Brendan Eich, Prop 8, Mozilla, and the "moral hazard" of his ouster

I definitely support free speech and I believe there is a line that should not be crossed regarding losing your job if you hold an unpopular opinion, but this is not that line. Once again, "actively contributing to the limiting of rights of other people" is being conflated with "having an unpopular opinion" when they are not at all the same thing.

For example: I will defend your (not YOU... I mean you, in the general sense <g>) right to call someone the N-word, even though it is stupid, racist, and anachronistic. I will not defend you giving money to legislators that want to take rights away from African Americans.

The line is crossed when you're no longer just spouting nonsense that people can safely ignore, and instead concretely contribute to oppression.

As an aside, whether he was fired or resigned is a red herring; there's no such thing as being fired when you're a CEO. CEOs always leave to "pursue other opportunities" or "spend more time with their family" or "hate gay people privately from their ranch" because the board tells them to or else. It rarely, if ever, gets to the "or else" because it's better to resign and keep a tiny bit more dignity and leave with your golden parachute than to be publicly ousted. Reading anything into the fact that he resigned rather than being fired is, IMHO, irrelevant.

Edit: I'm not even saying you can't give money to legislators that want to take rights away... That, too, you are free to do. But if you do, I believe it is totally reasonable for "the mob" to point out it's reprehensible and for you to lose/resign your job for it. This is not mob mentality gone too far, it's a reasonable reaction to a leader that is supposed to be representing your company.

Why does everyone confuse freedom of speech with the freedom from consequence is the question I ask myself every time something like this happens and people get upset.

Tenebrous wrote:

Two minutes on Google got me this and this. There is probably more out there if I had the time to dig more.

Don't worry, Tenebrous. I had a little extra time and did the digging for you.

Besides Eich there's been a grand total of three people who have resigned because of their support for Prop 8 over the past six years: Marjorie Christoffersen, Richard Raddon, and Scott Eckern.

Christoffersen resigned from the El Coyote restaurant, which she co-owned, in December 2008. The restaurant is in West Hollywood, a neighborhood that is more than 40% gay. Christoffersen was also known throughout the neighborhood as the face of the restaurant because she worked the front of the house. So is it really surprising that a business in a largely gay community that has a large number of gay employees and customers is boycotted because one of its owners basically gave them all the finger?

Christoffersen, a Mormon, tried to hide her donation behind her religion, claiming that she gave the money because of her faith, and without considering what message she was sending to the people around her.

Richard Raddon resigned from the director of the Los Angeles Film Festival in November 2008 because he donated $1,500 to the Prop 8 campaign. Again, you have a person working in a city and a field that has large numbers of gay people. In his resignation statement he claimed he viewed everyone as having equal rights, but gave the money because he was a faithful Mormon.

I have always held the belief that all people, no matter race, religion or sexual orientation, are entitled to equal rights. As many know, I consider myself a devout and faithful Mormon. I prefer to keep the details around my contribution through my church a private matter. But I am profoundly sorry for the negative attention that my actions have drawn to Film Independent and for the hurt and pain that is being experienced in the GLBT [gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender] community.

Scott Eckern also resigned from the creative director of California Musical Theater in November 2008 because he donated $1,000 to the Prop 8 campaign. Yet again, its a person working in a field that has a large number of gay people. He, too, made the donation because he was a Mormon and yet expressed shock about people's reactions.

I understand that my choice of supporting Proposition 8 has been the cause of many hurt feelings, maybe even betrayal. It was not my intent. I honestly had no idea that this would be the reaction.

So the three incidents before Eich involved devout Mormons in jobs that dealt with large numbers of gays. All of them, for some reason, seemed surprised that their donation, which they viewed as an expression of their faith, would be interpreted very differently by the people they worked with. But, like Eich, they all ultimately realized that their donation precluded them from being effective in their jobs any longer and resigned.

And since 2008? Nothing until Eich.

And, again, there's a pretty big difference between a political belief in, say, smaller government or less taxes, and the very overt act of giving a group money so they can make sure that gay people are permanently relegated to second-class citizenship.

SallyNasty wrote:

Why does everyone confuse freedom of speech with the freedom from consequence is the question I ask myself every time something like this happens and people get upset.

By speech you mean the political donation he made? I know money is speech or whatever, but that seems to be different than what you're talking about.

DSGamer wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

Why does everyone confuse freedom of speech with the freedom from consequence is the question I ask myself every time something like this happens and people get upset.

By speech you mean the political donation he made? I know money is speech or whatever, but that seems to be different than what you're talking about.

I dunno, isn't that kinda the same thing? The Supreme Court seems to think so. I personally think it is worse because he wasn't saying to his buddies that gays are icky - he was spending his own personal money to engage in active discrimination.

SallyNasty wrote:

Why does everyone confuse freedom of speech with the freedom from consequence is the question I ask myself every time something like this happens and people get upset.

My guess is because they hold a similar opinion (or even the same one) that, if made public, would earn the same reaction. It's an attempt to defend their own bigotry using someone else as a proxy, without exposing themselves to the immediate consequences.

Ranger Rick wrote:

Edit: I'm not even saying you can't give money to legislators that want to take rights away... That, too, you are free to do. But if you do, I believe it is totally reasonable for "the mob" to point out it's reprehensible and for you to lose/resign your job for it. This is not mob mentality gone too far, it's a reasonable reaction to a leader that is supposed to be representing your company.

So just so we're clear, can we get a list of the values leaders should hold in order to not anger the public? Just a bullet point list would be fine. That way companies can know before elevating people to CEO.

I certainly have thoughts about what Eich thinks about gays, based on his actions. However I think it'd probably be best for our purposes if we stuck with the facts we have.

I believe Sally was saying that he has less of a personal problem with expressing homophobic speech than materially supporting homophobic causes.

DSGamer wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

Why does everyone confuse freedom of speech with the freedom from consequence is the question I ask myself every time something like this happens and people get upset.

By speech you mean the political donation he made? I know money is speech or whatever, but that seems to be different than what you're talking about.

I dunno, isn't that kinda the same thing? The Supreme Court seems to think so. I personally think it is worse because he wasn't saying to his buddies that gays are icky - he was spending his own personal money to engage in active discrimination.

Wait, you think it's worse that he wasn't overtly vocally homophobic? I didn't disagree with Prop 8, but people give political donations for all kinds of reasons. Do we know that he "thinks gays are icky"?

Uh, yes. Because he DONATED TO PROP 8! So you're saying if I gave money to the KKK that doesn't mean I'm racist?

SallyNasty wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

Why does everyone confuse freedom of speech with the freedom from consequence is the question I ask myself every time something like this happens and people get upset.

By speech you mean the political donation he made? I know money is speech or whatever, but that seems to be different than what you're talking about.

I dunno, isn't that kinda the same thing? The Supreme Court seems to think so. I personally think it is worse because he wasn't saying to his buddies that gays are icky - he was spending his own personal money to engage in active discrimination.

Wait, you think it's worse that he wasn't overtly vocally homophobic? I didn't agree with Prop 8, but people give political donations for all kinds of reasons. Do we know that he "thinks gays are icky"?

DSGamer wrote:

Do we know that he "thinks gays are icky"?

Why else would someone donate to Prop 8?

Even if they claim it's because of their religious beliefs, those actual religious beliefs are just some variation of "gays are icky/gays are dangerous."

Dr.Ghastly wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

Why does everyone confuse freedom of speech with the freedom from consequence is the question I ask myself every time something like this happens and people get upset.

By speech you mean the political donation he made? I know money is speech or whatever, but that seems to be different than what you're talking about.

I dunno, isn't that kinda the same thing? The Supreme Court seems to think so. I personally think it is worse because he wasn't saying to his buddies that gays are icky - he was spending his own personal money to engage in active discrimination.

Wait, you think it's worse that he wasn't overtly vocally homophobic? I didn't disagree with Prop 8, but people give political donations for all kinds of reasons. Do we know that he "thinks gays are icky"?

Uh, yes. Because he DONATED TO PROP 8! So you're saying if I gave money to the KKK that doesn't mean I'm racist?

That's false equivalency. I don't agree with prop 8, but I can imagine there were people who donated to it because of pressure from their pastor. Or because they believed in the definition of marriage at the time, but had no issues with the individuals the bill would harm. Donating to the KKK is most definitely a statement of how you think about people. Donating to Prop 8, as bad as it was, could be for a multitude of reasons.

DSGamer wrote:
Ranger Rick wrote:

Edit: I'm not even saying you can't give money to legislators that want to take rights away... That, too, you are free to do. But if you do, I believe it is totally reasonable for "the mob" to point out it's reprehensible and for you to lose/resign your job for it. This is not mob mentality gone too far, it's a reasonable reaction to a leader that is supposed to be representing your company.

So just so we're clear, can we get a list of the values leaders should hold in order to not anger the public? Just a bullet point list would be fine. That way companies can know before elevating people to CEO.

You tell me the company, I'll tell you the list.

Gaylord McManLove is as unlikely to be hired as the Hobby Lobby CEO as Nogays McMormon is to be hired to lead the San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus. Or a strident anti-war pacifist is to lead Lockheed-Martin.

DSGamer wrote:
Ranger Rick wrote:

Edit: I'm not even saying you can't give money to legislators that want to take rights away... That, too, you are free to do. But if you do, I believe it is totally reasonable for "the mob" to point out it's reprehensible and for you to lose/resign your job for it. This is not mob mentality gone too far, it's a reasonable reaction to a leader that is supposed to be representing your company.

So just so we're clear, can we get a list of the values leaders should hold in order to not anger the public? Just a bullet point list would be fine. That way companies can know before elevating people to CEO.

That's what you're going with?

Did you know that different companies serve different markets and different demographics?

OG_slinger wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

Do we know that he "thinks gays are icky"?

Why else would someone donate to Prop 8?

Even if they claim it's because of their religious beliefs, those actual religious beliefs are just some variation of "gays are icky/gays are dangerous."

I hope, for the sake of sanity and decency that you don't attribute those unsaid words ("gays are icky") to me via the transitive properties of debate? This is all getting kind of crazy.

DSGamer wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

Do we know that he "thinks gays are icky"?

Why else would someone donate to Prop 8?

Even if they claim it's because of their religious beliefs, those actual religious beliefs are just some variation of "gays are icky/gays are dangerous."

I hope, for the sake of sanity and decency that you don't attribute those unsaid words ("gays are icky") to me via the transitive properties of debate? This is all getting kind of crazy.

Wait, you donated money to Prop 8?

SocialChameleon wrote:

I believe Sally was saying that he has less of a personal problem with expressing homophobic speech than materially supporting homophobic causes.

To be clear on my position, I have a problem with both - but I think that it is worse when you are donating/engaging in activism to deny human rights to others than when you are just opining.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

I hope, for the sake of sanity and decency that you don't attribute those unsaid words ("gays are icky") to me via the transitive properties of debate? This is all getting kind of crazy.

Wait, you donated money to Prop 8?

I heard DS ran all the entire Prop 8 fundraising effort. That's when he wasn't busy hunting undocumented immigrants in the Arizona desert for sport. Or kicking puppies.

Bloo Driver wrote:

In the middle of the what ifs and false equivocation, I find the inability of anyone to find fault with what actually happened comforting.

So much this.

SocialChameleon wrote:
Tenebrous wrote:
SocialChameleon wrote:
Tenebrous wrote:

So what? No one is arguing they should not have said it. Why are you so hung up on this?

Because of the claim that the protests surrounding Eich's appointment are a bad thing. I'm honestly confused what your position is. The public should have protested, but it's bad that they did because? Why?

Tenebrous wrote:

Let's try this question again: Are all execises of public pressure and protest an unabsahed good?

That depends, but my opinion of their goodness does not hinge on whether or not public protest was involved.

Tenebrous wrote:

I would have figured some people are jerks who hold dumb opinions and moved on with my life.

That's what you would have done, fine. The question is what you think the public should have done.

I am intrested in exploring if people with unpopular opinions should face job loss because of those opinions, and you are intrested in saying it was a public protest which everyone already knows. Great! Thank you for clarifying that.

I answered your post edit questions. I'd appreciate it if you answered mine. If you don't like what the public did re: Eich, what would you rather the public have done?

You are fundementally unintrested in what I am trying to say, so why bother? You seem to think that it is ok people should face the prospect of loosing their jobs because they have unpopular opinions as long as it is the public that makes doing their job impossible. We will have to disagree about that, if that is really what you think.

Tenebrous wrote:
SocialChameleon wrote:
Tenebrous wrote:
SocialChameleon wrote:
Tenebrous wrote:

So what? No one is arguing they should not have said it. Why are you so hung up on this?

Because of the claim that the protests surrounding Eich's appointment are a bad thing. I'm honestly confused what your position is. The public should have protested, but it's bad that they did because? Why?

Tenebrous wrote:

Let's try this question again: Are all execises of public pressure and protest an unabsahed good?

That depends, but my opinion of their goodness does not hinge on whether or not public protest was involved.

Tenebrous wrote:

I would have figured some people are jerks who hold dumb opinions and moved on with my life.

That's what you would have done, fine. The question is what you think the public should have done.

I am intrested in exploring if people with unpopular opinions should face job loss because of those opinions, and you are intrested in saying it was a public protest which everyone already knows. Great! Thank you for clarifying that.

I answered your post edit questions. I'd appreciate it if you answered mine. If you don't like what the public did re: Eich, what would you rather the public have done?

You are fundementally unintrested in what I am trying to say, so why bother? You seem to think that it is ok people should face the prospect of loosing their jobs because they have unpopular opinions as long as it is the public that makes doing their job impossible. We will have to disagree about that, if that is really what you think.

If you are bad for the company's business, it's reasonable to lose your job, is it not? If your actions cause the public to no longer want to use your product, you're bad for the company's business. What's wrong here?

Edit: And he didn't even lose his job. He chose not to change positions and resign instead.

End of the last page, based on what you edited in.

Tenebrous wrote:

Are you saying that people that hold unpopular opinions should loose their jobs if people start protesting outside their workplace?

SocialChameleon wrote:

No. If you can find a statement of mine where I advocated that I will happily retract it or clarify.

If you want to disengage while continuing to misrepresent what I actually said, demand I answer your questions while not answering mine (because I'm trying to figure out what you are trying to say, I'm still confused), sure, let's break this off.

@SIxteen There are two sides of this: the pratical, which, as you point out makes a good case for him leaving the company. On the other hand, it just bothers me we live in a country where people can face jobloss because they hold unpopular beliefs. IMHO people should not loose a job because they support Democrats or Republicans, are socialists, like the accordion, are Christians, Athiests, Buddhists, or Satanists. Period. Call me an idealist.

SocialChameleon wrote:

End of the last page, based on what you edited in.

Tenebrous wrote:

Are you saying that people that hold unpopular opinions should loose their jobs if people start protesting outside their workplace?

SocialChameleon wrote:

No. If you can find a statement of mine where I advocated that I will happily retract it or clarify.

If you want to disengage while continuing to misrepresent what I actually said, demand I answer your questions while not answering mine (because I'm trying to figure out what you are trying to say, I'm still confused), sure, let's break this off.

You apparently missed the if's etc. If you are not clear about what I am saying by now, you will never be. If you want it succinctly, see my most immediate post above.

Tenebrous wrote:

@SIxteen There are two sides of this: the pratical, which, as you point out makes a good case for him leaving the company. On the other hand, it just bothers me we live in a country where people can face jobloss because they hold unpopular beliefs. IMHO people should not loose a job because they support Democrats or Republicans, are socialists, like the accordion, are Christians, Athiests, Buddhists, or Satanists. Period. Call me an idealist.

1) Once again, it's not because of his beliefs. It's because of his actions. I would prefer people be accountable for their actions than be protected from repercussions.

2) It wasn't even really his actions that led to being asked to take a different position. It was the fact that his actions caused problems for the company. That's the bottom line and anything else is just weird hypothetical we're discussing for some reason that I can't fathom.

Edit: In other words, the 2nd side to this that you see didn't actually happen. There's only one side to this.

I think there is a difference between supporting something unpopular in principle and denying a group of people rights. You can see the distinction, I hope.

It is like I support Obamacare but my Step-dad, who is a republican, does not. That is fine(he is wrong:)). If he were to say that my brother-in-law shouldn't get to marry his boyfriend and will give money to make sure that he is unable to do so - well that is quite different.

I sure hope you can see the distinction.

All of that said, even the hypothetical side holds no water because the unpopular belief is a very hurtful one that attempts to take away rights from other citizens. f*ck that and f*ck him. He deserves the repercussion from it. It has nothing to do with being an unpopular opinion and everything to do with actively trying to hurt other people.

Edit: More or less Sallyhausered. He's more polite than I am.

Tenebrous wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
Tenebrous wrote:

@SIxteen There are two sides of this: the pratical, which, as you point out makes a good case for him leaving the company. On the other hand, it just bothers me we live in a country where people can face jobloss because they hold unpopular beliefs. IMHO people should not loose a job because they support Democrats or Republicans, are socialists, like the accordion, are Christians, Athiests, Buddhists, or Satanists. Period. Call me an idealist.

1) Once again, it's not because of his beliefs. It's because of his actions. I would prefer people be accountable for their actions than be protected from repercussions.

2) It wasn't even really his actions that led to being asked to take a different position. It was the fact that his actions caused problems for the company. That's the bottom line and anything else is just weird hypothetical we're discussing for some reason that I can't fathom

1. So beliefs are ok as long as people do nothing to further them, is that is what you are saying. I would think beliefs imply you take action on them.

2. So you don't reconize that there can be a difference between a pratical and a more idealistic solution? Ok. If that is where you are.

1) Not what I said.
2) Not what I said.

I quickly see why SocialChameleon is so frustrated with you.

I agree with Ten, and I'm saddened that when I pointed out that I routinely have worked with people who not only have differing viewpoints, but the exercise of those viewpoints do indeed contribute to harm others and yet somehow I can work with them professionally because I am an adult.

Some issues that take away rights and cause bodily harm to others:

Smoking, Alcohol, and other drug use.
Capital Punishment
Gun Control
Abortion

But hey, whatever, that door swings both ways. When hobby lobby or another organization purges gay people from its ranks. When LGBTs are quietly not hired at a company because of their orientation, it's fine, because that's the right of the company. After all, we wouldn't want to put someone disruptive to their fellow workers into a leadership role. AmIRight?

SixteenBlue wrote:
Tenebrous wrote:

@SIxteen There are two sides of this: the pratical, which, as you point out makes a good case for him leaving the company. On the other hand, it just bothers me we live in a country where people can face jobloss because they hold unpopular beliefs. IMHO people should not loose a job because they support Democrats or Republicans, are socialists, like the accordion, are Christians, Athiests, Buddhists, or Satanists. Period. Call me an idealist.

1) Once again, it's not because of his beliefs. It's because of his actions. I would prefer people be accountable for their actions than be protected from repercussions.

2) It wasn't even really his actions that led to being asked to take a different position. It was the fact that his actions caused problems for the company. That's the bottom line and anything else is just weird hypothetical we're discussing for some reason that I can't fathom

1. So beliefs are ok as long as people do nothing to further them, is that is what you are saying. I would think beliefs imply you take action on them.

2. So you don't reconize that there can be a difference between a pratical and a more idealistic solution? Ok. If that is where you are.

SallyNasty wrote:

I think there is a difference between supporting something unpopular in principle and denying a group of people rights. You can see the distinction, I hope.

It is like I support Obamacare but my Step-dad, who is a republican, does not. That is fine(he is wrong:)). If he were to say that my brother-in-law shouldn't get to marry his boyfriend and will give money to make sure that he is unable to do so - well that is quite different.

I sure hope you can see the distinction.

So hurtfulness should be deciding factor? Hurtfulness according to whom?