Besides the topic of the article itself, I found the following really fascinating-
" “Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn’t live up to it,” Mitchell Baker, the executive chairwoman of Mozilla, wrote. “We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: It’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves. "
So, what exactly is the standard that she is referring to? That we shouldn't oppress people? That we shouldn't be anti-gay? That we shouldn't try to go against a growing trend?
What exactly does she mean by "we haven't stayed true to ourselves"?
Besides the topic of the article itself, I found the following really fascinating-
" “Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn’t live up to it,” Mitchell Baker, the executive chairwoman of Mozilla, wrote. “We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: It’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves. "
So, what exactly is the standard that she is referring to? That we shouldn't oppress people? That we shouldn't be anti-gay? That we shouldn't try to go against a growing trend?
What exactly does she mean by "we haven't stayed true to ourselves"?
Personally, things like this disappoint me.
I am happy to see more people standing up for gay rights.
It is one thing to stand up for gay rights, and another thing entirely to go full-on thought police.
There is no discernible difference between the "oppressor" and the "oppressed" when the "oppressed" go onto "oppressing" the "oppressors".
In other words, just because your cause is just doesn't mean that you are allowed to cause direct harm onto others merely because their belief conflicts with yours.
I mean, what makes you any different from the people you're challenging otherwise?
The point of civil rights is acceptance and tolerance. The way I see it, this isn't that. You're merely trading one intolerance for another.
We're allowed to believe whatever we want. But in cases like this where his position on a certain subject could be bad for the company as a whole because of PR, then yeah, I would have him resign too. Purely economical standpoint.
Though you have to ask yourself if intolerance of intolerance is just as bad as just plain intolerance.
The point of civil rights is acceptance and tolerance. The way I see it, this isn't that. You're merely trading one intolerance for another.
At first, I felt the LGBT community was being overzealous; but, after I thought more about it, I now deem the response fair.
Think about it this way. If the CEO supported something like segregation between blacks and white on buses, how do you expect African American community to respond? This is a comparable scenario to the LGBT community down to the boycotting buses. The only reason you feel that this is a case of "oppressing the oppressor" is because you aren't that strongly an advocate for LGBT rights and find the CEO's views to be not unusual and the status quo; however, demanding a boycott is comparable to many other civil rights movements. It's not an overreaction so much as the LGBT community finally exerting the gravity of homophobia akin to other prejudices like racism.
And that's where "trading one intolerance for another" falls apart. The entire moral fabric of society is built on intolerance of one act or the other. How would we enforce laws such as those against murder, thievery, rape, etc. without "intolerance" for the acts? Are you suggesting that the proper response to racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, etc. should be limited to less than that of boycotting?
Ultimately, no one was in the right and no one was in the wrong.
So do I now have the right to demand a CEO resignation if he is pro choice? I really hope that the CEO that got the axe will sue his former employer for wrongful termination. Last time I checked offending liberals is not cause for dismissal.
Though you have to ask yourself if intolerance of intolerance is just as bad as just plain intolerance.
No we don't. That's like saying Anti-Racism protests are as bad as KKK meetings.
Look, the guy gave money to a group that was trying to make life measurably worse for gay people (by pushing anti-constitutinal law, apparently) and he got bounced from the company because bad PR means companies don't get paid.
Actions of a private company do not equal free speech infringements.
I mean, what makes you any different from the people you're challenging otherwise?
You realize that a man losing his job because he's directly impacting the profits of the company he's supposed to lead isn't quite the same as if he was beaten with a tyre-iron because his attacker believed he had sex with another man, right?
See also: corrective rape.
The point of civil rights is acceptance and tolerance. The way I see it, this isn't that. You're merely trading one intolerance for another.
Acceptance and tolerance is fine as a goal, but we're currently living in a society where (as a relevant example) homosexuals are worse off than non-homosexuals. Tolerance of unfair social structures for the sake of a peaceful life perpetuates those structures.
In this particular case, the guy was trying to ban marriage equality, which by definition is an attempt at legalizing intolerance.
So do I now have the right to demand a CEO resignation if he is pro choice?
You've always had that right. Join up with One Million Moms or whatever local conservative group you have.
To me the question is not whether or not the company did the right thing... of course they did they were staring massive losses in the face they really had no option.
The question is whether or not society as a whole is getting over zealous with the whole "boycott" thing. Realistically how important is a guy's views on gay marriage to his job of being a CEO of a browser company? They are completely unrelated. Someone could be the biggest most backwards bigot in the world and still be a good CEO as long as he kept those things separate.
Yes, society has the right to react the way they did and they did not do anything illegal. But I think it is an overreaction.
Yes, society has the right to react the way they did and they did not do anything illegal. But I think it is an overreaction.
I have no problem with people criticizing what he did on social media or boycotting. Both of those are perfectly appropriate responses in my opinion. I will say though that I do get uneasy whenever social pressure is wielded like a club. To me there is a difference between a boycott and campaigning for someone to be punished and/or ostracized.
To me the question is not whether or not the company did the right thing... of course they did they were staring massive losses in the face they really had no option.
The question is whether or not society as a whole is getting over zealous with the whole "boycott" thing. Realistically how important is a guy's views on gay marriage to his job of being a CEO of a browser company? They are completely unrelated. Someone could be the biggest most backwards bigot in the world and still be a good CEO as long as he kept those things separate.
Yes, society has the right to react the way they did and they did not do anything illegal. But I think it is an overreaction.
This is how I see the issue as well. I am 100% in favor of marriage equality. And I also 100% support the right of private businesses to terminate employees (like the CEO) for whatever reason they see fit.
That said, I think there is a big problem when society sees the need to boycott a company based on the private political beliefs of an executive. First of all, how far should we take this? Do I need to research the CFO's beliefs? How about the board? If an hourly employee hates gays, can I still shop there? If we're going to be ideologically consistent, we need to apply this to every company and everyone that company hires.
More importantly, it's not healthy to shut out opposing views and try to enshroud yourself in a bubble of people who agree with you. Those of us in favor of gay marriage should see people like this Mozilla CEO as the audience for our message, not as the enemy. We can only ever make real progress by reaching out and having a dialogue, not by putting our fingers in our ears and going "lalalala" any time someone says something we don't like.
To me the question is not whether or not the company did the right thing... of course they did they were staring massive losses in the face they really had no option.
The question is whether or not society as a whole is getting over zealous with the whole "boycott" thing. Realistically how important is a guy's views on gay marriage to his job of being a CEO of a browser company? They are completely unrelated. Someone could be the biggest most backwards bigot in the world and still be a good CEO as long as he kept those things separate.
Yes, society has the right to react the way they did and they did not do anything illegal. But I think it is an overreaction.
This is how I see the issue as well. I am 100% in favor of marriage equality. And I also 100% support the right of private businesses to terminate employees (like the CEO) for whatever reason they see fit.
That said, I think there is a big problem when society sees the need to boycott a company based on the private political beliefs of an executive. First of all, how far should we take this? Do I need to research the CFO's beliefs? How about the board? If an hourly employee hates gays, can I still shop there? If we're going to be ideologically consistent, we need to apply this to every company and everyone that company hires.
More importantly, it's not healthy to shut out opposing views and try to enshroud yourself in a bubble of people who agree with you. Those of us in favor of gay marriage should see people like this Mozilla CEO as the audience for our message, not as the enemy. We can only ever make real progress by reaching out and having a dialogue, not by putting our fingers in our ears and going "lalalala" any time someone says something we don't like.
Exactly! If I am looking for a contractor to work on my house should I give out a form asking for not only the estimate but their political affiliations? Wouldn't want to have a guy replace my shingles that happens to have different views than me.
If this guy donated company money it would be one thing and I could get behind boycotting for that... but his private donations. Do we really want to send a message that people need to hide their beliefs?
Do we really want to send a message that people need to hide their beliefs?
Especially when we're desperately seeking transparency in campaign finance.
I actually don't think this particular incident rises to the level of political bullying. A CEO is a major public figure, and refusing to do business with a firm is well within anyone's rights. But people (on all sides, of course) definitely do use the public donor rolls as a target list for harassment. And what it does is strengthen the argument that anonymity in political donations is necessary to protect that freedom. Does that make anyone else uncomfortable?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Exactly! If I am looking for a contractor to work on my house should I give out a form asking for not only the estimate but their political affiliations? Wouldn't want to have a guy replace my shingles that happens to have different views than me.
I don't really understand this reaction. I agree that for the most part I don't really care about the political views of the guy paving my driveway or whatever. I'm not exactly going to be quizzing him on it. However, if someone comes to me and tells me that he holds certain views that I find reprehensible (and assuming it's true) or if he demonstrates those views while on the job, then I'm going to seriously consider not giving him my business. (Note that I'm talking about views I would have a strong moral or ethical objection to, not just any political disagreement).
edit: actually I shouldn't have qualified the above with the phrase "on the job", it shouldn't matter.
Exactly! If I am looking for a contractor to work on my house should I give out a form asking for not only the estimate but their political affiliations? Wouldn't want to have a guy replace my shingles that happens to have different views than me.
I don't really understand this reaction. I agree that for the most part I don't really care about the political views of the guy paving my driveway or whatever. I'm not exactly going to be quizzing him on it. However, if someone comes to me and tells me that he holds certain views that I find reprehensible (and assuming it's true) or if he demonstrates those views while on the job, then I'm going to seriously consider not giving him my business. (Note that I'm talking about views I would have a strong moral or ethical objection to, not just any political disagreement).
edit: actually I shouldn't have qualified the above with the phrase "on the job", it shouldn't matter.
So for example... if you hired a contractor to work on your house and he pulled up and had a "vote no" sticker on his bumper would you turn around and fire him?
Do we really want to send a message that people need to hide their beliefs?
Especially when we're desperately seeking transparency in campaign finance.
I actually don't think this particular incident rises to the level of political bullying. A CEO is a major public figure, and refusing to do business with a firm is well within anyone's rights. But people (on all sides, of course) definitely do use the public donor rolls as a target list for harassment. And what it does is strengthen the argument that anonymity in political donations is necessary to protect that freedom. Does that make anyone else uncomfortable?
This is what I wonder about as well. I don't want to live in a society where we financially blackmail people into not expressing their views.
I really hope that the CEO that got the axe will sue his former employer for wrongful termination. Last time I checked offending liberals is not cause for dismissal.
No, but when you are the CEO of a company hurting the companies bottom line by your actions is cause for dismissal. Plus, he didn't get fired, he resigned. I guarantee you that part of his severance package was an agreement not to sue for wrongful termination.
Think about it this way. If the CEO supported something like segregation between blacks and white on buses, how do you expect African American community to respond? This is a comparable scenario to the LGBT community down to the boycotting buses. The only reason you feel that this is a case of "oppressing the oppressor" is because you aren't that strongly an advocate for LGBT rights and find the CEO's views to be not unusual and the status quo; however, demanding a boycott is comparable to many other civil rights movements. It's not an overreaction so much as the LGBT community finally exerting the gravity of homophobia akin to other prejudices like racism.
The bus companies' policy was discriminatory against blacks. A comparable case with Mozilla would be if the CEO made the decision to prevent gays from using Mozilla products.
Instead, we are punishing the CEO for voicing his opinion.
In other words, we are punishing people for using their rights.
Even if the cause he is supporting may be wrong, punishing people for using their rights is never a good thing.
And that's where "trading one intolerance for another" falls apart. The entire moral fabric of society is built on intolerance of one act or the other. How would we enforce laws such as those against murder, thievery, rape, etc. without "intolerance" for the acts? Are you suggesting that the proper response to racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, etc. should be limited to less than that of boycotting?
Note that you said intolerance towards actions.
In this case, you would be showing intolerance towards someone voicing their opinion with a donation.
Quote from Hackworth »
You realize that a man losing his job because he's directly impacting the profits of the company he's supposed to lead isn't quite the same as if he was beaten with a tyre-iron because his attacker believed he had sex with another man, right?
...
Intolerance towards those who voice their opinion is intolerance towards those who voice their opinion.
So suppose that I am anti-gay, am I suddenly equated with all those people who commit violence towards gays?
And this is effectively character assassination. That is why I put specific quote from the executive chairwoman in the OP.
My fear and thoughts line up with what Fluffy_Bunny, bitterroot, and B_S wrote.
One needs to be attempting to CHANGE the opinion of others, not declare it an enemy and completely remove it from the equation. That act is just plain wrong.
I am a strong supporter of equal rights, equal protection, and the LGBT community. I voted for equal marriage in Oregon, among other things.
However, I'm not buying civil rights at the drive-thru. I'm buying a chicken sandwich.
I want the tastiest, well made, and cost conscious chicken sandwich I can get in 3
minutes because I'm hungry.
I don't care if the guy I'm buying it from is an anti-gun, homophobic, socialist, young earth creationist. Everything I stand against, I'm buying a chicken sandwich.
This is reverse discrimination. This is thought crime.
Is this boycott going to follow the CEO to his next job?
If not, why not, isn't he a "bad guy"?
If so, aren't we basically saying "if you don't think the way we want you to think, you don't deserve to have a job"?
Where is the philosophical integrity? You're boycotting Mozilla because the CEO doesn't support gay marriage. What about the next fifteen major consumer product corporations? Is it just CEO's? What about middle management, what about the janitor?
You going to boycott every business that employs someone you disagree with?
Good luck living off the grid.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I am a strong supporter of equal rights, equal protection, and the LGBT community. I voted for equal marriage in Oregon, among other things.
However, I'm not buying civil rights at the drive-thru. I'm buying a chicken sandwich.
I want the tastiest, well made, and cost conscious chicken sandwich I can get in 3
minutes because I'm hungry.
I don't care if the guy I'm buying it from is an anti-gun, homophobic, socialist, young earth creationist. Everything I stand against, I'm buying a chicken sandwich.
Personally I wouldn't spend my money at a place at Chick-fil-A because of their beliefs, but at the same time I won't be posting rants on Facebook/Tumblr/Twitter/etc. and raising a stink about how evil Chick-fil-A is. For every wannabe social justice warrior that posts crap like that, there are many people like me that don't want to go on those types of crusades that silently vote with their wallets.
Other than that I agree with you for the most part about this being like reverse discrimination. To paraphrase F.A. Hayek, I have no problem with treating LBGT people equally as well as I treat straight people, but there is a huge difference in trying to make them equal.
On a somewhat different topic, I find it quite amusing that bLatch (a right-wing guy) and magickware99 (a left-wing guy) have the exact opposite opinions of what I was expecting when I clicked on this thread. It's a nice change of pace.
On a somewhat different topic, I find it quite amusing that bLatch (a right-wing guy) and magickware99 (a left-wing guy) have the exact opposite opinions of what I was expecting when I clicked on this thread. It's a nice change of pace.
I don't think he should be forced to resign because of his political stance/donations, I think he should be forced to resign because his presence as the CEO is hurting the company. In pretty much any other position, I would be upset (although probably not enough to *do* anything) that he was being persecuted for his political position. But, the CEO is the figurehead of the company. If the CEO doesn't align with the companies values, then the CEO needs to go.
oddly enough, this ties in pretty closely with the whole Hobby Lobby argument. The company has a position on an issue wholly unrelated to its product, and this position dictates (drives) the actions of the company. I'd be interesting to hear someone in favor of the CEO resiging here and in support of the argument that companies can't exercise a relgion justify those too positions.
Exactly! If I am looking for a contractor to work on my house should I give out a form asking for not only the estimate but their political affiliations? Wouldn't want to have a guy replace my shingles that happens to have different views than me.
I don't really understand this reaction. I agree that for the most part I don't really care about the political views of the guy paving my driveway or whatever. I'm not exactly going to be quizzing him on it. However, if someone comes to me and tells me that he holds certain views that I find reprehensible (and assuming it's true) or if he demonstrates those views while on the job, then I'm going to seriously consider not giving him my business. (Note that I'm talking about views I would have a strong moral or ethical objection to, not just any political disagreement).
edit: actually I shouldn't have qualified the above with the phrase "on the job", it shouldn't matter.
So for example... if you hired a contractor to work on your house and he pulled up and had a "vote no" sticker on his bumper would you turn around and fire him?
If it was for something that I was very strongly morally opposed to, I would tell him to leave and not think twice about it. I would not knowingly support a business owned or operated by a member of the KKK for example, whether or not they are polite and well behaved while on the job is immaterial. I don't want the money I give them to be turned around and used to cause harm to others. It's not a matter of hating them or wanting to see them punished, it's just a matter of personal conscience.
Every situation is different though. How much is it going to cost me personally? How much do I value this service? How much better or cheaper are they than their competitors? And How strong are my views on this issue? Are all questions that would need to be considered. And again, it's not something that comes up often as the vast majority of political issues are not that kind of moral or ethical issue.
On a somewhat different topic, I find it quite amusing that bLatch (a right-wing guy) and magickware99 (a left-wing guy) have the exact opposite opinions of what I was expecting when I clicked on this thread. It's a nice change of pace.
No, but when you are the CEO of a company hurting the companies bottom line by your actions is cause for dismissal. Plus, he didn't get fired, he resigned. I guarantee you that part of his severance package was an agreement not to sue for wrongful termination.
Hurting the companies bottom line is also not cause for dismissal. I thought that the US was the land of the free? I did not realise that having an unpopular political view and/or offending the left warranted you to loose your job. I always thought that a person could have his political affiliation be apart from his job but hey what do I know.
No, but when you are the CEO of a company hurting the companies bottom line by your actions is cause for dismissal. Plus, he didn't get fired, he resigned. I guarantee you that part of his severance package was an agreement not to sue for wrongful termination.
Hurting the companies bottom line is also not cause for dismissal. I thought that the US was the land of the free? I did not realise that having an unpopular political view and/or offending the left warranted you to loose your job. I always thought that a person could have his political affiliation be apart from his job but hey what do I know.
A CEO can be fired for most any reasons. A CEO is meant to be making money for a company; if he hurts the company's bottom line then that is clearly going against his purpose. Thus, he will be fired. Happens quite frequently, actually.
Furthermore, the protests in of themselves are also not unusual. People have the right to protest things, so long as it remains peaceful.
The above is separate from this-
I did not realise that having an unpopular political view and/or offending the left warranted you to loose your job. I always thought that a person could have his political affiliation be apart from his job but hey what do I know.
You're absolutely right. One's personal opinion shouldn't be grounds for termination. That is why I had an issue with what the chairwoman apparently said. Force him to resign because his presence causes damages? Sure. Companies ultimately exist to profit, after all.
Insinuate that his very hiring was wrong to begin with, merely because of an opinion that he holds? Holy *****, did we just walk into The Twilight Zone here?
That is why I'm really uncomfortable with the whole situation. The premise that one must be punished for one's opinion, merely because it goes against the rising tide of popular opinion, is an incredibly dangerous ideology to stick to.
A big issue in today's internet society is that they seem to fail to recognize this.
So for example... if you hired a contractor to work on your house and he pulled up and had a "vote no" sticker on his bumper would you turn around and fire him?
If it was for something that I was very strongly morally opposed to, I would tell him to leave and not think twice about it. I would not knowingly support a business owned or operated by a member of the KKK for example, whether or not they are polite and well behaved while on the job is immaterial. I don't want the money I give them to be turned around and used to cause harm to others. It's not a matter of hating them or wanting to see them punished, it's just a matter of personal conscience.
Every situation is different though. How much is it going to cost me personally? How much do I value this service? How much better or cheaper are they than their competitors? And How strong are my views on this issue? Are all questions that would need to be considered. And again, it's not something that comes up often as the vast majority of political issues are not that kind of moral or ethical issue.
Seems to me that that is a pretty extreme position to take. I live in MN. We barely passed same-sex marriage... that means just under 50% of the people I interact with on a daily basis probably do not support same sex marriage (the same as this CEO). What if my waiter voted that way? Or a contractor? Maybe the guy who owns the gas station in town? Chances are at least half of the businesses where I spend money are owned by someone that is anti-same sex marriage.
If it was for something that I was very strongly morally opposed to, I would tell him to leave and not think twice about it. I would not knowingly support a business owned or operated by a member of the KKK for example, whether or not they are polite and well behaved while on the job is immaterial. I don't want the money I give them to be turned around and used to cause harm to others. It's not a matter of hating them or wanting to see them punished, it's just a matter of personal conscience.
Every situation is different though. How much is it going to cost me personally? How much do I value this service? How much better or cheaper are they than their competitors? And How strong are my views on this issue? Are all questions that would need to be considered. And again, it's not something that comes up often as the vast majority of political issues are not that kind of moral or ethical issue.
Seems to me that that is a pretty extreme position to take. I live in MN. We barely passed same-sex marriage... that means just under 50% of the people I interact with on a daily basis probably do not support same sex marriage (the same as this CEO). What if my waiter voted that way? Or a contractor? Maybe the guy who owns the gas station in town? Chances are at least half of the businesses where I spend money are owned by someone that is anti-same sex marriage.
Perhaps, but being asked for your honest opinion is also not the same as publicly advocating for one side or the other. I wouldn't fault anyone for giving their honest opinion about something when asked. I might fault them though for going out of their way to hurt someone else.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Besides the topic of the article itself, I found the following really fascinating-
" “Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn’t live up to it,” Mitchell Baker, the executive chairwoman of Mozilla, wrote. “We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: It’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves. "
So, what exactly is the standard that she is referring to? That we shouldn't oppress people? That we shouldn't be anti-gay? That we shouldn't try to go against a growing trend?
What exactly does she mean by "we haven't stayed true to ourselves"?
Personally, things like this disappoint me.
I am happy to see more people standing up for gay rights.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
There is no discernible difference between the "oppressor" and the "oppressed" when the "oppressed" go onto "oppressing" the "oppressors".
In other words, just because your cause is just doesn't mean that you are allowed to cause direct harm onto others merely because their belief conflicts with yours.
I mean, what makes you any different from the people you're challenging otherwise?
The point of civil rights is acceptance and tolerance. The way I see it, this isn't that. You're merely trading one intolerance for another.
Though you have to ask yourself if intolerance of intolerance is just as bad as just plain intolerance.
At first, I felt the LGBT community was being overzealous; but, after I thought more about it, I now deem the response fair.
Think about it this way. If the CEO supported something like segregation between blacks and white on buses, how do you expect African American community to respond? This is a comparable scenario to the LGBT community down to the boycotting buses. The only reason you feel that this is a case of "oppressing the oppressor" is because you aren't that strongly an advocate for LGBT rights and find the CEO's views to be not unusual and the status quo; however, demanding a boycott is comparable to many other civil rights movements. It's not an overreaction so much as the LGBT community finally exerting the gravity of homophobia akin to other prejudices like racism.
And that's where "trading one intolerance for another" falls apart. The entire moral fabric of society is built on intolerance of one act or the other. How would we enforce laws such as those against murder, thievery, rape, etc. without "intolerance" for the acts? Are you suggesting that the proper response to racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, etc. should be limited to less than that of boycotting?
Ultimately, no one was in the right and no one was in the wrong.
Look, the guy gave money to a group that was trying to make life measurably worse for gay people (by pushing anti-constitutinal law, apparently) and he got bounced from the company because bad PR means companies don't get paid.
Actions of a private company do not equal free speech infringements.
You realize that a man losing his job because he's directly impacting the profits of the company he's supposed to lead isn't quite the same as if he was beaten with a tyre-iron because his attacker believed he had sex with another man, right?
See also: corrective rape.
Acceptance and tolerance is fine as a goal, but we're currently living in a society where (as a relevant example) homosexuals are worse off than non-homosexuals. Tolerance of unfair social structures for the sake of a peaceful life perpetuates those structures.
In this particular case, the guy was trying to ban marriage equality, which by definition is an attempt at legalizing intolerance.
You've always had that right. Join up with One Million Moms or whatever local conservative group you have.
Art is life itself.
The question is whether or not society as a whole is getting over zealous with the whole "boycott" thing. Realistically how important is a guy's views on gay marriage to his job of being a CEO of a browser company? They are completely unrelated. Someone could be the biggest most backwards bigot in the world and still be a good CEO as long as he kept those things separate.
Yes, society has the right to react the way they did and they did not do anything illegal. But I think it is an overreaction.
I have no problem with people criticizing what he did on social media or boycotting. Both of those are perfectly appropriate responses in my opinion. I will say though that I do get uneasy whenever social pressure is wielded like a club. To me there is a difference between a boycott and campaigning for someone to be punished and/or ostracized.
This is how I see the issue as well. I am 100% in favor of marriage equality. And I also 100% support the right of private businesses to terminate employees (like the CEO) for whatever reason they see fit.
That said, I think there is a big problem when society sees the need to boycott a company based on the private political beliefs of an executive. First of all, how far should we take this? Do I need to research the CFO's beliefs? How about the board? If an hourly employee hates gays, can I still shop there? If we're going to be ideologically consistent, we need to apply this to every company and everyone that company hires.
More importantly, it's not healthy to shut out opposing views and try to enshroud yourself in a bubble of people who agree with you. Those of us in favor of gay marriage should see people like this Mozilla CEO as the audience for our message, not as the enemy. We can only ever make real progress by reaching out and having a dialogue, not by putting our fingers in our ears and going "lalalala" any time someone says something we don't like.
Exactly! If I am looking for a contractor to work on my house should I give out a form asking for not only the estimate but their political affiliations? Wouldn't want to have a guy replace my shingles that happens to have different views than me.
If this guy donated company money it would be one thing and I could get behind boycotting for that... but his private donations. Do we really want to send a message that people need to hide their beliefs?
Especially when we're desperately seeking transparency in campaign finance.
I actually don't think this particular incident rises to the level of political bullying. A CEO is a major public figure, and refusing to do business with a firm is well within anyone's rights. But people (on all sides, of course) definitely do use the public donor rolls as a target list for harassment. And what it does is strengthen the argument that anonymity in political donations is necessary to protect that freedom. Does that make anyone else uncomfortable?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I don't really understand this reaction. I agree that for the most part I don't really care about the political views of the guy paving my driveway or whatever. I'm not exactly going to be quizzing him on it. However, if someone comes to me and tells me that he holds certain views that I find reprehensible (and assuming it's true) or if he demonstrates those views while on the job, then I'm going to seriously consider not giving him my business. (Note that I'm talking about views I would have a strong moral or ethical objection to, not just any political disagreement).
edit: actually I shouldn't have qualified the above with the phrase "on the job", it shouldn't matter.
So for example... if you hired a contractor to work on your house and he pulled up and had a "vote no" sticker on his bumper would you turn around and fire him?
This is what I wonder about as well. I don't want to live in a society where we financially blackmail people into not expressing their views.
Yes? You always have had that right. It's your fault if you chose not to exercise it. that's not tos ay they'll listen to you, but demand away
No, but when you are the CEO of a company hurting the companies bottom line by your actions is cause for dismissal. Plus, he didn't get fired, he resigned. I guarantee you that part of his severance package was an agreement not to sue for wrongful termination.
The bus companies' policy was discriminatory against blacks. A comparable case with Mozilla would be if the CEO made the decision to prevent gays from using Mozilla products.
Instead, we are punishing the CEO for voicing his opinion.
In other words, we are punishing people for using their rights.
Even if the cause he is supporting may be wrong, punishing people for using their rights is never a good thing.
Note that you said intolerance towards actions.
In this case, you would be showing intolerance towards someone voicing their opinion with a donation.
...
Intolerance towards those who voice their opinion is intolerance towards those who voice their opinion.
So suppose that I am anti-gay, am I suddenly equated with all those people who commit violence towards gays?
And this is effectively character assassination. That is why I put specific quote from the executive chairwoman in the OP.
My fear and thoughts line up with what Fluffy_Bunny, bitterroot, and B_S wrote.
One needs to be attempting to CHANGE the opinion of others, not declare it an enemy and completely remove it from the equation. That act is just plain wrong.
I am a strong supporter of equal rights, equal protection, and the LGBT community. I voted for equal marriage in Oregon, among other things.
However, I'm not buying civil rights at the drive-thru. I'm buying a chicken sandwich.
I want the tastiest, well made, and cost conscious chicken sandwich I can get in 3
minutes because I'm hungry.
I don't care if the guy I'm buying it from is an anti-gun, homophobic, socialist, young earth creationist. Everything I stand against, I'm buying a chicken sandwich.
This is reverse discrimination. This is thought crime.
Is this boycott going to follow the CEO to his next job?
If not, why not, isn't he a "bad guy"?
If so, aren't we basically saying "if you don't think the way we want you to think, you don't deserve to have a job"?
Where is the philosophical integrity? You're boycotting Mozilla because the CEO doesn't support gay marriage. What about the next fifteen major consumer product corporations? Is it just CEO's? What about middle management, what about the janitor?
You going to boycott every business that employs someone you disagree with?
Good luck living off the grid.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Personally I wouldn't spend my money at a place at Chick-fil-A because of their beliefs, but at the same time I won't be posting rants on Facebook/Tumblr/Twitter/etc. and raising a stink about how evil Chick-fil-A is. For every wannabe social justice warrior that posts crap like that, there are many people like me that don't want to go on those types of crusades that silently vote with their wallets.
Other than that I agree with you for the most part about this being like reverse discrimination. To paraphrase F.A. Hayek, I have no problem with treating LBGT people equally as well as I treat straight people, but there is a huge difference in trying to make them equal.
On a somewhat different topic, I find it quite amusing that bLatch (a right-wing guy) and magickware99 (a left-wing guy) have the exact opposite opinions of what I was expecting when I clicked on this thread. It's a nice change of pace.
I don't think he should be forced to resign because of his political stance/donations, I think he should be forced to resign because his presence as the CEO is hurting the company. In pretty much any other position, I would be upset (although probably not enough to *do* anything) that he was being persecuted for his political position. But, the CEO is the figurehead of the company. If the CEO doesn't align with the companies values, then the CEO needs to go.
oddly enough, this ties in pretty closely with the whole Hobby Lobby argument. The company has a position on an issue wholly unrelated to its product, and this position dictates (drives) the actions of the company. I'd be interesting to hear someone in favor of the CEO resiging here and in support of the argument that companies can't exercise a relgion justify those too positions.
If it was for something that I was very strongly morally opposed to, I would tell him to leave and not think twice about it. I would not knowingly support a business owned or operated by a member of the KKK for example, whether or not they are polite and well behaved while on the job is immaterial. I don't want the money I give them to be turned around and used to cause harm to others. It's not a matter of hating them or wanting to see them punished, it's just a matter of personal conscience.
Every situation is different though. How much is it going to cost me personally? How much do I value this service? How much better or cheaper are they than their competitors? And How strong are my views on this issue? Are all questions that would need to be considered. And again, it's not something that comes up often as the vast majority of political issues are not that kind of moral or ethical issue.
What opinion did you expect me to have?
Hurting the companies bottom line is also not cause for dismissal. I thought that the US was the land of the free? I did not realise that having an unpopular political view and/or offending the left warranted you to loose your job. I always thought that a person could have his political affiliation be apart from his job but hey what do I know.
A CEO can be fired for most any reasons. A CEO is meant to be making money for a company; if he hurts the company's bottom line then that is clearly going against his purpose. Thus, he will be fired. Happens quite frequently, actually.
Furthermore, the protests in of themselves are also not unusual. People have the right to protest things, so long as it remains peaceful.
The above is separate from this-
You're absolutely right. One's personal opinion shouldn't be grounds for termination. That is why I had an issue with what the chairwoman apparently said. Force him to resign because his presence causes damages? Sure. Companies ultimately exist to profit, after all.
Insinuate that his very hiring was wrong to begin with, merely because of an opinion that he holds? Holy *****, did we just walk into The Twilight Zone here?
That is why I'm really uncomfortable with the whole situation. The premise that one must be punished for one's opinion, merely because it goes against the rising tide of popular opinion, is an incredibly dangerous ideology to stick to.
A big issue in today's internet society is that they seem to fail to recognize this.
Seems to me that that is a pretty extreme position to take. I live in MN. We barely passed same-sex marriage... that means just under 50% of the people I interact with on a daily basis probably do not support same sex marriage (the same as this CEO). What if my waiter voted that way? Or a contractor? Maybe the guy who owns the gas station in town? Chances are at least half of the businesses where I spend money are owned by someone that is anti-same sex marriage.
Perhaps, but being asked for your honest opinion is also not the same as publicly advocating for one side or the other. I wouldn't fault anyone for giving their honest opinion about something when asked. I might fault them though for going out of their way to hurt someone else.