Mozilla CEO Steps Down After 11 Awful Days In The Job

Remember, readers: doing something stupid will always come back and bite you in the proverbial behind. Just ask the now ex-CEO of Mozilla, Brendan Eich, who stepped down after 11 sucky days in the role after a barrage of hate.

The shitstorm surrounding Eich centred around the revelation that the new Mozilla CEO opposed same-sex marriage. Eich contributed $1000 to a campaign dedicated to passing Proposition 8 in California that would have seen the state repeal the right for same-sex couples to marry.

The revelation saw loads of Mozilla staffers quit, and even saw sites like OKCupid take a stand against the company's browser product, Firefox.

After an 11 day storm over his views, Mozilla came out today on its blog and confirmed that Eich had stepped down as CEO.

Mozilla's chairwoman authored a blog post apologising for the debacle:

Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn’t live up to it. We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: it’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves.
We didn’t act like you’d expect Mozilla to act. We didn’t move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We’re sorry. We must do better.
Brendan Eich has chosen to step down from his role as CEO. He’s made this decision for Mozilla and our community.
Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.

Read more over here.


Comments

    I wonder if the staff that quit will ask for their job back?

      If they aren't given the option, it's going to be doubly worse for Mozilla...

        doubly worse

        Really? Learn English off a Russian Wheaties box?

          You *are* aware that is proper english right?
          http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/doubly

          "Doubly worse" indicates that the situation has been exacerbated.

          I don't need to define exacerbated do I 'comrade'?

            Lol doubly bubbly today aren't we
            Congratulations weresmurf Touche
            still laughing I love this site !

    What if the shoe was on the other foot? What if the CEO had demanded that employees resign because of their personal beliefs? I'd see either see it as a form of repression.

      Personal beliefs of "guy who writes code" are a different matter to "guy who is the public face and leader of the company"

      Also, linguistically, sure it's a form of 'repression'. The same as not allowing psychopaths to murder people (deliberately over the top) is 'repressive'. But intolerance of bigotry is not the same (morally or practically) as, y'know, actual intolerance.

        So if I was the head of a company and I chose a partner who was of the opposite sex then obviously I'm homophobic and should be forced to resign.

          Could happen someday

          The same way a company with all male executives is automatically 'sexist', 'mysogynist' and reinforcing the 'patriarchy', whatever the hell that is.
          The BBC has decided it will no longer have any all male panel talk shows, it no longer matters whether the lineup works or not, making everyone warm and fuzzy and not offending anyone is everyone's goal now. Comedy would be dead if it became politically correct.

          Whenever a film doesn't have prominent positive female and black characters, the loudmouth idiots cry foul on representation, and soon you can add the token LGBT character to the mix. The film can be about people repopulating the human race on mars, but now one of them will be gay, just because!

          Seinfeld was called out for not having black guests on his own show, this was his response
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsEr6xNN8Hw

          Feminists are now complaining about videogames not having women in them, or not being designed with women in mind or mistreating women. But instead of the feminists making their own games their own way, they want to shame and force the whole industry to cater to their wants. Sorry feminists, but I like attractive sexy girls in my videogames!

          What you are witnessing are the death throes of civilization

          I'm not changing my recipe, cause you don't like it.
          IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, MAKE YOUR OWN
          STOP ASKING FOR SPECIAL TREATMENT

            This, so much. I would like to invite anyone who downvoted this comment to rebuke it, please, because the man is 100% correct.

          @Avril

          Not really, you've taken things out of context.

          In your example, while you have a partner of the opposite sex, you're not publicly supporting anti-gay programs (as far as I know), therefore its not a problem.

          When someone is in a position of power, they have a lot of influence, not only on the company, but how others perceive the company. Sure he can have these views in the privacy and comfort of his own home, but how would you feel if you were a gay person and found out that your boss (and thus in your mind the company) is anti-gay?

          Might be an idea to think before you write something like that, it makes you look a little foolish.

            I think this is awful. He donated to stop gay marriage, that doesn't automatically make him anti-gay. I don't think gays should ever get married, because marriage is a religious thing and always has been. They can be "joined"or "united" or some other word but not "married". in no way am i religious but its something they chose to go against. ALSO just because someone hates gays in no way does that make them homophobic... there's no fear that you're going to catch "gay". Its our right to hate just because we can. i hate my neighbors, they happen to be muslim, does that automatically make me a racist? no its because they play loud annoying music all night. its all the same thing.
            just my 2 cents.

              @truth4us So.. do you "hate" muslims? Or do you "hate" inconsiderate people? Or do you "hate" loud annoying music all night?

              If the people who played the loud annoying music all night were the same as you, would you still "hate" them?

              Back on topic - the guy was a CEO for a company that has principles of equality and free speech. Whether you like it or not, equality means that everyone should be treated, you know, equally. Regardless of sexual orientation or preference, regardless of religious beliefs, regardless of gender or skin colour.

              As CEO, he has the responsibility of being one of the public faces of the company. Public supporting a bill that would make some people in the community less equal does not gel with the company's ethos, and *that's* what the shitstorm at Mozilla was all about.

                It sounds like you're advocating for the man's, in the movie The Life of Brian, right to bear children (notwithstanding the fact that only woman AFAIK may .)

              You do know that marriage existed prior to religions, they just went with a different word as you suggested; "joined" or "united". The reason why the LGBT community wants to be able to be married is the the word marriage and all associated meanings are common vernacular and are cardinal to the letter of law for many benefits and also they above all else do not wish to be treated differently. They mainly want their relationships viewed identically to anyone else.

              You example doesn't hold true either. Being gay is how they were born, much like being Asian or African with the associated colour/features. So if you hate/dislike someone because they're gay/black/asian/white/french then you're being similar racist. Like the the CEO is. If you dislike someone for their specific actions non-related to the way they were born, i.e. your neighbour and their loud music, that is 100% fine. That person is then just a jerk.

              He's anti-'gay people having equal rights under the law'. That's pretty anti-gay.

              He didn't say "I think churches should be allowed to choose who they marry". For the most part, that's already the case. The exception? In places without marriage equality, if a church wants to marry a gay couple, they're legally not allowed to. Straight couples are allowed to get married outside a church. But he wants to deny them that right as well.

              Then there's the fact that many religious definitions of marriage is so far removed from one man and one woman falling in love it's not funny. The biblical definition of marriage (since we're talking how 'marriage has always been') involves multiple wives, forcing slaves to marry, forcing a rape victime to marry their rapist, executing brides who are not virgins on their wedding day and so forth. Until the last century or so, good Christian marriages were exchanges of property between the father of the bride and the groom. Wives were treated not as people but the husband's property. "Because religion" and "because history" are not good argument against changing marriage to be less exclusionary, because marriage as it is now bears essentially zero resemblance to religious or historical marriage.

              Also, hating someone for being gay is the very definition of homophobia.

              Please, Please Please learn history. Marriage is not a religious thing. Religion isn't a religious thing. The bible was written and directed by a group of power hungry politicians centuries after the events they describe were set.

              The dates set out in the bible, such as Christmas, Easter and the like are all shams.

              If Jesus had existed, he was, according to the bible born in Jerusalem while his father, Joseph was doing the Census. A few things here.
              1. Under Roman Census rules, people weren't required to return home to do census, they simply had to provide details of their property, who lived on it and so forth.
              2. Even if they did have to travel, only Joseph would have traveled. Mary would have remained at home, especially being pregnant.
              3. Romans wouldn't have scheduled Census for the wet season.
              4. Census' performed under the rule of Caesar Augustus, who was emperor during the period, were of Roman citizens only exempting Joseph in any case, as he was not a Roman citizen.

              But you will ignore everything I have said here because as Dr. House accurately explains

              Rational arguments don't usually work on religious people. Otherwise there would be no religious people.

    ...well that's a far more honest statement than you would expect to get. Usually it's more along the lines of "[person] has decided to step down effective immediately. [company] will continue normal operations."

    That they've admitted fault, apologised and explained the position they want to take to the future is refreshing.

    ...now if only they'd understand that you can't release a new major version every month just because you've made a plan to release a new major version every month. :P

    "Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard."

    It seems to me that one cannot have a belief contrary to the "popular" opinion and expect people to treat that belief as having equal value. I find the CEO's resignation, a forced behaviour, forced by those very people who seek equality without wanting to give it. Shame on them.

      My thoughts exactly. I don't get it. I hope that there's more to the story than just because the CEO donated $1000 to an organisation supporting the opposition to gay-marraige. People (i.e. "the loads of Mozilla staffers (who) quit" just don't quit over things like this ....

      Last edited 04/04/14 10:32 am

        Company's new CEO makes a stand that offends top level employees (being extremely difficult to replace) so much that they resign in protest, and causes so much bad-will in the community that a large segment of the business community refuse to use the companies product.

          I don't buy that, why so much controversy over a one-off donation which he did 6 years ago? It's not like he was the leader, or influential member of westboro.
          If he was professional at all, he would leave that stuff 'at home', as well as his employees. I was just saying that people don't quit over the information that we're given, and if it's simply that, it's in my opinion, a huge overreaction. I don't think that the full story is being told, and there's more to it than that.

          Last edited 04/04/14 12:15 pm

            I haven't seen any evidence that there were people quitting their jobs en-masse due to the new CEO's views on gay marriage.
            Furthermore, I really doubt that anyone would actually do that.

            He also made contributions to some wackjob conservative that said, "our promiscuous homosexuals appear literally hell-bent on Satanism and suicide" (http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/02/controversial-mozilla-ceo-made-donations-right-wing-candidates-brendan-eich).

      This is definitely true. While I personally do believe in gay marriage, I don't go out and actively hammer down those who don't. Free speech means you're going to hear a LOT of shit you don't want to hear, so suck it up and get used to it people. It's not going to be wine and strawberries all the time.

    The haters win again.

    Isn't it time we started standing up to all the haters out there? They are growing in number and in power simply because we let them. Once again "Evil wins because good people do nothing".

      If staff members were quitting I'd say this is more personal than giving in to a knee jerk public reaction. Mozilla obviously has a lot of employees who care about the topic and don't feel they can work under someone who supports the opposition.
      Considering your views on 'haters' I'd think you'd understand being willing to give up your job to oppose someone who supports a group that's mainly driven by the need to force their views on others rather than minding their own business.

    There is no freedom of speech when there are people who bully others into complying with their set of beliefs. This is a disgrace. Eich is the bigger man here in that he respects the company he worked hard in. Ok Cupid are just bullies! Ok Stupid!

      Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom from consequences.

        If the gay rights supporters were as tolerant as they want everyone else to be, there wouldn't have been consequences. The guy has an opinion that differs from theirs, boo hoo. It's called, living in a society. I realise that peoples opinions differ from my own. Do I hate them for it? No. Do I accept it? Yes.

          Why should they have to tolerate the people who think they don't deserve equal rights?

        Yes, but saying you believe strongly in freedom of speech implies a certain tolerance for ideas you don't personally support and a willingness to resolve problems with discussion rather than hammering the opposition into submission.
        I honestly think most of this was internal, he resigned because the staff made it clear they didn't want to work for someone with his views not because outside forces pressured him to resign, but attacks were made here that seem very contrary to freedom to have your own beliefs. It wouldn't be so bad if there was more to it, but it seems like he was just supporting a group in a rather minor way. He doesn't appear to have used Mozilla money or hassled people who work for Mozilla about their sexual orientations.
        The way I see it he's just throwing his money down the drain dragging out a battle that was lost 20 years ago. If it makes people he interacts with uncomfortable that's between them and totally understandable. However it's not OK Cupid's job to police this sort of stuff, even if they happen to find themselves on the right side.

          But no-one is interefering with his right to free speech, or his right to have bigoted beliefs. What was under contention was his position as Mozilla CEO. And "being Mozilla CEO" is not a human right. If you're working in retail and you cuss out a customer, your boss firing you is not an imposition on your free speech; you're entitled to cuss out the customer, you're not entitled to stay employed afterward.

          Belief in freedom of speech does not mean tolerance of ideas that you disagree with. Otherwise no-one could say they support free speech while at the same time opposing, say, the denial of basic human rights to a specific class of society. Otherwise you couldn't say you support free speech if you used your own free speech to tell a person, who's verbally abusing someone in public on the basis of their race, to shut up because racism and that kind of harassment are not cool. This guy's rights are not being interfered with, any more than a racist who gets shouted down by the people around him. You're entitled to beliefs. You're not entitled to be completely immune to social pressure.

    I am angry that this has happened

    He can do what he likes with his own money, he is entitled to have his own personal beliefs just as gays are entitled to their lifestyle, it has nothing to do with how Mozilla is run and it is tragic that he has to step down from a company he CO-FOUNDED for something he did SIX YEARS AGO.

    He invented javascript, which is used on every damn website on the internet including this one, when will the loudmouth idiots start boycotting the whole internet as well. How do you boycott a non profit organisation like mozilla anyway?

    Howbout we start boycotting companies with fat CEOs, cause we don't approve of their private dietary choices and because we believe it is a sign of apathy towards poverty.

    Many products and services are created and delivered by people who do not approve of gay marriage, should they all be fired as well to comply with the new gay order? How will these fools get through a day without using one of these products or services? They might as well boycott life.

    You gotta love leftists (in a too bad they're inbred sort of way), they preach about FREEDOM OF SPEECH, unless they don't agree with it, then they want censorship, they want you jailed for having an opinion, the true colours of the hypocritical and intolerant left. They freak out about racism when you use a black pen, despite never meeting a black person in their entire life.

    Javascript is more useful than the politically correct morons will ever be

      he is entitled to have his own personal beliefs just as gays are entitled to their lifestyle

      But that's the thing... he is saying that gays aren't entitled to their lifestyle. He was trying to remove the rights of other people. He supported a repeal of the right for same-sex couples to marry.

      He wanted married people to no longer be married. He wanted their commitments to each other made null and void.

      There is a different between personal beliefs and support for repeal of rights.

      If your personal belief is that gay marriage is bad then don't gay marry somebody.

        Why do LGBT supporters force everyone to agree with them
        In a free and open democracy, we can repeal laws we don't agree with or laws that do not work

        Oh right, changing social values only counts if it's in favor of your views, as if your views are somehow superior to the rest of society.

        He's not firing gay people, he's not locking up gay people, he's not advocating violence against gay people, he just doesn't agree with gay marriage.
        He probably just sees that gay marriage holds absolutely no advantage over civil unions, much like many people.

        If you think gay marriage is a moral crusade, go and support it
        But don't force me to support gay marriage because you think it is 'right'

        You will not get your way by throwing tantrums like children

          He wasn't indifferent to gay marriage, he was using his income to prevent some people from having the same rights as other people because of their sexuality. This isn't indifference, this is standing up to oppose equality.
          This appears to contradict Mozilla's values. You don't have to agree with their values, but generally employees do, and certainly their CEO does.

            What he does in private is his own business,
            he might use Chrome at home instead of Firefox! Oh no!

            Please read this, since you think you understand the situation so well
            http://www.benmoskowitz.com/?p=971

            And marriage is not a right

              Actually, Article 16 of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that marriage is the right of every man and woman.

              I agree that what people do in their own private life is private, however when you start investing in affecting the rights of others (and not yourself), you open yourself up to questions from others. Also, if you are a CEO of a company, the lines between public and private get blurred as you help determine and represent the principles of that company. If he had donated money to the Ku Klux Klan, I imagine you would not be defending him so vigorously.

                The UN can go to hell, they're hypocrites who do not command any authority

                An academic group whose research was obtained from pedophiles and launched the sexual revolution in the U.S. has received accreditation by the United Nations.
                The infamous Kinsey Report was the basis for relaxing attitudes and penalties for sex crimes against women and children, and for comprehensive sexual education that teaches small children about sexual acts.
                This week the Kinsey Institute went before the UN committee that accredits groups to participate in the UN. This comes as abortion groups are lobbying for comprehensive sex education to be a major part of the UN’s policy agenda and development work.

                Oh yeah, I really really care what the UN has to say about human rights, when they turn a blind eye to Saudi Arabia.

                It's funny when people advocate that laws should be changed to accommodate gay marriage, and then rely on laws or corrupt institutions to justify gay marriage being legitimate. Just because you like it, doesn't make it valid or logical.

                Back back to mr mozilla, if he donated to a pro-gay marriage thing, you'd all be throwing flowers in the streets for him.

                Last I checked marriage is a union between males and females; not males and males nor is it females and females, nor dogs and cats, nor males and monkeys etc.

                Marriage is religious and has always been. Gays can do civil unions, domestic relationships, registered relationships etc. They needn't marry.

                Last edited 04/04/14 8:41 pm

                The full text of the Article 16(1) is:

                Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

                The omission of "sexuality" as a limitation is quite pronounced. I think if they'd been drafting it today, it might very well have been included (as it should be), but neither sexuality nor gender identity are mentioned in any part of the declaration as it is.

                However, they do have some quite specific Articles on freedom of speech and freedom of employment:

                Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

                Article 23(1): Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

                Article 29(2): In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

                Given that same-sex marriage in California both has and has not been (at various stages) "determined by law", it'd fair to argue laws either way don't - at present - exist "solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others". I've got no doubt that eventually same-sex marriage will be accepted and "determined by law", but even then, Eich's opinion and donations may be protected under Article 18:

                Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

                Since he has stated that this was based on his religious belief, the donation itself and his comments could be reasonably described as attempts to "manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance". You don't have to agree with it or like it - I certainly don't - but it is likely to be a more protected right under the UDHR than same-sex marriage.

          In a free and open democracy, we can repeal laws we don't agree with or laws that do not work

          Not when the repeal of those laws is found by a federal court to be unconstitutional.

        If your personal belief is that gay marriage is bad then don't gay marry somebody.

        I think that's where many opponents of same-sex marriage see it differently. They see allowing “gay marriage” as a threat to their own “straight marriage”, which is to them, the only kind of marriage there is, since that was how it was defined when they got married 20, 30, 50, or however-many years ago. Such opponents of same-sex marriage see it as an attack on their right to consider their existing marriage as a "union between a man and a woman", and as such, redefines a cornerstone aspect of their lives.

        I can see how this might be threatening to them - in a way, it is similar to how indigenous people feel threatened when “indigenous” is redefined by a conservative blowhard, though said blowhard may not have been forced to resign as Eich has, and might (hypothetically) have argued that restrictions on his ability to say this are a repeal of his rights.

        For the record, I think same-sex marriage is not a threat and opponents should get over it because it's really not a big deal - my sister being allowed to make her partner her wife makes no difference to the relationship between me and my wife. For all intents and purposes, it's just changing a few words in the law here and there, and nothing about their or my relationship really changes. But then, "just a few words" is potentially also the difference between "marriage" and "civil union", too, so I can see both sides of the argument.

          I have heard those arguments before and I understand them, I just don't agree.

          To me marriage is about two people making a commitment to each other. Gender doesn't really factor in for me. I am heterosexual so the person I want to marry is a woman, but our marriage won't be a marriage because it is a union between a man and a woman it will be a marriage because we love each other. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

          Also I don't think heterosexual couples are very good at marriage. Cut out the bullshit 72 day TV weddings and then maybe I will have more respect for the defense of 'traditional marriage'.

          It all just seems a bit odd to me... "My marriage to my wife is worth less if gay people can get married." Why? Do you love her less? I think it makes marriage stronger! "There are now heaps more people I can legally marry but I still want to be married to you"

          (This isn't directed at you specifically, just inspired by your comment lol)

            Pretty much agree with you.

            Personally, I think marriage and civil unions should be seperated for all couples, be they gay, straight or something else, so that all couples must get some sort of "Relationship Certificate" for legal recognition of their being a couple by the state, and reduce "marriage" to a purely ceremonial activitity with no legal status.

    I can't believe you nuts are standing up for a guy like this. How many times do we see the people at the top (CEO's, Parliament members etc.) pushing hate like that? Then people react en masse (as is their right) to say that's not good enough, but they're "the haters"? Anti-equal rights bigots like this guys are the haters...

    Damn I'm sure I'm being trolled by but why?

      Because I don't believe that being against gay marriage is a hateful stance. Yes, there are people who are against gay marriage that stem from their bigotted or hateful attitudes, but not everyone is against gay marriage for these reasons.

        I'd love to know more about these reasons that are other than "bigotted (sic) or hateful".
        Wait, let me guess... because your imaginary friend in the sky said so? Or because traditionally we don't allow gays to marry? Or sex is strictly for procreation?
        Please give me a valid argument why gays can't marry.

        Last edited 04/04/14 2:32 pm

          Read further down. I've already stated some reasons I have been given from people who disagree with gay marriage.

    Free speech is supposed to go both ways. I don't agree with him, but there's no way he should have lost his job for holding an unpopular opinion.

      Especially for something he did 6 years ago - that is a long time and opinions change. Moreso, the event was a once off of $1000, not something he financially supported and campaigned for at each and every opportunity.

      Seriously the reaction and outcome to this are both beyond belief.

    I don't get the Eich supporters, and the freedom of speechers (this is not about freedom of speech) he was not a good fit for the company because he actively stands against what the company stands for, if Mozilla was anti-gay then people wouldn't complain about Eich being CEO, they would be a good fit, they would be more complaining about Mozilla's policies being intolerant. (by they i guess i'm really saying me and the other sensible 'haters', there are extremists on all sides of beliefs who give everyone a bad name)

    Even if it was freedom of speech issue, I'm all for freedom of speech regardless of what that speech is, just don't force your intolerance into law because you don't like something that in no way effects you or the people you care about. I don't personally tolerate intolerant people, i see the slight hypocrisy there, but i don't go and lobby to have people that are intolerant of gays etc to be jailed or to forbid them of voicing their opinions (as long as they do so respectfully), i just chose to ignore them, but when they try and impose their views on others, or get put into positions of power in companies that are not intolerant i get pissed off.

      His anti-gay marriage (not anti-gay) stance only would have been a bad fit for the company if he was enforcing his opinion from the top down. He was not.

      Not a good fit for the company?
      Mozilla isn't a gay rights organisation,
      Mozilla makes web browsers, web technologies, phone OSes and contributes massively to web standards

      He CO-FOUNDED Mozilla and invented Javascript
      I'd say that makes him a perfect fit for the position

      How would his opinions or private actions toward gay marriage affect his ability to run Mozilla?
      Political correctness is a mental illness that infects everything it touches.

    I wonder if people would think this was a bad or unfair decision if he had donated $1000 to the Klu Klux Klan instead of opposing gay marriage?

    I know that sounds extreme, but I honestly think in the future people will draw comparisons between elements of the civil rights movement and elements of the gay rights movement.

    I am not saying that one compares to the other, because that isn't true, but at a fundamental level I see people who oppose gay marriage as trying to deny rights to others even though those rights do not reduce their own rights.

    I just don't get any of the arguments against gay marriage.

      6 years ago he donated money to an idea which is consistent with the beliefs of the major religions in the world. Today that idea is in conflict with an ethical view of humanity.

      Supporting a point of view from an ethical or religious standing should not be a reason to force someone to resign.

      Elements of the gay rights movement, yes. I very much doubt anyone would draw comparisons with gay marriage though.

      Getting a marriage license is not a civil or universal right. It is a privilege, just like a driver's license.

      Marriage is something that has always been heavily regulated by the state because it provides some government benefits to the two spouses (which is arguable today) ultimately because the union will be fruitful and result in children. The state has special interest in who is having children because when a child does not have an intact spousal unit, it becomes costly to the state.

      And black people would be highly offended at what you just wrote
      http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-gay-marriage-isnt-like-the-civil-rights-struggle/

        And black people would be highly offended at what you just wrote

        If that is true then I am sorry for that. I chose my words carefully to try and avoid that. As I said; I am not saying that one compares to the other, because that isn't true. I also said that I wasn't speaking generally. I said that there could be comparisons between elements of the civil rights movement and elements of the gay rights movement.

        For example I think there are valid discussions to be had regarding comparison to interracial marriage laws and gay marriage laws.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage_in_the_United_States

        From the link that you provided:

        There have been instances during the gay-rights movement that arguably could be compared to the black civil rights struggle, like the Stonewall riots of the 1960s or Matthew Shepard murder in 1998. Suicides and other problems related to public attitudes about homosexuality have also unquestionably been a horrible ordeal.

        That seems in line with what I said... they aren't the same at all, but there are some elements that overlap.

          You keep referring to elements of the gay-rights movement but then talk about gay marriage.

          I doubt anyone would be offended that you compare elements of the gay-rights movement to black civil rights movement. They would be offended if you compare this specific element.

            They would be offended if you compare this specific element.

            Why? I specifically made a comparison between interracial marriage laws and gay marriage laws.

            Interracial marriage laws were a black civil rights issue.
            Gay marriage laws are a gay rights issue.

    I cant believe that some of you people don't understand why he had to step down. Because decent human beings do not actively discriminate against their fellow man. Descend human being see the treatment of someone based on their sexual preference as being the same as treating someone differently based on their race, colour, religion or sex. Sexual discrimination is akin to racism.

      So according to you, decent humans should actively discriminate against women but not men!

      And should decent humans passively discriminate against women and men?

        The word men can refer to both females and males.

        In Old English, the word mann referred to a human being. The words wīf and wer denoted females and males respectively.

        Sadly, many people nowadays do not make this distinction but some still do.

      As far as I can tell, a lot of people against gay marriage are not doing so to discriminate against anyone. It is simply a basis for defining what a "marriage" is. Some people would define it as a union between a man and a woman. Some people would define it as a union between two people. Both sides have plenty of points of reference. Plenty of people who are against gay marriage don't have issues with civil unions and would be happy for gays to have their own name for gay marriage. I personally know 2 gay guys who would much prefer this.
      As far as Eich is concerned, maybe he is a bigot. Maybe he's a crazy and hateful redneck and lives on the bible belt. But we don't know that. He's simply supported a cause that is not intrinsically hateful.

      Sorry, I will never ever approve of pedophiles or people that bugger their pets.
      I will treat them differently, go ahead, call me a bigot hah!

    He is well within his rights to say what he likes, just as people are equally within their rights to respond to that in a way they see fit.

    They didn't want to support an organisation led by someone so opposed to their views. That's how free speech works.

      people are equally within their rights to respond to that in a way they see fit

      I couldn't disagree more. People are not within their rights to respond in any way they see fit, this is why we have laws, social order and expectations of the society we live in.

        Of course Tiewaz didn't mean that one should be free to slander... But why shouldn't one be able to answer in the negative to the question of gay marriage without being forced from their job?

    The issue isn't so much that it's his belief that same-sex couple should have fewer rights than straight couples, it's that he moved into a leadership role. There were always people in the organisation who disagreed with his views, but they didn't have to follow him as a leader. The authority of a leader is generally given through the consent of the 'led' (unless it's a military / force scenario).

    In this situation the employees, board member and the tech community said "We are not prepared to be led by someone who holds those beliefs".

    Unless Brendan was prepared to publicly change his views, he no longer has the authority to lead. Without authority, the role is worthless.

    For those saying that gay people should be tolerant of people who wish to treat them as less worthy, the argument is circular. Gay people should tolerate homophobes and homophobes should tolerate gay people? It just doesn't work. As someone earlier said, freedom of speech is not equal to freedom to say what you want without consequence.

    He resigned not because of social pressure but because it would of started to hurt business and share prices.

    I like this saying that ill adapt to the situation. "Opinions are like a penis, its ok to have one and even ok to be proud of it.
    Its not ok to shove it in my face or push it down my throat. "

    I support gay marriage but think it is poor form from these people pushing their agenda on him.

    By all means rally for change and donate money to causes you believe in but respect others rights to disagree with you.

    If you don't then you become a hypocrite and lose all of my attention.

    LGBT is like fascist ideology

    Today they fire CEOs
    Tomorrow, You will be next if You dare to say what You think.

    So apparently the CEO of OkCupid also donated to anti-gay congressmen... Haven't fact checked, but here's link: http://uncrunched.com/2014/04/06/the-hypocrisy-of-sam-yagan-okcupid/

    jeesus unfair dismissal much? the guy is entitled to his opinion and weather I like it or not u cant fire someone based upon their beliefs! I remember gay people having a problem with that not too long ago! What now you can not like gays anymore or something?

    I am truly disappointed at this outcome. Many people here scream intolerance and bigotry, and free speech, while at the same time, celebrate, as this man is dragged through the mud. What is immediately obvious is the clear inability to have a civil rational discussion, not to mention a level of hypocrisy and immaturity that is loathsome.

    Declarations/Stipulations made by the UN are not gospel. They are a political body. Consensus does not equal truth. On what basis do people here assert that same sex marriage is a human right? If you say "it's because the UN says so", you clearly do not have a rational foundation for your belief, and proves that you haven't thought about the issue. You've merely shifted your moral ideology and failed to explain your position. How does one define marriage? As it has been mentioned previously, equating gay & lesbian rights to the civil rights movement, I'm sure would be found offensive to the black community.

    Calling us bigots and accusing us of discrimination is an emotionally driven response, and displays an amazing ignorance regarding what the christian faith really is. Demonizing a company based on the belief of one man is irrational and deplorable. Grow up. Where will this end? Capitalism, while a convenient argument is a weak one. Yes, people boycott companies, but not based on the singular belief of one man. Show me evidence to the contrary and I will concede the point.

    The first sentence of the article is bullshit. Sam Yagan gave money to Chris Cannon who hates gays and then used OKCupid to pull a PR stunt to get another CEO fired. If there were justice in the world and people were actually accountable, Sam Yagan would now be fired for the same issue - since he idiotically brought it up. That's not how the world works though, now his company is media darling for taking a stand and is benefiting economically by ruining the career of a person who founded a company and invented javascript.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now