against Mozilla's Brendan Eich, added that "it was not hard to get the sense that Eich really wanted to stick strongly by his views about gay marriage, which run counter to much of the tech industry and, increasingly, the general population in the U.S. For example, he repeatedly declined to answer when asked if he would donate to a similar initiative today." So, was keeping Eich aboard viewed by Mozilla — perhaps even by Eich himself — as a possible threat to the reported $1 billion minimum revenue guarantee the organization enjoys for delivering search queries for Google?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Everyone has the right (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46669345)

to have a miserable life, i.e. to be married.

The new Hitlers (0, Troll)

hessian (467078) | about 8 months ago | (#46669373)

Our new tech overlords, made rich by a market that dropped in their laps, now want to experiment with "social engineering."

This has a bad history. Hitler, Stalin, et al.

However, they don't care -- this is about their egos and feeling good for having done something socially popular, at least among their somewhat incestuous and nepotistic California cult.

Naturally, any dissenters must be weeded out, as they were in the Soviet Union and after the French Revolution.

Ideology of this sort never changes. Since it is not based in reality, but in thinking about what "ought" to be, it views any dissent as a threat that might invalidate its own claim to being morally right.

Thus, the dissenters must be squashed. Gulag, guillotine, or boycott. It matters not which is used so long as it silences them.

Re:The new Hitlers (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46669433)

Basically, you're a dumbass.

You're defending the actual supremacist, who donated money to take away people's rights, and pretending those who do stand for equal rights and no longer want to tolerate the actual nazi's are the oppressors.

Think it over.

Re:The new Hitlers (3, Insightful)

guygo (894298) | about 8 months ago | (#46669465)

If such ideology as yours was what this world really wanted, we would still be trading with an Apatheid government in South Africa. As you note, history is full of examples where economic pressures have been used to create social change, but unlike you I see that as a normal expression of the hallowed "free" market. I don't see anyone going to the guillotine, do you? Or are your just being hyperbolic in order to be completely out of our solar system?

Re:The new Hitlers (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 8 months ago | (#46669525)

Have you heard of 'perspective'? It's a fascinating notion, really.

In addition to making certain flavors of artistic realism possible, it suggests that 'a guy facing pressure to resign from his cushy leadership gig' and 'being sent to the guillotine by fanatical Jacobins' may actually be meaningfully different things. Cutting edge theory stuff, here.

Re:The new Hitlers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46669621)

a guy facing pressure to resign from his cushy leadership gig

You know, I think this is really the central issue here, at least for me.

I have no problem with horrible and hateful people receiving jobs at companies. But I have the perception, rightly or wrongly, that nearly every top executive position (even at nonprofits) pays a salary that is not commensurate with the person's work or value to the organization, and that these positions are instead used as a reward for people who the company directors happens to like.

So, I am comfortable with Eich, or even someone more hateful, being paid a high but appropriate salary for doing lots of good work for the company. But if, as I believe, most of the CEO's salary is a reward from the board of directors for being the person they like the most, then I feel justified in throwing a fit if I don't like him the most.

Re:The new Hitlers (3, Insightful)

jmac_the_man (1612215) | about 8 months ago | (#46669865)

But I have the perception, rightly or wrongly, that nearly every top executive position (even at nonprofits) pays a salary that is not commensurate with the person's work or value to the organization, and that these positions are instead used as a reward for people who the company directors happens to like.

So, I am comfortable with Eich, or even someone more hateful, being paid a high but appropriate salary for doing lots of good work for the company. But if, as I believe, most of the CEO's salary is a reward from the board of directors for being the person they like the most, then I feel justified in throwing a fit if I don't like him the most.

Immediately before being promoted, Eich had been the Chief Technology Officer at Mozilla. He's also the guy who invented Javascript. Do you really think he didn't make an technical contribution to Mozilla's products?

Your analogy fails... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46669543)

Our new tech overlords, made rich by a market that dropped in their laps, now want to experiment with "social engineering."

This has a bad history. Hitler, Stalin, et al.

However, they don't care -- this is about their egos and feeling good for having done something socially popular, at least among their somewhat incestuous and nepotistic California cult.

Naturally, any dissenters must be weeded out, as they were in the Soviet Union and after the French Revolution.

Ideology of this sort never changes. Since it is not based in reality, but in thinking about what "ought" to be, it views any dissent as a threat that might invalidate its own claim to being morally right.

Thus, the dissenters must be squashed. Gulag, guillotine, or boycott. It matters not which is used so long as it silences them.

Your analogy fails to make a point of comparing a market-driven and very diverse tech industry, and then dishonestly trying to brand it with a form of fascism via military-backed state leaders who govern with a strict top-down hierarchy.

If you're somehow scared of Microsoft, Apple, & Google, rest assured that they are nowhere near as scary as the boogeymen armed with guns who you make references to. I don't know if you are truly as ignorant as you sound, but realize that not all forms of power are the same. The tech industry (which isn't a monolithic entity lead by one dictator as you might believe) has soft power (money & a bit of diplomacy.)

Your scare tactics are referring to Hitler & Stalin, those guys had military power, coercion through the use of force, and the authority of an entire nation state. They can simply point their guns to your head, take your money, and laugh at your diplomacy.

Don't be so stupid & dishonest.

Re:The new Hitlers (1, Informative)

plopez (54068) | about 8 months ago | (#46669591)

Haven't heard of Godwin's Law have you?

Re:The new Hitlers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46669927)

Godwin's law doesn't apply when faced with real fascists, and anti gay bigots definitely fall into that category. What, you thought it meant no-one could ever mention nazism again? Really? God bless you, no.

Re:The new Hitlers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46669603)

Well he did run out of other peoples money...

Re:The new Hitlers (0, Troll)

johnlcallaway (165670) | about 8 months ago | (#46669701)

This is more like the Church of England and it's inquisition, where heretics where hunted down and punished because they dared believe something different. The militant gay people think they have the right to tell other people what moral values they have to have. Personally, I don't give a crap who someone has sex with. I just find it repulsive when people who don't feel the same way are called names like 'homophobe'. The name callers are no different than those who call people who want legalized abortion to remain legal murders, narrow minded and unwilling to even try and look at the other side of the discussion. Or carry on a real conversation for fear they might just be wrong.
It seems to me that allowing gay people to marry only creates even more discrimination. It's adding another group into the married pool that gets special privileges just because they sign a piece of paper. There is nothing about being legally accepted as married that is different from living together, except government benefits and some company benefits. Nothing. Nada. It's all about a very small group of people wanting to get the same extra privileges that a larger group enjoy because the acquiesce to the government's attempt to force social behaviors. I knew a couple that didn't want to be married because of student loan issues (they didn't want his income to be included in the calculations), so they had a 'joining' ceremony and lived together for years. Everyone treated them as married, EXCEPT the government. Which was exactly what they wanted.

Since nothing is stopping gay couples from having ceremonies and living as if married, as far as I can tell, gay marriage is all about forcing acceptance and government benefits. It's just more of today's entitlement society where someone wants something from the government. Of they want the government to force companies to give them benefits. It has absolutely nothing to do with love.

Name one benefit afforded to a married couple that shouldn't also be afforded to any two people just living together, that have agreed to create a financial interdependence. Why can't two sisters who have lived together their entire lives get the same social security and tax benefits as a married couple, simply because they don't get married. Why should two roommates, no matter what sex they are, be denied those same benefits simply because they don't want to have sex with each other. In fact, name one reason why two roommates, who don't have sex, can't get 'married' and get the same benefits. Isn't that sexual discrimination??? How long will it be before people start to figure that out. All gay marriage laws do is dilute the term 'marriage' (which barely means anything anymore anyway), reducing it to a simple 'give me my entitlement' statement.

My mother and brother lived together for many years until she passed away. He was an independent truck driver and only needed a place to sleep on the weekends. She was retired and did his paperwork (there is a lot of paperwork for truck drivers) and scheduled his loads. Why couldn't they get the same tax benefits of 'married, filing jointly' as anyone else. Why shouldn't he be able to name her as his social security beneficiary. If he passed away suddenly, my mother was just as financially dependent on him as she would have been to a husband and would have found it difficult to manage without his income.

Hypocrites .. that's what I think those that support gay marriage are. They don't give a flip about equality, they only want to force their moral beliefs on those that disagree, and enable a very small group of select people to get benefits. If they truly wanted equality, they would fight to ELIMINATE all benefits tied to being married. Tax laws could be changed to allow for household incomes to be used. Social Security survivor-ship benefits could be simply modified to allow for one person to receive them, and set several rules (such as living together for a number of years while working and paying social security taxes). Divorce laws can be changed to recognize civil unions so those wishing protection without getting married can be afforded it.

Many insurance companies and private businesses already allow for 'domestic partners' when it comes to insurance, I don't see any requirement there that those partners be having sex.

Rules regarding who sees whom in a hospital are decided by the hospital, not the government. Every hospital can modify those rules as they see fit, they have just chosen to take the easy way out and say family only in some cases.

If the gay community and it's supporters put as much effort into really creating equality for all, instead of selfishly grabbing benefits for themselves, they would probably find a lot more support and eliminate a lot of the divisive tones that fight their desire to get the same entitlements current married couples have.

Re:The new Hitlers (2)

kencurry (471519) | about 8 months ago | (#46669767)

Interesting comment, wish I had mod points today. You demonstrate that this topic has many layers to it that most of us don't consider.

Re:The new Hitlers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46669827)

I was briefly skeptical for a bit there but what you are saying is truly correct. Marriage shouldn't be a "package deal" and the State shouldn't have anything to do with it at all, excluding the duty to mediate contracts.

Re:The new Hitlers (2, Insightful)

spike hay (534165) | about 8 months ago | (#46669859)

Hypocrites .. that's what I think those that support gay marriage are. They don't give a flip about equality, they only want to force their moral beliefs on those that disagree, and enable a very small group of select people to get benefits. If they truly wanted equality, they would fight to ELIMINATE all benefits tied to being married.

Interesting that you seem to be directing all of this hate to "gay hypocrites" instead of people who support straight marriage. Do you hold the same opinion about civil rights activists who fought to repeal mycegination laws? I don't think there should be special benefits to getting married, but given that civil marriage exists, there is no rational reason to restrict it to straights. Extending it to more people is a good thing, right?

Also, let's get real. Marriage-like benefits will not be extended to anything other than romantic pairings anytime soon, or ever. It's just how it is.

Re:The new Hitlers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46669861)

Interesting points. However, considering that this is a continuum:

- people who donate to the gay marriage cause
- people who vocally support the gay marriage cause but don't contribute.
- people who silently support the gay marriage cause.
- people who are ambivalent
- people who silently don't support gay marriage.
- people who vocally oppose gay marriage.
- people who donate to oppose gay marriage.

Do you really want a CEO of any corporation to be the last one? Think about it - and apply it to other issues than just gay marriage. People who oppose other people having certain rights to such an extent that they donate to make sure that those other folks don't get that right are NOT the folks you want in charge of an organization. It is too much to believe that folks with that strong an opinion won't (even if unconsciously) create policy that doesn't foster equality in the workplace.

Re:The new Hitlers (1)

LihTox (754597) | about 8 months ago | (#46669867)

These are great ideas, and you'd probably get a lot more support for them if you didn't waste time looking for someone to blame, and pointing fingers at the people who may very well support your cause.

Re:The new Hitlers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46669907)

This is the most reasonable post in this matter I've read in a while.

CEOs are agents of the Stockholders (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46669709)

Companies do have restrictions on what their employees can do and say after work hours because they fear it reflects on them. Having an employee in the news that, for example, gets busted for protesting a war and it gets splattered over the news that Joe Blow, an employee of big corp, is protesting for/against abortion, gets many businesses nervous.

That's one of the reasons why they search social networks for information on you.

A CEO is an agent of a company. A CEO sets the tone for the company and is the public face of that company.

Whatever he says is considered to be the position of said company.

I don't give a shit if a CEO hates gays, blacks, Jews, white people, Spanish, and puppies; he MUST keep his oppinions private.

There's a certain CEO of a very large tech company that is quite pro-gay but he keeps his mouth shut - and rightfully so.

And yet they supported Obama (5, Informative)

Trailer Trash (60756) | about 8 months ago | (#46669387)

They're opposed to Prop 8 yet in 2008:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pre... [opensecrets.org]

Remember that Obama was also opposed to gay marriage when Eich was. Doesn't seem to have bothered too many people.

Re:And yet they supported Obama (5, Insightful)

dugancent (2616577) | about 8 months ago | (#46669431)

Obama changed his mind, did Eich?

Either way is has no bearing on this issue as it's a company that can do as they wish. If Google wanted to cut them off for it, it's their right. Mozilla would collapse without google.

Re:And yet they supported Obama (4, Informative)

ganjadude (952775) | about 8 months ago | (#46669545)

to be fair we dont know, he has never made a statement about it as far as I am aware. he was simply attacked for something he did 5 years ago concerning a bill that was overturned anyway.

Re:And yet they supported Obama (2, Informative)

mspohr (589790) | about 8 months ago | (#46669695)

Eich has a long history of donating to candidates and causes which are intolerant of the beliefs of others. From The Guardian:
"Mozilla's controversial new CEO Brendan Eich made a string of donations to politicians on the fringe of the Republican party a decade before he donated $1,000 to the campaign against equal marriage in California.
Public records show that between 1991 and 1992, Eich donated a total of $1,000 to Pat Buchanan, then a rightwing Republican presidential candidate. In 1996 and 1998, Eich donated a total of $2,500 to Ron Paul, a maverick Republican congressman for Texas's 14th district."
"In 1990, a year before Eich’s first donation to his campaign, Buchanan said in relation to the Aids outbreak that “our promiscuous homosexuals appear literally hell-bent on Satanism and suicide”. A a few years earlie he said “homosexuals have declared war on nature, and now nature is exacting an awful retribution”.
“I agree with people who say it wasn't private, but it was personal,” he said of the donation in an interview on Wednesday.
"Eich's political donations also include money given to more mainstream candidates, such as California's Tom McClintock, to whom Eich donated $750 over the course of 2008, and Linda Smith, who ran for senate in Washington state. McClintock opposes same-sex marriage; as does Smith, who has said that "homosexuality is a morally unfit inclination".
On a personal note: Tom McClintock is my Representative in Congress and is without any redeeming qualities. A real zealot who personifies intolerance and loves to support government interference in the personal lives of individuals.
More from The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/tec... [theguardian.com]

Re:And yet they supported Obama (3, Insightful)

ganjadude (952775) | about 8 months ago | (#46669837)

Thank you for the information but none of that really means anything. Donating to pat buchannon and ron paul? last I checked neither of them were anti gay

in 1990 having the views that homosexuality and aids went together was the mainstream thought at the time. Many many people in 1990 had the same thoughts, scientists even believed as much at the time

just for the record as well anti gay marriage != anti gay

Having said all of that it looks like this guy is a little deeper than I wanted to give him credit for, while I dont personally feel he did anything on the grounds of losing his job over, I can see why others would want to force the man into hiding

Re:And yet they supported Obama (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 8 months ago | (#46669875)

pat 'the nazi' buchannon? not anti-gay? what planet are you on??

he's as republican as it gets. and yes, this is relevant as it speaks to eich's character. I was not aware he was a buchannon supporter. that's even WORSE than being anti-gay.

face he, he does not represent progressive attitudes, which mostly are what exists in the bay area for software and hardware folks.

his views are hateful and repressive and I'm glad he got kicked out on his ass. very glad when a bigot gets shown the door, so to speak.

Re:And yet they supported Obama (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 8 months ago | (#46669805)

to be fair we dont know, he has never made a statement about it as far as I am aware.

He had ~10 days to repudiate his former position and didn't.
In that time, he's made statements, but all his statements were non-apologies and evasions.

https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ [brendaneich.com]

I can only ask for your support to have the time to "show, not tell"; and in the meantime express my sorrow at having caused pain.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/01/mozilla-ceo-brendan-eich-refuses-to-quit [theguardian.com]

"So I don't want to talk about my personal beliefs because I kept them out of Mozilla all these 15 years we've been going," he told the Guardian. "I don't believe they're relevant."

Eich refused to be drawn on whether he would donate to a Proposition 8 style campaign again in the future. "I don't want to do hypotheticals," he said. "I haven't thought about that issue and I really don't want to speculate because it's not relevant."

"Tolerate my intolerance" was never really a good place to be starting from, but nowadays it's a completely unviable position to take.

There are still culture warriors out there bemoaning this trend as the end of free speech, but all that really means is they don't understand how free speech works.

Re:And yet they supported Obama (1)

Guppy06 (410832) | about 8 months ago | (#46669871)

to be fair we dont know, he has never made a statement about it as far as I am aware.

Fucking summary, second-to-last sentence.

Re:And yet they supported Obama (1)

Lisias (447563) | about 8 months ago | (#46669481)

Remember that Obama was also opposed to gay marriage when Eich was.

Do you have some links to back your words? For us, that live outside USA, these facts are not easily verifiable - we lack the context you have while trying to separate what's is real news from what's is pure propaganda.

Re:And yet they supported Obama (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46669499)

what's is = what is is

Re:And yet they supported Obama (1)

Lisias (447563) | about 8 months ago | (#46669731)

yeah... this is kind of a typing tic I'm trying to overcome.

For some reason, I type the following "is" after the "what's" - curiously, it appears only after the "what's" - I don't do it after "where's", for example.

Thanks for pointing that. This can help to overcome that @#$%@%@$$ twitch.

Re:And yet they supported Obama (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 8 months ago | (#46669645)

Remember that Obama was also opposed to gay marriage when Eich was.

Do you have some links to back your words?

Here is a link [go.com]

Obama claimed to oppose gay marriage in 2008. But, in 2008, he also opposed prop 8, which tried to overturn gay marriage in California. So he was for gay marriage where it was relatively popular and would gain him votes, but opposed to it where being opposed would cost him votes. In 2012, political calculations showed that dropping his opposition would help more than hurt in the fall election, so he "evolved" his views.

Obama really isn't comparable to Eich. He never donated to any anti-gay organization, and since he was a politician, nobody ever believed that what he said reflected his real views anyway.

Re:And yet they supported Obama (2)

ganjadude (952775) | about 8 months ago | (#46669673)

agreed, they are not comparable. one has the power to actually make a difference, and instead plays both sides, to win an election, and the other is a private citizen who donates a whole 1000$ to a prop that simply kept the status quo.

Re:And yet they supported Obama (2)

Trailer Trash (60756) | about 8 months ago | (#46669931)

The President saying "I'm opposed to gay marriage" does a hell of a lot more work than $1000 given to a losing campaign. Not. Even. Close.

Re:And yet they supported Obama (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46669659)

Google is your friend.

In the USA, POTUS Obama's position before and after his change on Gay Marriage is well known and well documented. It is now Common Knowledge and requires no reference. Vice President Biden forced POTUS Obama to announce his support of Gay Marriage by proclaiming his (Biden's) own support first.

Re:And yet they supported Obama (1)

Lisias (447563) | about 8 months ago | (#46669841)

Google is your friend.

But it's not a good teacher.

I don't live in USA. I don't even speak English with naturality (as you probably had noticed). I can only search for information I already knows that exist.

For example, I would easily find a page stating Obama's opposition to gay marriage without realizing that he changed his position on the matter after. ShangaiBill probably saved me from a gafe, as I was going to repeat that (misguided) initial information on a public discussion on a local site.

Re:And yet they supported Obama (4, Insightful)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | about 8 months ago | (#46669511)

Obama said that to get people like Eich to vote for him. After he was elected, he rightly threw them under the bus.

It must be terrible being bigots on the wrong side of history. No one gives you credit for standing up for what you believe in, all they think about is how you're the kind of douchebag who would take away something that costs you nothing but makes so many people so happy.

Re:And yet they supported Obama (2)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 8 months ago | (#46669911)

I could not have said it any better than your 2nd paragraph.

repeating:

n the wrong side of history. No one gives you credit for standing up for what you believe in, all they think about is how you're the kind of douchebag who would take away something that costs you nothing but makes so many people so happy.

Re:And yet they supported Obama (1, Insightful)

squiggleslash (241428) | about 8 months ago | (#46669597)

With respect, the issue with Eich was co-funding the pro-Prop 8 campaigns, which were objectively homophobic and hate-stirring. His private views about whether gays should be allowed freedom of association aren't so much a problem as the very real judgement and respect issues reflected in his actions.

Obama did not fund Prop 8 campaigns. He did not dog-whistle with statements saying we needed to "protect children" from "homosexual marriages" (coupled with some plausible deniability but absurd explanation that all they mean is that children would be fooled into thinking that heterosexual and homosexual marriages are equal.)

I keep saying people here are missing the point. This is about judgement and respect. I don't think Eich would have been considered for the post if he supported a hypothetical "Atheist" campaign that called Christians idiots and Christian leaders charlatans. (I'm not aware of any such campaign ever existing, but trying to come up with an example of something that technically could come from the left that would be equivalent.)

It's about judgement and respect. You need to be overflowing with both qualities if you want to be a CEO. Eich made a terrible mistake that brought into question both in his case, and compounded it by never distancing himself from what he did.

As I've said before, if he'd said something like "My private views about gay marriage aside, I never intended to demean or smear gays, and it was an error on my part to donate to campaigns that turned out to do just that", I think he'd still have the potential to be CEO.

Re:And yet they supported Obama (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46669713)

squiffleslash wrote: "I'm not aware of any such campaign [Anti-Christian; Anti-church] ever existing, but trying to come up with an example of something that technically could come from the left that would be equivalent.

Do you even read the comments on articles on SlashDot? There is a blatant, anti-Christian/anti-church campaign on SlashDot by SlashDotters who are atheists, humanists, Leftists, and other religions. If you read the comments, you can't miss it unless you want to. That's just SlashDot. If you read of hear the "news", you will also learn of anti-Christian/anti-church campaigns also.

Re:And yet they supported Obama (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 8 months ago | (#46669813)

The left hates gun owners and has never been slow to demonize them.

Re:And yet they supported Obama (5, Insightful)

bricko (1052210) | about 8 months ago | (#46669633)

The hypocrisy of two of OkCupid’s co-founders, Sam Yagan and Christian Rudder. We searched the federal campaign-contribution database and found that Yagan gave to two candidates who opposed same-sex marriage: $500 to then-Rep. Chris Cannon of Utah, a Republican, in 2004; and $500 to then-Sen. Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign who also opposed gay marriage at the time. According to Wikipedia, 7,001,084 people voted for Prop 8. Why do any of those people still have jobs? Shouldn’t they all be forced to resign? And why should they have the privilege of living in California at all? I say round them up and move them someplace where they won’t do any harm.” One reason why rich white guys like Eich are being targeted so viciously is that the many black churches who supported Proposition 8 — and, indeed, put it over the top — are out-of-bounds for criticism. Uh oh: 60% of Intel employees who donated in Prop 8 debate supported banning gay marriage. “Exit question: When do we get a list of Silicon Valley donors to Obama’s campaign circa 2008, when he was still formally against traditional marriage? True, he didn’t support Prop 8 or other attempts to legally ban SSM (a strong signal at the time that his stated view was a lie), but the whole point of the equal protection argument against traditional marriage laws is that you can’t reserve ‘marriage’ for straights without implicitly slapping a second-class-citizen stigma on gays. Obama was willing to do that, at least rhetorically. Let’s have the names.”

Does a bear shit in the woods? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46669389)

There is no Mozilla as we know it today without that fat Google subsidy.

It is a huge problem. People are probably going to argue differently, but they are only deluding themselves.

If not Google... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46669661)

I could see others stepping up to pay for that lucrative space. Perhaps Microsoft (although similar issues as Google/Chrome), or maybe someone else like Amazon or Yahoo.

So... (1)

koan (80826) | about 8 months ago | (#46669397)

If it was known in the Mozilla "community" why was he promoted to the position?

Re:So... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46669423)

Because they promoted him on merit.

Re:So... (1)

PPH (736903) | about 8 months ago | (#46669477)

Lesson in corporate management learned. You can do what you want as a lowly grunt so long as you do the job part well. But part of moving up in management involves working well with other people. And the higher you go, the more likely it is that you'll have to get along with those that don't share your life views. If you don't have those skills, stay in your cubicle, pounding out code.

Re:So... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46669565)

The key point about Eich is that he's white and male and heterosexual. They - meaning the activist set that despises white males - went looking for something to turn into a campaign.

Re:So... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 8 months ago | (#46669675)

Even if he's perfectly able to get along (which he may well be, this is the natural time for any juicy stories of abusive behavior and problematic statements of position to come out of the woodwork, and they haven't), 'CEO', particularly for an entity with limited direct profit (Mozilla aren't quite fully at the 'Charity' end of the spectrum, where the CEO is essentially the head fundraiser; but they aren't far off), is a job description that includes a certain amount of organizational image work. If his positions, however tactful in person, damage their PR position, that means he isn't good at the job, however unfair one might think that is.

It's not really all that unusual, lots of partially/wholly public-facing jobs are even more capricious about what qualities are included in the job description. You can be bad at plenty of jobs just by being unattractive, or having an unappealing voice, or what have you. If he were being purged from a position that had no relevance to organizational image-tweaking, I'd be concerned: witch-hunting employees based on irrelevant characteristics is a not a good path to go down; but 'CEO' is, in part, the high end of the PR food chain. If you are bad for PR, that makes you worse at that particular job.

Re:So... (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 8 months ago | (#46669711)

What? Promoting someone based on his ability to work well and not on how good a party soldier he is? That's so un-american, watch out, this could lead to communism!

Re:So... (1)

Guppy06 (410832) | about 8 months ago | (#46669493)

Because the people upset about it were outnumbered on the board.

Re:So... (0)

plopez (54068) | about 8 months ago | (#46669601)

An attempt to maximize stockholder value. Every decision made by the board and CEO of a public compamy is made by Wall Street. That is why you should never go public with your company.

Welcome to (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46669407)

Welcome to the New World Order.

Re:Welcome to (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 8 months ago | (#46669473)

They could make a new movie with Sean Connery, called The Hunt for the New World October.

Additional question (1)

koan (80826) | about 8 months ago | (#46669409)

Just how "compromised" is Mozilla and the Firefox browser?

Abolish marriage solves the problem. (5, Insightful)

thegarbz (1787294) | about 8 months ago | (#46669419)

I understand the Church seems to think it has a monopoly on marriage as they are they most common institution to perform the ceremony. I also understand that many politicians will read the biblical definition of marriage between a man and a woman. However it is not the government's role to decide who can and can't be together.

So why not abolish marriages from governments?

Have the government only recognise civil unions. Treat all civil unions equally. Introduce a reciprocal relationship with the Church's marriage so that any marriage performed by the church ends in a government recognised civil union. Finally provide other non religious methods of registering civil unions.

Everyone's happy. Except for those in government who think the Church's view that two dudes shouldn't touch each either. But to them I say one of the tenants of modern democracy is the separation of Church and state and go find another job where your bias and lack of impartiality doesn't affect the people who you are supposed to represent.

Re:Abolish marriage solves the problem. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46669451)

This is the root of the problem. The fact that marriages are a legal concern at all.

Re:Abolish marriage solves the problem. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46669491)

Marriage is a legal concern, entirely. It's a contract between two people for them to join their finances, gain responsibility over one another (if you get sick), etc. Throughout human history, marriage has been more about setting up social units and/or making alliances than anything regarding love.

So yeah, like it or not, marriage is a legal concern.

Re:Abolish marriage solves the problem. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46669647)

You and I actually agree. I just don't want it called the same thing that religions call it.[because we both know that ain't the same thing]

Re:Abolish marriage solves the problem. (2)

rapierian (608068) | about 8 months ago | (#46669755)

Exactly. And if we make that break, then government's civil unions can apply to any sort of household where that makes sense, such as people caring for disabled relatives, etc.

Re:Abolish marriage solves the problem. (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 8 months ago | (#46669821)

This is the root of the problem. The fact that marriages are a legal concern at all.

The fact that the state issues something called 'marriage', which many churches consider to be their trademark is something of a problem; but the big reason that the state can't really get out of the business(at least not until they come up with a relatively-easy-to-use contractual instrument with similar characteristics) is that all sorts of legally relevant and enforced stuff is modified by 'marriage'. Child custody, default assumptions about visitation and medical proxy in the case of somebody being unexpectedly unavailable to be asked directly, spousal benefits in loads of compensation packages, lots of bits and pieces scattered across a patchwork of statute, private contracts that make use of the concept by reference, etc, etc.

At the present time, you simply couldn't get a contract lawyer, be it an arbitrarily skillful one, to write you a 'contractual instrument tantamount to marriage' that actually has the same effects; and you definitely couldn't even get close if you had limited means, limited experience, or just plain mediocre cognitive capacity (like, say, a substantial majority of everyone who has ever been married throughout history. Even if some tweaks to contract law made it so that well-off midlifers with lawyers on retainer could do things entirely contractually, 'marriage' has often been the means by which dumb, naive, kids get their initiation into adulthood.)

Personally, I'd be happy to see a separation between the 'state instrument with approximately marital effects neutrally named' and 'Church X's Marriage! legally irrelevant and administered only at their discretion', with people free to pick up the one from the state if they want the legal effects, and any or none from the provider of their choice if they want the cultural and/or theological effects.

Just 'getting the state out of the business', though, is a nontrivial bit of legal rewriting. The fact that you can't run it through a compiler doesn't mean that the code(s) of law aren't a brutal mass of legacy code, with all the vices thereof.

Solution is too simple and doesn't divide well (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46669539)

Because, politicians can you the issue to divide voters. Why make it simple or follow common sense when you can funnel a crowd of voters by constantly prodding and poking at every divisive idea you can come up with?

Re:Abolish marriage solves the problem. (3, Insightful)

beelsebob (529313) | about 8 months ago | (#46669553)

Because lots of people who are not religious (or of other religions) feel that "marriage" is an important thing in their life, and "civil union" is not. The bottom line is that the church can not, and does not have a monopoly on the word. The government shouldn't give to them.

Re:Abolish marriage solves the problem. (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 8 months ago | (#46669725)

A rose by a different name... is it really so important how you call something? A name should reflect its content, it's not content by itself.

Re:Abolish marriage solves the problem. (1)

LihTox (754597) | about 8 months ago | (#46669913)

A rose by a different name... is it really so important how you call something? A name should reflect its content, it's not content by itself.

Are you addressing the commenters who want to keep government "marriage", or the commenters who want to change it to "civil union"? Seems like your comment could go either way.

Re:Abolish marriage solves the problem. (1)

wrudyn (867255) | about 8 months ago | (#46669925)

A rose by a different name... is it really so important how you call something? A name should reflect its content, it's not content by itself.

Names matter. It's the reason the Patagonian toothfish was renamed to the Chilean Seabass, because no one wanted to eat a toothfish. Names affect people psychologically. Having different names for marriage and civil unions will automatically make them different.

Re:Abolish marriage solves the problem. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46669839)

The Christian Church has never had a monopoly on marriages in the USA. It has always been a function of the Government. A marriage in a Christian Church requires a marriage license from the Government.

Of course, this is SlashDot--where the commenters are all geeks. Most don't have girlfriends let alone wives, so ignorance of the procedure of Governmental licensing of marriage is a point of ignorance.

Re:Abolish marriage solves the problem. (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 8 months ago | (#46669579)

the problem is neither sides extremest side will go for it

the religious right will scream and moan that you are taking away their rights and the homosexuals on the far fringe will never accept it unless it is marriage. Ive made this argument many times over (marriage is NOT a "right" in the eyes of the constitution on the same vein as the right to free speech for example" Remove the government from the equation, treat everyone the same when it comes to tax and other government issues (hospitals are used most often) Hell if 2 dudes want to live together, gay or not they should have the same rights as a married couple living together or a boyfriend/girlfriend living together

Re:Abolish marriage solves the problem. (4, Informative)

blindbat (189141) | about 8 months ago | (#46669585)

You don't seem to understand how things work.

1. It is not just the Church that has a male-female view of marriage; this is found in religions and customs around the world and throughout history.

2. In America, it *is* the government that decides who can and can't be together, not the church. You get license from the state to marry, you cannot marry close family members, etc. If you live too long with someone, the state considers it a common law marriage and you have real divorce proceedings.

3. Churches merely perform ceremonies but the state licenses it. Without that state license, there is no marriage regardless of what church you were in.

4. Now that comes down to your main point: have the government change from being in charge of marriage to only having civil unions and give the word "marriage" over to religion. Many states already have civil unions that function like that already. But that is not enough: people want to be called married when they commit themselves to one another.

Re:Abolish marriage solves the problem. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46669587)

It doesn't stop there. "Ménages à trois" will be the next group of unhappy people.

Re:Abolish marriage solves the problem. (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 8 months ago | (#46669749)

Who said that that new definition of "civil union" has to be limited to two people?

But just wait 'til someone comes and wants to marry his horse, his bed or his imaginary friend. That's when we should start pondering whether we might really want to draw the line somewhere. At the very least, everyone involved should be a person.

A PHYSICAL person! The very last thing I'd want is someone marrying his corporation...

Marriage is about property and other rights. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46669649)

Marriage has always been about property and later other rights like gardianship of children and whatnot.

In the old days, people would get married by the state (coiurt house or whatever) and then have another marriage in the church.

It was condensed later on.

That's why when you want a divorce, you go through the courts to get the legal union disolved.

What gay people want is to have that legal union so that their partner can have some of those rights: insurance, property transfer, rights to Social Security, etc ... Yes, a will can cover some of that, but it doesn't have the same power as a marriage.

The last episode of "Boston Legal" have a wonderful scenario of why two men (hetrosexual in that instance) would want to get married.

Re:Marriage is about property and other rights. (1)

rapierian (608068) | about 8 months ago | (#46669741)

Agreed. So make government civil unions about that, and "marriage" a definition churches or other organizations can apply to whatever they want. I see no good reason why any sort of family unit - such as someone caring for a disabled relative - shouldn't qualify for the property rights we currently grant to marriage.

Re:Abolish marriage solves the problem. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46669815)

I understand the Christian Church seems to think it has a monopoly on CHRISTIAN marriage.

There, fixed it for you.

The Christian Church does not think it has a monopoly on marriage in the USA. The Christian Church recognizes marriages performed by other faiths and by the government. (When a married person converts to Christianity, the marriage is accepted, recognized and supported.) Only in America is there a sense of "separation of church and state"--this is a new and novel concept outside the USA. Also, marriages in the USA are performed by other religions and recognized by the Government--Jews, Mormans, etc, etc.--but all marriages required a marriage license from the Government. Lastly, there is no real difference between a "civil union" and a "marriage". Civil authorities can perform service to united two people in marriage. (Judges, Clerks, Mayors, Justices of the Peace, Public Notaries, Ship Captains can all perform marriages/civil unions in specific jurisdictions.)

In Europe, the Christian Church recorded births and citizenship, death records, etc. for the various Governments. The Church and State walked hand-in-hand. This happened in the areas that were the Roman Empire under Constantine. The recognized religions in other countries did the same.

Which link is the one that substantiates the claim (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46669427)

I knew they once were absolutely reliant on Google, and it is news to me how much they still are, but I see nothing in theodp's post itself to suggest there is anything other than speculation that I won't find substantiated in the links that Google would pull the plug. I have to say I dislike stories across the net that are just link farms. If there is an important link, emphasize it.

Re:Which link is the one that substantiates the cl (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 8 months ago | (#46669899)

There really isn't much to go on, at this point. We do know that the Prop8 issue made him a toxic pick from the perspective of some of the groups that Mozilla's message might ordinarily work well with(except that they are cryptographically incapable of supporting iPads; but so it goes); but organizations have soft-pedaled all sorts of stuff, including much more serious matters, without serious incident before, and there appear to be confounding factors here (eg. half the board resigning over the choice [mobilenewscwp.co.uk] , allegedly because they didn't think he was a good choice for 'mobile' or something; but something irrelevant to Prop8. If anything, that faction probably is wildly annoyed that their disagreement with 'sure, the CTO seems like a good CEO to me' got sidetracked into a culture war, especially if they want their mobile strategy in emerging markets to not pick up a potential liability.)

There similarly seems to be no available report that he was overtly pushed, though reports vary on whether he 'left' or whether he was 'given the opportunity to leave', so we don't really know if he was told privately that he could go the easy way or the hard way, or whether he was personally butthurt about the whole affair. We just don't know.

Gossip girls (1)

oldhack (1037484) | about 8 months ago | (#46669441)

I hate social bullshit, buckets of unsubstantiated rumors, speculation, and accusation. Timothy's specialty, I guess.

Sad thing, though, is that at least half the "stories" here are posted just to elicit whining comments like this one - a click is a click, eh.

Not even reading TFA (1, Insightful)

Severus Snape (2376318) | about 8 months ago | (#46669443)

Mozilla do Google the favour, not the other way around.

Re:Not even reading TFA (1)

g4sy (694060) | about 8 months ago | (#46669773)

So you mean that in this situation, the party that actually produces something and provides value (a browser and open internet experience) has the upper hand over google who is just a rentier (a very monopolistic middle man, but a middleman nonetheless)? Who woulda thunk!!!! Does the rest of the world work like this? Do the producers eventually overcome the rentiers every time, on a long enough timescale?? (Invoke betteridge's law *here*)

Sorry what I meant to say was mod parent up.

Wouldn't answer.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46669453)

Are you now,or have you ever been, a member of the traditional marriage party?

Virulently? (4, Insightful)

Dan East (318230) | about 8 months ago | (#46669475)

The link to the text "virulently opposed to Proposition 8" has nothing do with backing the claim that behaved "virulently". Weasel words: score -1 for the summary.

Re:Virulently? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46669535)

The only thing virulent in this story is the HIV spreading out from these pro-faggotry groups.

Re:Virulently? (1)

g4sy (694060) | about 8 months ago | (#46669729)

The link to the text "virulently opposed to Proposition 8" has nothing do with backing the claim that behaved "virulently". Weasel words: score -1 for the summary.

Ok you clicked the link and read it. But let's consider the blog post [blogspot.co.uk] a bit closer:

we do not generally take a position on issues outside of our field, especially not social issues

.....

We hope that California voters will vote no on Proposition 8

So ... it's a bit like your grandpa who never talks about the war. And then during a big family meal, people are talking about abortion and assisted suicide. He gets up and starts out with "I never talk about the war" but then launches into a tirade about hitlers death camps (just saving time for us both here), describes them first-hand, and then posits his opinion that they were the logical conclusion of eugenics in general.

That's pretty dramatic. Sorry, I couldn't think of a car analogy. But from what I can see, google is swinging a huge amount of weight and being very strongly opinionated about a highly nuanced subject. At least companies like Redhat and Mozilla have enough sense to keep out of such discussions! They and their ilk are the only ones that get my money.

the minority rules... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46669487)

Clearly, the door of intolerance swings both ways...

Virulently opposed? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46669489)

Sealed lips and a medium-sized monetary contribution is "virulent"? Please.

Everything else aside ... (3, Insightful)

Rambo Tribble (1273454) | about 8 months ago | (#46669519)

... considering marriage a "fundamental right" would seem a slippery slope. Does an atheist have a fundamental right to be ordained a priest?

To be clear, I think Eich was scapegoated, but am of the opinion it is unfair to deny marriage to gays. I am only concerned here with what seems to me to be excessively broad definitions and the fallout that may result.

Re:Everything else aside ... (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 8 months ago | (#46669781)

Yes, everyone has the right to be ordained a priest. Not of every cult, but everyone's entitled to create his own cult and label himself a priest. There's no set requirement that I'm aware of that could keep you or anyone from calling yourself a priest.

Myself, I prefer to be a pope. I am actually a discoridan pope. Oh, and while we're at it, so are you now. Enjoy!

Sortocracy Is a Two Edged Sword (3, Interesting)

Baldrson (78598) | about 8 months ago | (#46669541)

Sorting proponents into governments that test them [sortocracy.org] is the penetration of the Enlightenment into the social sciences. This allows the social sciences to progress beyond "correlation doesn't imply causation" to perform ethical experiments on human subjects that, because there are experimental control groups, permits much stronger inference of causal laws in human ecologies (human societies) [about.com] than do mere ecological correlations [wikipedia.org] .

So what's not to like about locales, like the Mozilla Foundation or Google or even Silicon Valley, excluding from their midst those who are incompatible with the social experiment that most people want to perform on themselves? After all, it is only by consent of the governed that a jurisdiction can be deemed legitimate.

Here's the problem:

In the modern zeitgeist it is considered the moral equivalent of Satanism to practice what is called "the politics of exclusion". Why? Because it "discriminates".

These fuzzy tropes forget one thing, however -- and it is something that anyone who is involved in technology should understand in their gut:

It is only by "excluding" various hypotheses that we can "discriminate" between truth and falsehood in the real world.

But no one wants to admit that their religion might be false -- including those whose religion is the de facto state religion that enforces "inclusion" and prohibits "discrimination".

And where is the news? (0)

devent (1627873) | about 8 months ago | (#46669555)

The last commented on Slashdot were always bringing up free speech rights, freedom of religious, etc, and were always modded +5 insightful, but missed the topic completely. I can see that which this story comments like "Google pressuring Mozilla", "Google is against free speech", etc. will get +5 insightful again. But again it would miss the topic completely.

Google is entirely in their rights to chose what company or organization they deem to support. Instead we should be thankful to Google to support a competing product and to protect the rights of your fellow citizens. Where is, for example, Microsoft, so support a competing product with $1 billions and to come in protection of basic rights of your fellow citizens? The example of Kara Swisher just shows that Prop 8. would take away basic rights, right and privileges that heterosexual couples enjoy.

The articles just points out how much damage the bigot views of Mr. Eich could have caused Mozilla and the employees of Mozilla were more then justified to call for his resignation. If you believes and actions are damaging the company you are suppose to represent, then you are not fit to be the CEO.

i don't understand (4, Insightful)

lkcl (517947) | about 8 months ago | (#46669557)

i'm sorry but i genuinely fail to see the importance of any of this "personal view" stuff. a technically-competent person who has been with it almost since the beginning: they were the CEO of Mozilla for about a week. someone as technically competent as brendan should have absolutely no difficulty firewalling personal from professional: why do we have to have idiots believe otherwise? could someone therefore please explain to me in simple language what's really going on?

Re:i don't understand (2, Informative)

spike hay (534165) | about 8 months ago | (#46669929)

What is happening now with gay rights is what happened with racism in the 60's. It used to be perfectly acceptable to espouse racist views. Then, it became very unnacceptable. Do you think most companies would appoint a CEO who openly thinks blacks are mentally inferior to whites? Now the same thing is happening with homophobia. This is a fast change that many are having problems with. You can still be a private homophobe with friends, but you've got to not let it get out if you are a public figure.

Now, I think if Eich simply apologized for his Prop 8 support, it would have been quite different. But it is clear that his views have not changed.

This is kinda gross. (5, Insightful)

Dr. Spork (142693) | about 8 months ago | (#46669589)

If I still lived in California I would also have been "virulently opposed" to prop 8, but I hate the idea of judging someone's employability based on how they vote. To suggest that Google would treat Mozilla differently simply based on a single-issue stance of its new CEO is really selling them short. They invest in Mozilla for strategic reasons. (Mozilla isn't some sort of lazy couch-crasher that Google supports because of Mozilla's charming personality.)

And for that matter, I don't think we should judge products based on the ideology of the people who created them. To save us some time, I'll get straight to a Hitler example, noting that Hitler personally played an important role in the design of the VW Beetle. But hippies can still drive Beetles without thereby supporting Hitler.

Re:This is kinda gross. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46669703)

And for that matter, I don't think we should judge products based on the ideology of the people who created them. To save us some time, I'll get straight to a Hitler example, noting that Hitler personally played an important role in the design of the VW Beetle. But hippies can still drive Beetles without thereby supporting Hitler.

But Hitler is very dead right now.

Suppose Hitler were still alive and received a small amount of money whenever someone bought a Beetle. Then I think the situation would be a little bit different.

I understand that some people feel "dirty" using any product that was created by someone they don't like (for example, ReiserFS). But I think, for the majority, boycott doesn't feel like a moral imperative unless the disliked person is actually receiving a benefit in some way.

Re:This is kinda gross. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46669853)

You need to take 'The Hitler Test', because you don't actually know what you're talking about...

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=83879

Re:This is kinda gross. (4, Insightful)

Trailer Trash (60756) | about 8 months ago | (#46669939)

To further your point, if they really thought Eich was so bad they would quit using Javascript. But that would come at a *real* cost, unlike hounding him out of his position which can be done for free.

Makes it all the more pathetic.

Re:This is kinda gross. (0)

Guppy06 (410832) | about 8 months ago | (#46669945)

but I hate the idea of judging someone's employability based on how they vote.

And yet you would give the authority to hire, fire, and set policy to an unreformed bigot and hope it all works out for the best?

To save us some time, I'll get straight to a Hitler example, noting that Hitler personally played an important role in the design of the VW Beetle. But hippies can still drive Beetles without thereby supporting Hitler.

How many current Volkswagen executives and board members make political contributions to Nazis? We're not talking about divesting from ECMAScript here.

What about Abortion? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46669615)

This is an honest question, no sarcasm or trolling here.

On a different case from this one... What if a CEO is against abortion or/and has an open public position against it? Should he be considered a bad person? Should he be forced to step down?

Re:What about Abortion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46669943)

Like Hobby Lobby? What if the corporation's chartering documents lay out some of the philosophical guidelines for how the corporation conducts its business? Google & Apple for example embody some differing goals then Hobby Lobby or Chick-Fil-A. Is one more right (sic) than the other?
What if a mostly "socially good" corporation was exposed secretly making contributions (not just an executive or two) to Westboro Baptist Church?

OK Cupid founders also gave to anti gay marriage (2)

bricko (1052210) | about 8 months ago | (#46669639)

The hypocrisy of two of OkCupid’s co-founders, Sam Yagan and Christian Rudder. We searched the federal campaign-contribution database and found that Yagan gave to two candidates who opposed same-sex marriage: $500 to then-Rep. Chris Cannon of Utah, a Republican, in 2004; and $500 to then-Sen. Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign who also opposed gay marriage at the time. According to Wikipedia, 7,001,084 people voted for Prop 8. Why do any of those people still have jobs? Shouldn’t they all be forced to resign? And why should they have the privilege of living in California at all? I say round them up and move them someplace where they won’t do any harm.” One reason why rich white guys like Eich are being targeted so viciously is that the many black churches who supported Proposition 8 — and, indeed, put it over the top — are out-of-bounds for criticism. Uh oh: 60% of Intel employees who donated in Prop 8 debate supported banning gay marriage. “Exit question: When do we get a list of Silicon Valley donors to Obama’s campaign circa 2008, when he was still formally against traditional marriage? True, he didn’t support Prop 8 or other attempts to legally ban SSM (a strong signal at the time that his stated view was a lie), but the whole point of the equal protection argument against traditional marriage laws is that you can’t reserve ‘marriage’ for straights without implicitly slapping a second-class-citizen stigma on gays. Obama was willing to do that, at least rhetorically. Let’s have the names.” Purge them all!!!!!!

Re:OK Cupid founders also gave to anti gay marriag (1)

rapierian (608068) | about 8 months ago | (#46669789)

Seems logical to me.

Re:OK Cupid founders also gave to anti gay marriag (1)

wiredlogic (135348) | about 8 months ago | (#46669849)

Obama's opposition was a political calculation and not an expression of his real belief. It may surprise you to find out that politicians regularly lie to get elected.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?