The fact that Eich donated in support of prop 8 does not necessarily make him a homophobe. The only thing we see is the donation and none of the context around what made him decide to do it. He has denied being a homophobe and there have been no reports of any homophobic behaviour. The only thing we actually know is that he made a donation to a political cause that the majority of the voting public also agreed with. Is it fair to say that every single one of the 52%[1] of voters in support of prop 8 are homophobes? Plainly the answer is no.
[0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)...
Except Eich, who is some kind of one-dimensional figure, and should lose his CEO position because people don't agree with his personal opinions.
Because you need to invent BS crusades and then inform anyone about them in order to get attention?
Just a guess, it could just be because you cannot toleate someone holding an opinion counter to yours in an issue, and have to retaliate on him not by democratic procedures or exchange of ideas, but by causing him to lose his job.
It's getting a bit ridiculous how some people are getting publicly bashed, because of their views. There is clear separation between the person with his views and the company with its vision.
When is it okay to publicly bash people because of their public actions? (Note that I changed "views" to "public actions", since as I understand it the main objection is to a specific public action; donating money to a political cause.)
The answer certainly isn't "never". I can think of no clear boundary for when it is/isn't fair or okay. At the very least, I don't think there's always a clear separation between a person and a company's vision. One need only consider the professed vision of "Susan G. Komen for the Cure" vs. the public reactions to the specific views and actions of some of its board. Or going back a few years, consider the 2004 attempted "takeover" of the Sierra Club board by those with a stronger immigration-reduction viewpoint.
Personally, I think it's completely fair to demand that others conform with your political/societal ideas. Do you think Stallman would have gotten anywhere with free software if he followed your recommendation?
OTOH, I think that it's completely unrealistic to believe that others will always conform with your ideas.
Trying to get someone fired from his job is not "publicly bash".
The author could have written an essay like "Brandan Eich's views on matter X are bad". He could also have tried to outvote people with Brendan's ideas in actual voting.
Asking for a boycott in a company that chose to elect him as a CEO not because of some professional action of Brendan or his company, but because of his private action, is crossing the line.
It is bullying. "You have to not be against X or else...". Now it's gay marriage, it could just as well be the 99% or OWS, or gun laws or whatever..
But then, I'm not a CEO.
CEOs have to be leaders, and their personal views, separate or not, are very relevant to their ability to lead.
Utter nonsense. CEOs can have personal and professional lives, just like anyone else. Eich may have opposed gay marriage but this doesn't seem to have affected any policy at Mozilla. Those going crazy over this are only insecure.
So far it has been not proven that Brendan Eich is homophobic, the only thing we know is that he wouldn't prefer to call same sex unions marriages.
Boycotting isn't fighting intolerance with intolerance, it's just an instance of someone abstaining from something.
This article, for instance, states the following: "Indeed, any right withheld from any group of people must be rallied against."
Yet the author makes that very claim in an article that basically suggests that people should not have the right to oppose homosexuality or gay marriage, and should not have the right merely to express such beliefs. He should be rallying against his own article and his own stance, in fact.
I'm not suggesting that he or anyone else should be denied the right to hold or to express contradictory or hypocritical viewpoints, of course. But the use of such arguments does make it hard to take one seriously, regardless of what the issue at hand is, and regardless of the position being expressed.
(There are limited rights, like workplace laws protecting people who express views about unsafe working conditions or racial discrimination in the workplace from retaliatory action by their employers. This should not be confused with a general right that applies to everyone and all speech.)
