When you are the CEO of a large corporation, you have no First Amendment rights – your company trumps all. The company may have First Amendment rights, but not its employees. You toe the company line or you will move on. He had choices – he could have said he had a change of heart or some such drivel and likely he could have stayed on.
What the fuss is about: Mozilla, in its public statement, says “We welcome contributions from everyone…” and “Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public”
Then, when an employee does just that, he gets pushed out the door. So, they’re not so open and welcoming after all, but they still want to pretend to be. That’s hypocrisy.
Just to be clear, I commented on Modzilla’s CEO being a Progressive and his values being the ones that caused the backlash from public groups and company employees.
The first amendment doesn’t come into it. Yes, Eich had every right to give to any political cause he chose, but Mozilla likewise has every right to disagree and take action based on the disagreement. We can debate whether the particular cause or the corporate action taken is correct, but we shouldn’t expect a company to abide by a document that exists only to limit the power of government.
Government/cabinet appointees are paid by tax dollars. It is not equivalent to a Private sector job, but in both cases people should be fired for performance issues or policy violations/crimes and not what your ideology is.
From the USA Today:-In a statement released Thursday, Mozilla — which makes the Firefox Web browser — apologized for not reacting more quickly to the controversy surrounding Eich, who made a 2008 donation supporting California’s ban on gay marriage, The Guardian reports.
“We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: It’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves,” said Mozilla Executive Chairwoman Mitchell Baker in a statement. “We have employees with a wide diversity of views. Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public. This is meant to distinguish Mozilla from most organizations and hold us to a higher standard. But this time we failed to listen, to engage and to be guided by our community.”-Eich resigned, but the truth is he resigned because Mozilla encouraged ed him to. Why don’t you come out of your liberal cocoon every now and again and try to look at the big picture and see the whole truth? You are right when you say the GOP spins a lot of garbage, and I don’t have much use for that party, but the democrats are at least just as guilty of the same garbage and BOTH parties are flushing this country down the drain.-I especially appreciate the statement “Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public.”-She should have followed that by saying: “Unless of course you believe in the sanctity of Traditional Marriage. Then your views matter little to nothing”.
One quote I find very interesting is from late-night comedian Bill Maher, no social conservative by any means, when he responded to this new reality of reverse discrimination against holders of traditional morality:, “I think there is a gay mafia. I think if you cross them, you do get whacked. I really do.”-Where is the fairness and tolerance these people have always championed so strongly.
Trusted Mechanic says:“Why is he a bigot?”His actions, his speech demonstrated he was not willing to tolerate same sex marriages, equal rights or freedom from other’s religion. Since you don’t want to understand how his actions meet the definition of bigotry, perhaps one of these definitions will drive home the point. Merriam Webster – big•otnoun : a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular groupFull Definition of BIGOT: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance
Dictionary.com – big•ot noun - a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. Urbn Dictionary – One who is narrrowly or intolerantly devoted to his or her opinions and prejudices. This word is a general term that applies to everyone (racists, anti-Semites, misogynists, homophobes and xenophobes).Word Centralnoun: a person who … regards or treats the members of a group … with hatred and intoleranceWikipedia – Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust or hatred on the basis of a person’s … gender identity, sexual orientation, … or other characteristics.
Have any of these definitions enlightened you to the bigotry of your defended person?-You have just defined yourself as a bigot via your own post.
TTM: Why is speaking out in favor of your beliefs by a conservative “bigotry,” but when a liberal does it it’s “free speech?” Per your own definition: ": a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance "You are, by your own definition, a bigot. You “treat the members of a group with hatred and intolerance,” namely conservatives. You and your ilk take us speaking our mind about preserving the sanctity of marriage as us spewing hatred towards the LGBT community. That is a false equivalency. Just because I am for my point of view does not make me hate the other point of view, it just means I disagree with them. “Hatred” and “Intolerance” are very strong words, and usually associated with violent acts of oppression. Because he donated $1,000 to a cause in which he believed does not make him a bigot. It means he as an individual supported a cause in which he believes. Again, support for a cause does not equate hatred for another cause. There is a logical “Leap of faith” in your argument that is falling flat on its face. Now, if I came out and said, “I support traditional marriage, and all those gays can go die!” Well, yes. That’s bigotry because you are spewing venom towards the group. But if I simply say, “I support traditional marriage,” that is not vitriol-laden. But you are treating both sentences as having the same meaning, and they don’t. I don’t know how else to explain it.
rnapiera about 10 years ago
I hope Mozilla treats anyone in their company that may have contributed money to promote gay marriage with the same fairness and tolerance.
Enoki about 10 years ago
The Progressive Left strikes again…
genericks about 10 years ago
Looks more like right wing reactionaries to me.
oneoldhat about 10 years ago
dear finsterlaine you think it is ok for the bigots to get the ceo fired ?
Catherine Spencer-Mills Premium Member about 10 years ago
When you are the CEO of a large corporation, you have no First Amendment rights – your company trumps all. The company may have First Amendment rights, but not its employees. You toe the company line or you will move on. He had choices – he could have said he had a change of heart or some such drivel and likely he could have stayed on.
etonry about 10 years ago
What the fuss is about: Mozilla, in its public statement, says “We welcome contributions from everyone…” and “Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public”
Then, when an employee does just that, he gets pushed out the door. So, they’re not so open and welcoming after all, but they still want to pretend to be. That’s hypocrisy.
Enoki about 10 years ago
Just to be clear, I commented on Modzilla’s CEO being a Progressive and his values being the ones that caused the backlash from public groups and company employees.
SergeitheAntagonist about 10 years ago
The first amendment doesn’t come into it. Yes, Eich had every right to give to any political cause he chose, but Mozilla likewise has every right to disagree and take action based on the disagreement. We can debate whether the particular cause or the corporate action taken is correct, but we shouldn’t expect a company to abide by a document that exists only to limit the power of government.
SpicyNacho Premium Member about 10 years ago
Government/cabinet appointees are paid by tax dollars. It is not equivalent to a Private sector job, but in both cases people should be fired for performance issues or policy violations/crimes and not what your ideology is.
rnapiera about 10 years ago
From the USA Today:-In a statement released Thursday, Mozilla — which makes the Firefox Web browser — apologized for not reacting more quickly to the controversy surrounding Eich, who made a 2008 donation supporting California’s ban on gay marriage, The Guardian reports.
“We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: It’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves,” said Mozilla Executive Chairwoman Mitchell Baker in a statement. “We have employees with a wide diversity of views. Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public. This is meant to distinguish Mozilla from most organizations and hold us to a higher standard. But this time we failed to listen, to engage and to be guided by our community.”-Eich resigned, but the truth is he resigned because Mozilla encouraged ed him to. Why don’t you come out of your liberal cocoon every now and again and try to look at the big picture and see the whole truth? You are right when you say the GOP spins a lot of garbage, and I don’t have much use for that party, but the democrats are at least just as guilty of the same garbage and BOTH parties are flushing this country down the drain.-I especially appreciate the statement “Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public.”-She should have followed that by saying: “Unless of course you believe in the sanctity of Traditional Marriage. Then your views matter little to nothing”.
rnapiera about 10 years ago
So, by looking at your own post, you must admit that YOU are a bigot of anyone that holds to biblical morality.
rnapiera about 10 years ago
One quote I find very interesting is from late-night comedian Bill Maher, no social conservative by any means, when he responded to this new reality of reverse discrimination against holders of traditional morality:, “I think there is a gay mafia. I think if you cross them, you do get whacked. I really do.”-Where is the fairness and tolerance these people have always championed so strongly.
SpicyNacho Premium Member about 10 years ago
Trusted Mechanic says:“Why is he a bigot?”His actions, his speech demonstrated he was not willing to tolerate same sex marriages, equal rights or freedom from other’s religion. Since you don’t want to understand how his actions meet the definition of bigotry, perhaps one of these definitions will drive home the point. Merriam Webster – big•otnoun : a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular groupFull Definition of BIGOT: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance
Dictionary.com – big•ot noun - a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. Urbn Dictionary – One who is narrrowly or intolerantly devoted to his or her opinions and prejudices. This word is a general term that applies to everyone (racists, anti-Semites, misogynists, homophobes and xenophobes).Word Centralnoun: a person who … regards or treats the members of a group … with hatred and intoleranceWikipedia – Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust or hatred on the basis of a person’s … gender identity, sexual orientation, … or other characteristics.
Have any of these definitions enlightened you to the bigotry of your defended person?-You have just defined yourself as a bigot via your own post.
Wraithkin about 10 years ago
TTM: Why is speaking out in favor of your beliefs by a conservative “bigotry,” but when a liberal does it it’s “free speech?” Per your own definition: ": a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance "You are, by your own definition, a bigot. You “treat the members of a group with hatred and intolerance,” namely conservatives. You and your ilk take us speaking our mind about preserving the sanctity of marriage as us spewing hatred towards the LGBT community. That is a false equivalency. Just because I am for my point of view does not make me hate the other point of view, it just means I disagree with them. “Hatred” and “Intolerance” are very strong words, and usually associated with violent acts of oppression. Because he donated $1,000 to a cause in which he believed does not make him a bigot. It means he as an individual supported a cause in which he believes. Again, support for a cause does not equate hatred for another cause. There is a logical “Leap of faith” in your argument that is falling flat on its face. Now, if I came out and said, “I support traditional marriage, and all those gays can go die!” Well, yes. That’s bigotry because you are spewing venom towards the group. But if I simply say, “I support traditional marriage,” that is not vitriol-laden. But you are treating both sentences as having the same meaning, and they don’t. I don’t know how else to explain it.