Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Victory! Brendan Eich has resigned as Mozilla CEO

Prop 8 Right-wing

Prop 8 plaintiffs. Attribution: LGBTQ Nation
Prop 8 plaintiffs. Attribution: LGBTQ Nation
Brendan Eich resigned as Mozilla’s CEO today, after the controversy surrounding his support for California’s Proposition 8 and opposition to LGBT rights.

Mozilla’s blog reported the news:

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.

Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness. We welcome contributions from everyone regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race, sexual orientation, geographical location and religious views. Mozilla supports equality for all.

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.

While painful, the events of the last week show exactly why we need the web. So all of us can engage freely in the tough conversations we need to make the world better.

We need to put our focus back on protecting that Web. And doing so in a way that will make you proud to support Mozilla.

“We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: it’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves,” they wrote.

Mozilla’s apology is really strong, and they’ve done the right thing in standing up for their LGBT employees and the community at large.

EqualityOnTrial has taken down the pop-up request urging our readers to switch browsers. We wanted to take a stand on this issue because the blog owes its existence to a community that was deeply hurt by the campaign to pass Prop 8, and by the trial that came after. Mozilla’s latest actions show they’re willing to listen to the LGBT community’s concerns.

They have not yet announced his replacement.


  • 1. JayJonson  |  April 3, 2014 at 1:15 pm

    Glad to hear this. And before the NOM trolls begin, please note that Eich RESIGNED. He was not fired. Presumably he will remain as Chief Technical Officer.

  • 2. Kevin  |  April 4, 2014 at 5:26 am

    Prepare to be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

  • 3. Dr. Z  |  April 4, 2014 at 5:41 am

    Actually, that is quite correct in this case. In future our society is not going to tolerate overt expression of homophobia any more than it tolerates overt expression of anti-semitism, racism, or sexism. The sooner that homophobes can wrap their lizard brains around that and stop whining, the better.

    Whether or not resistance is futile is entirely up to you.

  • 4. Daniel J  |  April 4, 2014 at 3:30 pm

    What an embarrassment to the hate-filled gay community. Same guy that hired gays gets fired for a donation years ago? Many gays will be fired for this. Who wants this trouble in their org. Our entire company unistalled all Mozilla browser from 102 computers. The chances of us hiring any more gays are below zero. No way. Tolerance goes both ways and you queers just lost.

  • 5. Jae  |  April 3, 2014 at 1:30 pm


  • 6. Scottie Thomaston  |  April 3, 2014 at 1:37 pm

    Heh. Someone's downvoting.

  • 7. Jack  |  April 3, 2014 at 2:01 pm

    Considering you're a moderator you sure are provoking conflict. We have the radical gays and radical right wingers. Both sides are just as bad. Got that dear?

  • 8. Scottie Thomaston  |  April 3, 2014 at 2:06 pm

    I am just answering comments. I don't think I'm provoking conflict at all. It amused me to see that there were three positive comments in the post, but someone came in just to downvote them. That's all.

  • 9. Jack  |  April 3, 2014 at 2:12 pm

    Who are you kidding? This site is going down hill fast. With radical gays out to get anyone that voted for something in the past. Does this matter? Now that the way things are going? It doesn't. I don't need everyone on my side to make myself feel better. Who freaking cares? So you can continue your witch hunts radical gays on this site….next you'll block me and say that isn't really a gay! lol

  • 10. Scottie Thomaston  |  April 3, 2014 at 2:13 pm

    I hope you're having a good day.

  • 11. Eric  |  April 3, 2014 at 2:17 pm

    This issue was never about voting. It was about donating $1,000 to unconstitutionally eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry and then not repudiating that position six years later.

  • 12. Matt N  |  April 3, 2014 at 3:47 pm

    Exactly–how can he say he feels "sorrow" for what he did.. but yet he still hasn't changed his position. His words are meaningless and he can't be trusted.

  • 13. Dr. Z  |  April 4, 2014 at 6:04 am

    All Eich had to say was that, if he had it to do it all over again he would approach things differently. That would have been accepted, even though it's not an apology, or even a guarantee that things had actually changed for him. A CEO is a politician, but Eich failed that aspect of the job.

  • 14. Bruno71  |  April 3, 2014 at 2:56 pm

    What are you so bitter about?

  • 15. Straight Ally #3008  |  April 3, 2014 at 3:36 pm

    Oh man, you're going to be so upset when marriage equality comes to the remaining states thanks to the Supreme Court. I'll bring the popcorn.

  • 16. Rose  |  April 3, 2014 at 11:51 pm

    If a Company stands for DIVERSITY and the head guy gave a $1000 to an UNCONSTITUTIONAL Proposition……..that in my OPINION is a CONFLICT of Interest……whether you like it or not, we live in a DIVERSIFIED society……..we DON'T have to like what everyone does or EVEN what this particular person did…….BUT we DO have the right to stand up and let Mozilla know how we feel……and that's ALL people did!!!

    Frankly, I DON'T use Mozilla in the first place………but instead of being upset over this issue….you should REALLY be upset with the new law in Mississippi that basically states one can denying you ANYTHING as long as it would go AGAINST their "DEEPLY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEFS…….hope ya don't live there!!!

  • 17. Lymis  |  April 4, 2014 at 6:23 am

    It's a complete mischaracterization to say that this is all about his stance in the past.

    The fact that he gave a substantial contribution to a citizens initiative to strip fundamental rights from his coworkers and subordinates raises a valid red flag in a company that has clear corporate policies about tolerance and diversity. So very important questions got asked.

    He then doubled down on his personal beliefs, refused repeated opportunities to say that his views have changed in the slightest, and compared his CURRENT views to the policy of a virulently anti-gay country. That's not about Prop 8. That's about today.

    If he had given $1000 five years ago to the Klan, or to a politically anti-semitic, anti-woman, or anti-any other people group, the same questions would have been asked.

    At most he was willing to very grudgingly state that he would follow company policy on diversity. That might be sufficient in a middle manager, but not from the person who is an position to set or alter that policy for the future, and who is ultimately responsible for ensure it is enforced.

    The company could not have sent a clearer signal that it wasn't serious about its own commitment to diversity. And they were called on it.

  • 18. Eric  |  April 3, 2014 at 2:10 pm

    Both sides are not just as bad. One side did, and wants to continue to, strip the other side of its fundamental rights. The other side wants due process and equal protection under the law to apply to everyone.

  • 19. Dr. Z  |  April 3, 2014 at 9:40 pm

    Look Jack, in case you hadn't noticed this is a zero-sum game. It is not possible to attain a workable compromise on gay rights with homophobes; at the end of the day one side is going to prevail, and the other is going to learn to keep its mouth shut. Fifty years ago their norms prevailed, and we gays kept our mouths shut if we knew what was good for us. We paid a terrible price, and they pushed us to the limit. At Stonewall we started the long fight for equal rights.

    Now at last we have reached a point of critical mass. The culture is turning and renorming, just as it did for black civil rights in the mid- to late 60s and for women's rights in the 70s. Part of the norming process is that overt expressions of bigotry are no longer tolerated in polite society, and equal treatnent of the Other (whether blacks or women or gays) is no longer "optional" behavior that may be revoked if the Other gets too "uppity" or "demanding." Renorming means, equality of opportunity is the new normal. People can still hate the Other if that is their choice, but they can and will be challenged and ostricized if they express those bigoted views in public.

    Renorming is a social process. Achieving critical mass means, in effect, that society has given careful consideration to this matter over a number of years, and this is the decision. Either side may refuse to accept that verdict and fight on – certainly we refused to accept it, which is why we're here having this debate. But a new consensus is forming, in fact it has formed, and people like Eich who stubbornly cling to the wrong side of history richly deserve the ostracism they are receiving, every bit as much as the most diehard racist or sexist. That is the way it is, and you can just put that in your pipe and smoke it.

  • 20. Jack  |  April 3, 2014 at 1:37 pm

    Oh my goodness! Who cares! Pick your battles!

  • 21. Scottie Thomaston  |  April 3, 2014 at 1:38 pm

    This one's over.

  • 22. Jack  |  April 3, 2014 at 1:42 pm

    Yes now let's move on to REAL issues with the rights of our community! This site acts like Millions of Mom. lol

  • 23. Scottie Thomaston  |  April 3, 2014 at 1:45 pm

    I don't think you read this site very often, if you believe that.

  • 24. Jack  |  April 3, 2014 at 1:54 pm

    Scottie you know so little about me. But I do know this site goes off on petty bs at times.

  • 25. Scottie Thomaston  |  April 3, 2014 at 1:56 pm

    I've been here two full years and we've covered LGBT legal stuff since then. We covered the North Carolina campaign and the Washington campaign, but beyond that, we've stuck to LGBT legal stuff. Prop 8 and DOMA. And that's been at least two full years.

  • 26. Jack  |  April 3, 2014 at 1:58 pm

    And now it's getting out of hand.

  • 27. JayJonson  |  April 3, 2014 at 2:59 pm

    For someone who supposedly does not care about this, you are expending a lot of energy attacking those of us who do.

  • 28. Johan  |  April 3, 2014 at 2:55 pm

    That may be, but you might be mistaken about who won. You may have shot yourself in the foot. How about all the outrage when someone gay, lesbian or transgender was fired for living their live openly or for their activism om their own time? Wasn't the mantra "You might disagree with us or our lives, but our private lives are irrelevant to our job performance? I think this hunt for blood puts a lie to a lot of what this site promoted and advocated.

    This article (look at the damn title!) reads like a press release from Brian Brown after some judge, or not anti-gay-enough Christian is successfully driven from his or her position.

  • 29. JayJonson  |  April 3, 2014 at 3:03 pm

    When NOM et al. supports ENDA, you might have a point. As of now, there are 30 states in which one can be fired simply for being gay. Has Eich donated to campaigns to pass gay rights or just to campaigns to repeal our rights? Does he protest when Catholic schools fire teachers when they get married or rescind job offers to cafeteria workers when they learn they are married to someone of the same sex?

    Don't cry me a river about the "persecution" of bigots until everyone has equal rights in this country.

  • 30. Lymis  |  April 4, 2014 at 6:27 am

    If at any point, the community starts demanding that random employees be fired for their political views, you may have a point. But the CEO of a company that has made it a point to trumpet their commitment to diversity, particularly regarding sexual orientation, is a very different thing.

  • 31. Deeelaaach  |  April 5, 2014 at 3:40 pm

    On the day that most heterosexuals can fear being fired from their jobs just for displaying a picture of their wife on their desk, or for being fired for the offense of merely mentioning their wife and family – or marital status, come complain to us then. When we mention these things, we are "bringing it into the office." When you mention them, it's just life. Guess what? For us it's just life too. We are bringing it into the office no more than you are. You're upset because we are no longer silent about our lives, because to you we are "getting uppity," and because we won't take the carp you dish out any more.

    We are fired often for, as you say, activism on office time, typically for the offenses above. On the day that you see that this is life and not activism, or on the day that you see that decide that your activism is as equal as ours, perhaps you will have discovered that your heart has grown a size or two (I personally hope for three).

    So until the day you can be fired for displaying your wife's picture on your desk, or fired for talking about her at all, you have no worries. Somehow I think that since over 90% of the population is heterosexual, that day will never come. So stop whining that we won't tuck our tails between our legs and slink away, whimpering, when you think we should. We will be silenced no more.

  • 32. Eric  |  April 3, 2014 at 2:12 pm

    The LGBT employees working at Mozilla cared. If us changing web browsers makes their work day a little better, I'm fine with that battle.

  • 33. Jack  |  April 5, 2014 at 7:48 pm

    Oh please. There wasn't anything bad going on against the employees. The company already showed their support of the LGBT community. You sound like Fox News dude.So should I get my boss to fire my anti-gay coworker?

  • 34. Deeelaaach  |  April 5, 2014 at 7:18 pm

    We *did* pick this battle. So why are you telling us to pick our battles, particularly in this case, particularly after the "battle" was engaged and specifically now after Eich resigned? Because you wish we hadn't picked this one?

    That's what it looks like to me. Yeah, I don't know you at all and I realize that, but you acted to post this. That, the timing of your post, the wording of it etc. tells me and everyone else something about you, even if you don't recognize that you just told us something about you. It does tell me that you object to this, though it doesn't tell me why. But I guess I have some suspicions anyway, lol…

  • 35. Jack  |  April 5, 2014 at 7:43 pm

    What "suspicions" dear? Please do tell. That I'm not gay but an anti-gay imposter?

  • 36. Jae  |  April 3, 2014 at 1:41 pm

    With the new campaign donation limits lifted by the Supreme Court we need to watch all CEOs more closely than ever
    Also I don't think the Mississippi Religious Freedom law that is going to be signed by the Governor is getting enough press

  • 37. Matt Rogers  |  April 3, 2014 at 8:19 pm

    I completely agree on both counts. The media were all over the Arizona law, but I haven't heard a peep about this one.

  • 38. Zack12  |  April 4, 2014 at 6:35 am

    It was done under the radar. More to the point, it's MS so I sadly think people simply wrote it off as just more of the same down there.

  • 39. JayJonson  |  April 4, 2014 at 7:45 am

    Yes. Mississippi doesn't have an NFL or NBA franchise, but they do have a tourist industry that could be vulnerable. They are also trying to attract manufacturing plants by touting their low wages, but I would think a lot of those companies might not want to associate themselves with this bigotry.

  • 40. Dr. Z  |  April 4, 2014 at 6:19 am

    Just wait until the Church of I Can Park My Car Anywhere I Damn Well Please claims a religious exemption from all state traffic regulations.Mississippi is about to regain its rightful place as the National Laughingstock.

  • 41. I_T  |  April 3, 2014 at 1:42 pm

    Sorry, I don't agree with this. If he were running the company in an anti-equality direction, that would have been different. But he wasn't.

    And to hound him out because of his private political views, however egregious we may find them, is very worrisome to me.

    Sure, he may be an a** and I may disagree vehemently with his personal views, but he has the right to be an a**. as long as it doesn't impact his work at the ocmpany. And I've seen no evidence provided that he did.

    My anti-Prop8 bonafides are strong. We got married prior to Prop8 and asked our wedding guests to donate against it–which they did to the tune of many thousands of dollars –. But what you are saying is that if I work for a company whose management is not LGBT friendly, I should be fired for donating against Prop8.

    Or for being gay.

    Or a Democrat could be fired by his boss for the pro-Obama sticker on his car.

    So, if you are on the wrong side of a proposition, you can't be employed? is that what you are saying?

    Who is going to go through the Prop8 donation list and call for the firing of the other Mozilla employees who donated to it? Or Apple employees? Or Google? Or any company you choose?

  • 42. Jae.  |  April 3, 2014 at 1:44 pm

    You are correct Bigotry doesn't Pay

  • 43. Scottie Thomaston  |  April 3, 2014 at 1:44 pm

    A donation to a campaign to deny people civil rights isn't private, though. He has the ability to SAY or believe privately what he wants, but he contributed money to deny human beings basic rights.

  • 44. Hank  |  April 7, 2014 at 10:35 am

    He donated to a campaign. That is saying something. Campaigns don't pass bills or propositions (or "deny human beings basic rights"); they spread messages. This is very much a matter of free speech.

  • 45. SoCal_Dave  |  April 7, 2014 at 11:19 am

    Free speech, which he had. He was free to speak and he spoke. People didn't like what he said and *they* spoke.

  • 46. Corey from Maryland  |  April 3, 2014 at 1:56 pm

    @I_T, he was the C.E.O. of the Mozilla. not some lower-level employee. If he can make such a poor decision in such a highly visible position, then his character is questionable.

  • 47. I_T  |  April 3, 2014 at 2:45 pm

    He wasnt CEO when he made the donation SIX YEARS AGO.

  • 48. Corey from Maryland  |  April 3, 2014 at 2:57 pm

    It still doesn't negate the fact that creator of the internationally famous Javascript language would go out on limb and make such a contribution. 6 years ago, he was still highly visible…

  • 49. JayJonson  |  April 3, 2014 at 3:05 pm

    And he refused to apologize for the pain he caused.

  • 50. Lymis  |  April 4, 2014 at 6:31 am

    And when asked about his current beliefs and commitment to treating everyone as equal human beings and fellow citizens, he chose not to.

    That's not six years ago. That's last week. When you make it clear that your personal beliefs are at odds with your company's corporate policy, you don't get to claim it's unfair for that to be taken seriously when you are considered as that company's head.

  • 51. Eric  |  April 3, 2014 at 2:14 pm

    He said that LGBT equality should take a back seat to marketshare in Indonesia. I consider that an anti-equality direction.

  • 52. Jesse  |  April 3, 2014 at 2:24 pm

    I just realized that his actions are no different than Justine Sacco's (The Tweet Heard 'Round the World). And while her joking was barely an indication of whether it was a sincerely held belief and outlook towards Africa, it was done on her own private time. And yet she still lost her job because of her "speech" (since Citizen's United considers money contribution a form of speech).

    Because of this, I can see why Eich had no choice but to resign. Both made errors in judgment.

  • 53. Johan  |  April 3, 2014 at 2:33 pm

    Thank you, well said. I fully agree.

    ps for Scottie: I downvoted a couple of comments. I did not consider those comments to be positive at all.

  • 54. Kevin  |  April 3, 2014 at 2:38 pm

    When you are a public figure (e.g., head of a company, president, or CEO), your private conduct impacts the business. You are not a public figure. So no, you should not be fired. However, perhaps you would be an inappropriate choice to lead Chick-fil-A, Hobby Lobby, or an Archdiocese.

  • 55. Dr. Z  |  April 4, 2014 at 6:25 am

    Donating to Prop 8 wasn't private conduct. It was an act of public speech intended to inflict irreparable harm on gay couples.

  • 56. chrismac2  |  April 3, 2014 at 2:40 pm

    This is not about whether it should be legal or not to fire someone for what they're private political/religious/social views are. It's about hiring someone as the top leader in a company, someone who is very obviously against gay equality when the same company supposedly promotes equality as a core value. It just doesn't make sense. It's hypocritical. If you're a company that is very publicly pro-the color red, then hire a CEO who is anti-red, how can he lead on those values. Again, doesn't make any sense to me, it makes it look like Mozilla doesn't really value the things they say they value.

    Well they corrected that today.

    I mean we aren't talking about some lower-level staff member who may be privately anti-gay. We're talking about the number one employee who leads by example and needs to live up to the values the company promotes.

  • 57. Bruno71  |  April 3, 2014 at 2:58 pm

    Agree with what? Eich resigning? Talk to him about it. People voicing their displeasure with him? Doesn't everyone have a right to do so?

  • 58. Straight Ally #3008  |  April 3, 2014 at 3:38 pm

    Thanks to people like Mr. Eich, people like Derence Kernek had to wait, helplessly, while their partners died before they could get married. I couldn't be happier that he stepped down, he finally did something right.

  • 59. chrismac2  |  April 3, 2014 at 5:08 pm

    "But what you are saying is that if I work for a company whose management is not LGBT friendly, I should be fired for donating against Prop8. "

    No, not at all, but it wouldn't make any sense for a company who has posters on it's wall saying they are an PRO-Prop8 company, to hire *you* as their CEO, when you're publicly ANTI-Prop8….. Let's just say you wouldn't be a good fit for the #1 leadership position. All the employees whom you're supposed to lead, and lead by example by promoting the values of the company, are going to upset and will not trust you, and will not believe the company truly is PRO-prop8.

    So in this case, we expressed solidarity with the LGBT employees at Mozilla who felt betrayed by their leadership. They realized their mistake, and for the good of the company, Eich resigned.

  • 60. Lymis  |  April 4, 2014 at 10:37 am

    "Or a Democrat could be fired by his boss for the pro-Obama sticker on his car.'

    I agree that would be wrong. Unless of course, he's an employee of the Republican National Committee being considered for a national leadership position.

    This isn't a random bigot being fired for private views. This is a person whose consistent personal public acts and statements are in direct opposition to a stated core value of the company, one which has been consistently used in the company's marketing as something that their customers should use as a reason to choose their product.

    Customers and employees have every right to say to that company, "You told us this is a core value of this company, one we could rely on you to maintain. Was that just a BS marketing ploy? You told us to choose a company based on its commitment to diversity and equality, so we will, by choosing your competitors."

  • 61. Deeelaaach  |  April 5, 2014 at 5:00 pm

    I disagree. His status as CEO was hurting Mozilla. Mozilla hurt itself by hiring him. He resigned, I guess in part because his new status was now hurting the company. His interviews showed he was unrepentant about his personal views. I don't think for one moment that those views would not have been in conflict everyday with those of his company and its policies. When you're working for someone you have to toe the line. When you're the boss you draw the line.

    He was in a position to change policy either by changing it wholesale or by making the current policy a joke. If he'd been hired as CEO of Chick-Fil-A whose owners have made their views on marriage equality clear, we also would not be having this conversation. But he was hired as CEO of a company that had an entirely opposite set of values, and when asked about it, he could not apparently commit (my personal opinion) to keeping his own views from influencing his company's. Even if he did, his views would make this suspect in the minds of many, including my own.

    My point is not that as a result of the above that this was a fire-able offense. If he were making donations to the Klan, he could change policy by promoting more racist policies or by gutting the existing policies from within. That wouldn't hold in all 50 states, but if gutting equality policies, it would hold in around 30 states. Given that homophobia is not seen as near to the equivalent of racism despite the fact that we have no more control over being born LGBT than anyone has control over their ancestry or any other aspect of their births, you can try to make the argument that it's not bad to have anti-LGBT policies, thoughts or actions. Then I suppose you could also make the argument that it's not bad to have racist policies, thoughts and actions.

    It's unfortunately not seen as that bad today – not as bad as racism, sexism etc in hiring policy today. That's why it's okay to many that he stay on. If his views were in fact private views, no one would know. But he made his views public, and in a way that put his money where his mouth was. When he made that donation, he went public with his views. So maybe they are private views, but they were and are on display for all to see, and it was no accident that he put them on display. You don't just "blurt out" a $1,000 donation to a political movement. It's a very deliberate action.

    We have no more control over our sexual orientations or gender identities than we do over the color of our skin, eyes, or hair. When people tell me to pray away the gay, they may as well be telling me to pray to God to change my eye, skin or hair color. So Eich made a contribution to a Klan in my opinion. If he made a donation to a white supremacist organization, again we would not be having this conversation.

  • 62. Deeelaaach  |  April 5, 2014 at 5:01 pm


    When we ask if it is okay to call for any firing, we have to ask a number of questions. In this case to me, it comes down to immutability. I did not have a choice to be born with a gender identity opposite to that of my physical body, but to Eich, I guess one day I just woke up and chose to be a sex (not gender) that I was not. And that to him was something he showed he opposed by donating his $1,000. Yes, I know, Prop 8 was about sexual orientation, but my sexual orientation is not straight either, landing me in a no-man's land regarding marriage equality. Go figure.

    But I digress. Eich's donation was akin, to me, to donating to an organization that opposed my right to marry someone I love. Had he donated to an organization that opposed interracial marriage, he would have been donating to an organization that opposed my marriage to my ex. Had he done that, we would not be having this conversation.

    There are so many variations on this theme – "situations where we would not be having this conversation." But he did donate the way he did, and he was hired on as CEO specifically by a company that promoted equality. He made his private views public and put his money where his mouth was. I don't see how we can *not* be having this conversation in this particular case. I can't say that Eich is virulently homophobic any more than I could venture to say he is virulently racist. But were he virulently racist, and publicly so, we would not be discussing this. But he is publicly homophobic apparently, as evidenced by his public contribution that shows his private views. Eich chose to make his private views public, opening himself to this debate – specifically in this situation.

    We did not chose this for him, he chose it himself. The ism's of sexism, racism and all the other ism's are not immutable. Our orientations and identities are immutable. He chose this fight six years ago, unwittingly perhaps, by stating publicly with his donation that he opposed marriage for those with certain immutable characteristics. This situation pains me in many ways, and it appears that this could be the case for you also, I_T. But despite this, I keep coming back to the question of immutability, forcing me to continue to ask myself the question – how can we *not* have this conversation, and how can we not have this conversation in this instance?

  • 63. Straight Ally #3008  |  April 5, 2014 at 5:20 pm

    He wasn't fired. He resigned.

  • 64. Zack12  |  April 3, 2014 at 1:48 pm

    Good riddance to bad rubbish.

  • 65. weaverbear  |  April 3, 2014 at 2:21 pm

    Off topic, but today is the 5th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Iowa. The Iowa Press-Citizen had a great editorial right after the decision (which was unanimous) and they have reprinted it today. It's worth the read. The old dictum of "as Iowa goes, so goes the nation" certainly looks like its coming given all that has happened in the past 5 years.

  • 66. JayJonson  |  April 3, 2014 at 3:31 pm

    Here's a link to a blog about the 5th anniversary of the Varnum decision. It also has videos of the Profile in Courage speeches given by the three justices voted off the court.

  • 67. Chill Pill  |  April 3, 2014 at 3:03 pm

    [youtube oMVe_HcyP9Y youtube]

  • 68. Lee  |  April 3, 2014 at 3:46 pm

    The Question: Why can't people have there own opinion anymore? Why can't I disagree with gay marriage on a personal level without being seen as a bigot. Well I do disagree on a personal level BUT I feel we live in a free country and gay men and women should have the right to be married, if they choose. Is that Hate or do I somehow hate gay people.. NO!! But why do I have to get this issue cramed in my face and expected to feel a certain way about it. WHY??

    A Response: Speaking for some in the gay community, we don’t consider everyone who ‘disagrees’ with homosexuality a bigot, but we also don’t understand it either.

    We never hear the term, “well, I disagree with Asians, but they’re free to live their lives,” or, “I disagree with women’s lifestyles,” or, “I disagree with short people…” You get the idea. The question we’re asking is “why” you disagree… and we probably already know the answer… It’s usually “sincerely held” beliefs. But that’s the challenge we’re facing. Your ‘beliefs’ about us doesn’t change the reality about us.

    The popular myth is that we somehow chose this, but yet it’s never questioned that women didn’t choose to be women, or Asians didn’t choose to be Asian, short people, people with black hair, blue eyes, gray hair, family structure… none of those things are chosen.

    Hell, we don’t even choose to be sexual in the first place, but it’s one of the most powerful forces in our entire makeup. We start experimenting with it very early on. Our music is written about it, our books are written about it… it motivates almost everything we do. We are all sexual, and that sexuality expresses itself in some rather fascinating ways.

    In fact, all life on earth is predicated upon sexuality. Obviously it was evolutionary necessary for procreation, but it goes way beyond that as well… sexuality binds us together, it sparks creativity, it fuels passion… it’s a wonderful thing. Even in the Bible God is described as being sexual in his dealing with humans. Song of Songs is one of the most passionate books in the Bible, and it doesn’t draw a distinction between male and female. As a Christian, you are the “bride of Christ…” also a sexual term, and also that puts you in the feminine. And yes, it’s a metaphor, but think about it… of all the metaphors possible to describe this relationship, why did Jesus, and later Paul, choose bride and groom?

    So it comes back to the question: “Why is there so much resistance to something that is profoundly natural and built in.”

    The Source:

  • 69. Lymis  |  April 4, 2014 at 6:36 am

    Agree. But also, "I disapprove of them" is different from "I made a substantial donation to writing a permanent second class status for them into the state Constitution."

    That's not mere disapproval, nor a personal belief. That's supporting imposing that discrimination on everyone else in the very structure of the civil government.

  • 70. Jack  |  April 3, 2014 at 3:45 pm

    Alert alert! There are radical gays on this site! No different than radical right wingers!

  • 71. Frisky1  |  April 3, 2014 at 3:58 pm

    Oppressors don't like it when the oppressed get uppity.

    "We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied." – MLK, Jr

  • 72. bayareajohn  |  April 3, 2014 at 5:31 pm

    And where would you expect them to be? There's as much variation in opinion in the LGBT community as in any group of living people. Of course some of the users of this site are radical, some are conservative, some religious. But almost no one here is as radical and closed minded as you find on our oppressor's sites. Consider the quiet and calm suggestion that readers here might consider another browser as a sign of disapproval of a corporate act that is out of keeping with their stated goals of equality, in concert with the company's own employees. Now compare it with the calls to boycott Starbucks by NOM. Read how they present it and defend it. Now compare with the Westborough Baptist "church" and their openness to discussion. You haven't been censored, and most replies have tried to present reasonable analysis.

    Consider. Or just do the Fox News "HITLER!" chant about the terrible gays. It's a lie you know is a lie, but it may make you feel better. We've been called worse for our entire lives.

  • 73. Homo Fellatio  |  April 3, 2014 at 4:22 pm

    Yay homofellatio !!!

  • 74. Simon  |  April 3, 2014 at 4:49 pm

    I think this is a disappointing outcome. I am very much a fan of Brendan Eich's technical contributions to the industry, and I was hoping he might come to realize the wrong he had done, and I think if he was willing to admit that publicly, he might have stayed in his role. It is good that Mozilla has listened to the community, but there were better possible outcomes than this, which sadly have not happened.

  • 75. Jesse  |  April 4, 2014 at 11:15 am

    He had the chance to admit it publically as he was interviewed immediately following his promotion to CEO and the public outcry of Mozilla employees was on the radar (I think there's a link to his interview elsewhere on this site). And he refused to admit his personal beliefs are wrong, or even needed retrospection. As a human being, I can and do respect his conviction to his beliefs, but that doesn't mean he should be immune to the opposing beliefs to his own. As a consumer, I would look at the company's core value and believe it to be a hollow statement as it contradicts their leader's personal belief. Mozilla can't afford any negative press at this point as it would only serve to distract and accelerate their descent into obsolescence.

  • 76. Gregory in SLC  |  April 3, 2014 at 4:54 pm

    The Myth of Christian Discrimination in the LGBT Rights Movement:

    You can't victimize yourself in a situation you started in the first place. Christians, in general, have a hard time remembering that as we choose to oppress, due to our sincerely held religious beliefs, yet cry "discrimination" when we feel a push back.

  • 77. MayKay  |  April 4, 2014 at 3:31 pm

    You are an idiot and a homosexual. You are fooling no one. Blame anyone and anything except your twisted lust for anus.

  • 78. Deeelaaach  |  April 5, 2014 at 5:27 pm

    You seem to be fixated on a single expression of gay love. Seems you're the one with the problem – you're the one who is fixated. Of course, we could say the same of heterosexuals – "blame anyone and anything except your twisted lust for vagina." It's not like heterosexuals are not intensely promiscuous to the point that we promote that same promiscuity in our media.

    Of course you're probably reducing the incredible gamut of emotions and motivations to a single act and single base motivation. You're probably projecting your own single base motivation onto us. But I'm not surprised by that. That's your problem, not ours.

    I briefly ask myself if I should call you to repentance, but as in every other case, two wrongs don't make a right. No, I don't expect you to understand that, nor am I trying to be snarky. I really don't expect you to understand what I just said and why. And yes, believe it or not, I'm a Christian too. And yes, I know you probably don't believe it. You probably can't believe it, and therein lies the problem if that is truly the case.

  • 79. Gregory in SLC  |  April 3, 2014 at 4:58 pm

    I found these comments from Eric Ethington (communications director, Politcal Research Associates, Boston MA) spot on:

    That didn't take long. Conservatives are all a flutter because the now ex-CEO of Firefox was booted for financially supporting Prop 8. "FREE SPEECH" they cry.
    Ok, let's explain break this down so they can understand:
    First, he was not booted for his personal opinion, he was booted because he publicly donated. That's an action, not an opinion.
    Second, free speech means gov't doesn't send you to jail for saying something. He didn't go to jail, he was fired (er… resigned) from his company. Big difference.
    Third. This was the "free market" at its best. The guy's actions caused customers to run, damaged the company's brand, and hurt their ability to make money. No matter what your actions were, causing those things to happen in your company are a sure-fire way to get yourself canned.
    In other words? Shove it, conservatives. If the guy had just kept his opinion to himself instead of actively and publicly trying to strip others' (including Firefox employees) rights, he'd still be employed. Take your whining somewhere else

  • 80. Becks  |  April 4, 2014 at 3:31 pm

    Spin, spin.
    Spin that sin.

  • 81. Deeelaaach  |  April 5, 2014 at 5:29 pm

    Becks, Spin, spin, spin your own sin. We see it for what it is even if you don't.

  • 82. Brian Dell  |  April 5, 2014 at 1:22 pm

    What if a backlash follows Eich's departure such that a boycott by Eich's supporters hits the bottom line? Would you then flip and say "well, that's the free market" and nod understandingly to bringing him back?

  • 83. bayareajohn  |  April 5, 2014 at 2:44 pm

    What if pickles turn orange and burst into flames? About the same likelihood.

    But regardless, NO, speaking for myself, I'd still prefer the companies I support with my purchases to not be steered by people who want me marginalized. Wouldn't you?

  • 84. jackie  |  April 16, 2014 at 12:43 pm

    Isn't writing your reply and posting it on the Internet an action? i would NEVER want anyone to discriminate against you or hound you from a career because of this action. You are entitled to this action. According to the Supremes..actions are protected speech…Homosexuals may be the big losers here…He actually hired you and treated you with respect. No evidence to the contrary has been found. In the future, it may be more difficult to do this ..CEO's will think twice before inviting problems..Be careful what ya ask for..

  • 85. Kevin  |  April 16, 2014 at 2:29 pm

    Anyone that equates our humanity with the single trait differentiating us from the rest of the population, i.e. our homosexuality, and simultaneously asks for our gratitude that someone deigned to hire "us" (the revolting queer 'other') and treated "us" with 'respect' (by slithering up to an unprecedentedly cruel campaign demonizing us and our relationships by painting us as a pedophilic 'threat' to children) deserves *nothing* but contempt and disdain.

  • 86. Rick O.  |  April 3, 2014 at 6:34 pm

    It seems to me every bit of gaining 1st class citizenship has been due to "radical" – and sometimes pushy and obnoxious – gays who pick EVERY battle.The A-List cocktail party types at the Uncle Tom's Cabin Republicans who choose their battles carefully have accomplished very little.
    Social pressure on Mozillo may seem somewhat mean and petty, but it's not illegal, infringes on no one's legal rights, and is the type of "moral disapproval" (Scalia's phrase) that get's everyone's attention and leads to change. If Eich had say, used the n word, the same things would have happened.

  • 87. Andrew Sullivan  |  April 3, 2014 at 7:26 pm

    "Will he now be forced to walk through the streets in shame? Why not the stocks? The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us."

  • 88. Straight Ally #3008  |  April 3, 2014 at 7:44 pm

    Ed Watson died waiting to get married because Eich and others supported Prop 8. Believe me, Eich is getting the far, far easier end of that deal.

  • 89. Gregory in SLC  |  April 3, 2014 at 8:08 pm

    I've worked for one of the largest employers in Utah for 17 years, a healthcare organization. Our former CEO was a devout Mormon who refused to hold any negotiations related to offering equivalent benefits for LGBT families. This CEO was replaced in 2009 by someone who believed all families should have equal benefits and medical opportunity. For past 3 years we've been able to insure my husband, this year with no extra tax following the lead of the federal government to recognize our marriage. It was a burden treated as if our family is not good enough to have same medical coverage as other married couples. The effect of being treated equally has increased my pride in who I work for and strive to serve our company well. The CEO absolutely matters.

    Important to note, the first pressure at Mozilla came from its employees who felt hurt and betrayed by Eich, I empathize with them. Also, Mozilla is now "for profit" evidently it is too expensive to have a CEO against marriage equality. From SLATE, "If You're Against Gay Marriage, You're a Bad CEO":

    "Mozilla’s edge over goliaths like Google and Facebook is that it offers employees a chance to work for an organization whose values they can truly believe in. A bigoted boss, no matter how well-meaning, undermines that appeal.

    Think for a second: If you knew your boss rated you undeserving of the same rights as everyone else based solely on your sexual orientation, would you feel good about going to work for him every day? Would you be reassured when he insisted he wouldn't treat you any differently in the workplace just because he felt the Constitution ought to be amended to discriminate against people like you?

  • 90. ABC  |  April 3, 2014 at 9:33 pm

    Speech can be silenced by society as well as by government.

  • 91. Straight Ally #3008  |  April 3, 2014 at 9:40 pm

    First of all, good luck silencing someone in the internet age. Second, free speech as far as the First Amendment goes only applies to whether our government can suppress it or not. Unless you want to change our capitalist society, we vote with our voices and wallets as well as at the ballot box.

  • 92. Dr. Z  |  April 3, 2014 at 10:25 pm

    Suck it up and stop whining. We were silenced by society before Stonewall, but we didn't let that stop us.

  • 93. Lymis  |  April 4, 2014 at 6:43 am

    Nobody even attempted to silence his speech. He's as free now to speak, to put his money behind his beliefs, and to tell anyone who wants to listen what is opinion is.

    What you're saying is that he's free to say what HE wants, but nobody else is allowed to make their own decisions based on what he says.

    Speech can have consequences. You don't think he'd be CEO if he said black people shouldn't be allowed to vote or that women shouldn't be in the workplace, do you?

    You're just complaining that people are taking anti-gay speech and actions as seriously as they would any other discrimination.

  • 94. JayJonson  |  April 4, 2014 at 7:55 am

    All this whinging about free speech is pure hypocrisy. The people who complain (falsely) that we are trying to silence Eich are actually trying to silence us. They think we should just stfu because he was exercising his free speech. Well, we also have free speech and that includes our deciding to change browsers if we want to.

  • 95. Kevin  |  April 4, 2014 at 10:07 am

    Yeah, except the First Amendment principle on which you vaguely keep relying on bars *government* restrictions on speech.

  • 96. Deeelaaach  |  April 5, 2014 at 5:43 pm

    I agree. But I point out that the government silences speech by throwing you in prison for voicing your opinion. That is the true meaning of the First Amendment – that you can't be thrown into prison for voicing your opinion.

    You can stand in the public square and shout for all to hear. But the First Amendment allows you to speak. It doesn't require anyone else to listen. So yes, society can silence you largely by ignoring you.

    That is also my right – to not have someone elses beliefs forced onto me either in action or in requiring me to listen. Personally I'll listen if I think you have something to say. But if you spout lies that I know to be lies, you'll lose my attention extremely quickly.

  • 97. Rakihi  |  April 3, 2014 at 8:12 pm

    Andrew Sullivan is losing it.

    The 1st amendment guarantees the right to speak one's mind. It does not guarantee immunity from public criticism as a result of speaking one's mind.

  • 98. Guest  |  April 3, 2014 at 9:56 pm

    Who cares if he's disgusted? This isn't about his emotions. Also, he needs to control homophobia because the gay and straight forces responsible for the resignation of a nasty Christian bigot are tiny in comparison to the audience that he's so disgusted with. They didn't do anything. They're spectators just like him. Personally, I think the Christian bigot got away with too much. He not only received a year's pay, but received a parachute too. He sucks and so does Sullivan!

  • 99. Dr. Z  |  April 3, 2014 at 10:21 pm

    I appreciate Andrew Sullivan because he speaks his mind. That said, he's quite often melodramatic and full of shit. Like now, f'rinstance.

  • 100. Deeelaaach  |  April 5, 2014 at 5:36 pm

    Though I think Eich did the right thing by resigning, and Mozilla would have done the right thing by firing if they had as his presence as CEO was damaging Mozilla's brand, I can't revel in his resignation or a dismissal had it gone that way instead. I'm not saying others are reveling or that they shouldn't – it's their opinion and their choice. But for myself, I cannot revel, even though I am glad he resigned.

  • 101. Dr. Z  |  April 5, 2014 at 9:20 pm

    My sentiments as well.

  • 102. grod  |  April 6, 2014 at 4:45 am

    Andrew: your view supported

  • 103. bayareajohn  |  April 3, 2014 at 8:42 pm

    The hypocrisy of the right again rings loudly, as they feign horror and disgust for this act of consumer protest. They decry the tyranny and fascism of the LGBT and sympathizers for injuring this poor innocent man and his company. They are saying it's unfair to stifle free speech.

    But they don't feel that way at all when Million Moms try to boycott Penny's, or NOM boycotts Starbucks, and they heavily promote support of Chick-Fil-A to embolden haters. But of course, they get it both ways, and want us to have none at all. The least they could do is sense the irony.

  • 104. ABC  |  April 3, 2014 at 9:32 pm

    But now it is a rite of passage for all CEOs to support same-sex marriage. The problem the right has is not that Mozilla supports same-sex marriage (so does Google and Apple and a boycott of all such companies would be impossible), but that some feel an individual's refusal to recant his personal beliefs disqualify him for a job he is exceptionally qualified for.

    As Scalia put it: "In the majority's telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us. The truth is more complicated."

  • 105. Straight Ally #3008  |  April 3, 2014 at 9:41 pm

    It's a societal shift; being anti-gay is slowly but surely becoming as unpalatable as being racist. It's simple demographics; younger people no longer see gay people as a shadowy, evil "other," and those who do are dying off by the day.

  • 106. bayareajohn  |  April 3, 2014 at 9:50 pm

    You are really missing the point. An historically pro-equality company hired a CEO who not only holds contrary beliefs, but has actively supported quashing our rights. Nobody is forcing him to recant, just that if he's now in charge, we feel differently about the company now. And we have a right to say it and act on it.

    All this squawking from the right says that free speech is for who they say it's for. We don't have the right to vote with our wallet, to shop where are friends are. Corporations can spend all they want on their darling politicos, that's a person speaking freely. But LGBT's MUST BE PREVENTED from committing the fascism of supporting our own in the most peaceful form of protest possible..

  • 107. bayareajohn  |  April 3, 2014 at 9:57 pm

    I'm really riled by this false injury to free speech crap. I was initially not sure how I felt about the "boycott", as totally low-key as it was, but the backlash is just absurd.

    This man voted with his wallet to crush my rights. He is not my friend.
    But if I vote with my wallet not to support the company who hires him, I'm a bully.

    You can really say that with a straight face? I can't with my gay one.

  • 108. ABC  |  April 3, 2014 at 10:03 pm

    The point is the focus on an individual.

  • 109. DavidAZ  |  April 4, 2014 at 5:01 am

    The focus was on Mozilla's public face. Its CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

  • 110. Dr. Z  |  April 4, 2014 at 5:48 am

    Furthermore, donating money to Prop 8 is not a privately held opinion. It was public speech (so says the SCOTUS) whose intention was to inflict irreparable harm on a minority group.

  • 111. Kevin  |  April 4, 2014 at 9:44 am

    Yes. And a group that overlaps with his OWN EMPLOYEES.

  • 112. Deeelaaach  |  April 5, 2014 at 5:54 pm

    I'm agreeing with you Dr. Z, but I'll add that it was public protected speech. Not protected from disagreement or social censure, but from jail time for speaking your mind even if with your wallet. No, I don't know if SCOTUS made this point in any opinion or opinions.

    Maybe they should start making it. Not that some people who cry oppression from social as opposed to governmental censure would understand that or even listen.

  • 113. Dr. Z  |  April 5, 2014 at 8:55 pm

    The impression I get from reading the recent series of SCOTUS opinions on political contributions is that you can give as much as you want, but you can't hide those contributions and others have the freedom of speech to react to those contributions.

    In other words: in SCOTUS's view, Eich has no cause for complaint. He had the right to give to Prop 8, and Mozilla's customers had the right to register their displeasure. Case closed.

  • 114. Deeelaaach  |  April 5, 2014 at 5:50 pm

    Uh, we get that, believe it or not. We understand what you're saying, we just don't agree with you. Please tell me you're not one of those short-sighted people who thinks that if we understand, we must also agree. That's the short-sightedness of thinking that your view is the only correct one. Sorry to tell you though that there are a number of viewpoints that are based on the same understanding.

  • 115. bayareajohn  |  April 3, 2014 at 10:05 pm

    I mean, in a world where every serious Republican presidential hopeful must literally swear and promise to fight my rights in order to be supported and get funding… I'm a fascist for changing the browser I use to make my own choice of a statement about how I value me.

  • 116. ABC  |  April 3, 2014 at 10:02 pm

    So, um, a man– a good man who would never fire someone because he is gay– is out of a job. That was always the goal– to kick him out (and resigning was certainly under duress) or get him to change his view.

    With NOM, the boycotts you list (while I don't support them) were aimed at companies, not individuals.

  • 117. Straight Ally #3008  |  April 3, 2014 at 10:06 pm

    a good man who would never fire someone because he is gay

    But he was fine with Derence Kernek standing by helplessly as his partner Ed Watson died before they could get legally married. And who knows how many other people like them. He's out of a job? GOOD! I hope it gives him time to ponder the pain he inflicted on others.

  • 118. JayJonson  |  April 4, 2014 at 8:00 am

    And of course supporting a constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage isn't aimed at individuals? I mean, we shouldn't take that personally, should we?

  • 119. Kevin  |  April 4, 2014 at 9:49 am

    How do you know he is a good man? How do you know what transpired inside Mozilla? How do you know he did not roll back non-discrimination policies or that he would not do so in the future? He never recanted his pro-Prop 8 position. By all rights and on all accounts, he would still contribute to efforts to eviscerate the rights of his gay employees and denigrate them to a second-class status. As it turns out, he has also donated to the hateful Pat Robertson, and a number of other ultra-conservative right-wing candidates and organizations whose outdated ideologies are completely at odds with the values of their target product and employee markets. This is how the free market works. The board made a determination that Eich's continued employment was untenable in the context of the present state of public opinion on these issues. Nothing more. Nothing less. He certainly was not "hounded" by the gay mafia or anyone else. There was a minor outcry, and notices posted on a few websites, hardly the kind of coordinated, focused "boycott" you and your ilk are painting this as.

  • 120. Dr. Z  |  April 4, 2014 at 12:11 pm

    Hadn't heard about Pat Robertson, but he did donate to Pat Buchanan – in 1992, the year of Buchanan's declaration of "culture war" against gay people at the Republican National Convention. Anybody who gave money to Buchanan in 1992 is not a "good man," he's an old-school, dyed-in-the-wool homophobe.

  • 121. Deeelaaach  |  April 5, 2014 at 6:06 pm

    This was as much about Mozilla as about Eich personally. Eich as CEO was damaging Mozilla's brand. Please don't forget that the movement started inside Mozilla. His own company didn't listen to their core values when they hired him; other employees revolted against this. Then it spread outside Mozilla.

    You're right though. Mozilla could have tried to not accept his resignation or could have tried to support him by speaking out for him. But Mozilla would have exposed the company values as being hollow. And Mozilla could have continued to decline as people voted with their wallets against a company whose core values ring hollow. People don't like hypocrites, even when the hypocrite is a company. Mozilla exposed itself as hypocritical by hiring him. And you think that this is only about Eich? I disagree.

  • 122. Lymis  |  April 4, 2014 at 6:46 am

    Someone who says that some of their employees do not deserve the same legal status and protections that he takes for granted is NOT "exceptionally qualified" to be a CEO of a company with a core value of equality and diversity.

    He might be exceptionally qualified to sit quietly in a cubicle and write code. That's not what a CEO's job is.

  • 123. Background Gal  |  April 3, 2014 at 9:36 pm

    Oh I missed it? The point at which all CEO's started supporting LGBT! All of them, in a rite of passage even.

    What planet is this on?

  • 124. Lymis  |  April 4, 2014 at 6:49 am

    Earth. Get used to it

  • 125. Deeelaaach  |  April 5, 2014 at 6:09 pm

    Actually, I think Background Gal is being sarcastic. And Background Gal, I think the planet this is on is the planet of Lunacy.

  • 126. ABC  |  April 3, 2014 at 10:03 pm

    Sorry for being a troll. 🙂 Good night All!

  • 127. Deeelaaach  |  April 5, 2014 at 6:19 pm

    I don't think I have seen as many new guest users on this site in any previous discussion. It's amazing how the numerous responses to these posts have been hateful, with name calling and personal attacks, and no respectful disagreement. And I'm surprised that these opinions are allowed to exist on the site at all. Our administrators are relentless in getting these posts removed post-haste. They must be sleeping on the job today!

    Oh wait, I forget. That's the site for the National Organization for Marriage. Wrong site. This is not NOM's site! Sorry for my confusion.

  • 128. Michael  |  April 3, 2014 at 10:05 pm

    I'm glad to hear he resigned. The majority of Americans consider homophobia to be immoral. If militant anti-gay activist Eich thinks hanging on tightly to his sin of homophobia is more important than a job, then good riddance!

  • 129. samantha  |  April 4, 2014 at 1:31 am

    He was hardly a militant anti-gay activist…. he said he would run mozilla inclusively and with respect for diversity including lgbt, aside from his view on marriage we know nothing about his views on gays.
    Were the clintons, obama, chris cristie, etc etc "militant antigay activists" for being against ewual marriage yet supporting gay people?

  • 130. Frisky1  |  April 4, 2014 at 4:45 am

    We know he doesn't consider gays human enough to have equal rights. Obama and Clinton got plenty of push back for their hemming and hawing. Perhaps you need a history lesson. And Christie is a homophobic bigot that used his bible to bash gays (while ignoring what it says about gluttons I might add) as well as a lying sack of you know what.

  • 131. JayJonson  |  April 4, 2014 at 8:02 am

    The Clintons and Obama did NOT contribute money to pass Proposition 8. In fact, then Senator Obama issued a statement condemning Proposition 8.

  • 132. Kevin  |  April 4, 2014 at 9:58 am

    Actually it was precisely *because* of our community's work, which included calling out bigotry, that the Clintons and Obama could be politically secure in being pro equality.

  • 133. Cakes  |  April 4, 2014 at 3:33 pm

    Ummm, the majority of planet earth considers homosexuality to be deviant and unnatural. BY FAR. Your self-hate is quite evident.

  • 134. bayareajohn  |  April 5, 2014 at 2:51 pm

    Our willingness to discuss points of fact with trolls and not censor difference of opinions like your right-wing sites do is NOT a sign of self hate nor of weakness. Quite the opposite. NOM and other right-crusaders can't allow open discussion for fear that their lies might be questioned, and facts might sway their blind followers.

  • 135. Deeelaaach  |  April 5, 2014 at 6:13 pm

    Thank you for instilling it in us. We have to unlearn that self hate you give us from the moment of our birth. And it takes a very long time and is perhaps never truly gone. Children have to be taught to hate. Who does that? Their parents and their society. So at least thank you for admitting your role in our self hate, as unwitting as it may have been.

  • 136. Zack12  |  April 3, 2014 at 10:14 pm

    I'm still amazed at the fact we're supposed to be respectful of people who worked to take away our rights.
    That as others have pointed out, is an action where you are imposing your personal beliefs on the rest of us.

  • 137. ddd  |  April 4, 2014 at 3:35 pm

    Then as CEO, I am systematically removing all known homosexuals from our work place. They may have contributed to the biggest hate group in the U.S., glaad.

  • 138. Eric  |  April 4, 2014 at 4:14 pm

    May have? Eich's support of an unconstitutional law stripping some citizens of their rights is not in question.

  • 139. bayareajohn  |  April 5, 2014 at 3:02 pm

    As Jay says in another reply, A gay boycott of Mozilla is a dire threat to free speech. A NOM boycott of Mozilla is a brave action on behalf of freedom.

    Perspective is everything, and you don't have any.

  • 140. Deeelaaach  |  April 5, 2014 at 6:20 pm

    They don't even appear to have a sense of irony either.

  • 141. Ragavendran  |  April 3, 2014 at 10:25 pm

    One of the commentators in another site put it best:
    "It's still the free market. The fact of the matter is you have freedom of speech, the right to say whatever you want, but you do not have freedom to say what you want without people thinking you're an idiot. The fact of the matter is this is free market at its best. The CEO says/thinks something that I disagree with, I am free to choose not to use that product. That's the whole point. You're free to say what you want, you're not free from the consequences of that speech."
    Indeed, what's happening right now in the Comments section here and in several other news websites/blogs is instructive of this. The "trolls" "trolling" here is the consequence of the EoT team's free speech in asking its readers to switch browsers and the commentators here who support that. We're definitely not free from all this "trolling" – we sure are dealing with that consequence!

  • 142. ragefirewolf  |  April 3, 2014 at 10:31 pm

    Guys, I know it's difficult, but stop feeding the trolls. Just downvote and ignore them. 🙂

  • 143. Dr. Z  |  April 4, 2014 at 6:09 am

    I don't regard the people defending Eich as trolls. Some of them (Andrew Sullivan for instance) are members of our community. I regard this as more akin to an internal family disagreement – a bit heated perhaps, but necessary, and we will be stronger after we've had a chance to process it..

  • 144. Keith  |  April 4, 2014 at 6:37 am

    I don't always agree with Andrew Sullivan at least he didn't throw us all under the bus, like a few other gay/lesbian members of community did. Ken Mehlman and Mary Cheney come to mind.

  • 145. Zack12  |  April 4, 2014 at 6:46 am

    BUt he still gives lip service to them.

  • 146. Lee  |  April 4, 2014 at 6:49 am

    Andrew Sullivan, a gay writer and proponent of same-sex marriage rights, wrote :
    “The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out.”

    Business Insider’s Jim Edward said:
    “At the heart of the move is a fundamental contradiction: Eich’s foes disapproved of Eich’s intolerance for LGBT people. But in the end they could not tolerate Eich’s opinions, which for years he kept private and, by all accounts, did not bring into the workplace.”

  • 147. Zack12  |  April 4, 2014 at 7:36 am

    Funny how he didn't have that same option about Alec Baldwin, whom by all accounts didn't bring his homophobic language into the workplace either.

  • 148. Dr. Z  |  April 4, 2014 at 9:41 am

    Donating to Prop 8 was an act of public, not private speech.

  • 149. ragefirewolf  |  April 4, 2014 at 12:27 pm

    Did I say that? No, I didn't. I was literally speaking about the trolls on this board. And yes, we do have them. You know, the ones who are just screaming the same thing over and over again? I'm all for intelligent converse. I don't just shout down people I don't agree with. I can't say the same for anyone else, but then again, I don't speak for them. They speak for themselves, quite clearly.

  • 150. Deeelaaach  |  April 5, 2014 at 6:29 pm

    I don't think we're feeding the trolls in this case. Some of them may be deluded, but some of them contribute to the conversation on the site. Their voices challenge us when they speak and give facts and don't use lies, myth and doublespeak to convince us. That they can't see their actions are the same as ours and that ours are the same as theirs is problematic of course, but perhaps if one of these folks learns something, all the better.

    On the other hand, silencing those some of us think of as trolls (myself one of them unfortunately) will only lead to the same echo-chamber we accuse them of. So long as they are respectful even if deluded in some cases, I think we should welcome them. This site's comments sections are nothing like NOM's site, much to the subconscious consternation of some posters I would guess, and I hope their presence will keep it that way. So long as both parties are respectful that is.

  • 151. ragefirewolf  |  April 6, 2014 at 9:34 pm

    If you had actually looked at my reply to Dr. Z, you would've seen that I clarified my remark and said just that, only not as verbose as you just did.

  • 152. ragefirewolf  |  April 3, 2014 at 10:45 pm

    Btw, anyone who's screaming "the radical gays did it," aside from every other reason it's both completely ridiculous and disingenuous, it's just plain wrong. This whole thing was started by Mozilla employees and Eich himself resigned. I'm sure that won't satisfy the screaming trolls, but at least I feel slightly more awesome. 😀

  • 153. Right thinking is encoura&hellip  |  April 3, 2014 at 11:00 pm

    […] Victory! Brendan Eich has resigned as Mozilla CEO […]

  • 154. samantha  |  April 4, 2014 at 1:28 am

    Have to say I disagree with this one, he was running mozilla in an invlusive way, going to continue and this was a personal belief and donation made six years ago personally. This only feeds into the fears of the other side and diminishes how people view lgbt rights, not trying to make gains in roghts but trying to bully people. This is not a victory, this was bullying.

  • 155. Zack12  |  April 4, 2014 at 4:21 am

    No bullying was what Eich donated to in which loving couples had the right to get married taken away from them by painting them with vicious lies and smears in order to get people to vote yes on banning their marriages.

  • 156. Frisky1  |  April 4, 2014 at 4:38 am

    14% of Americans still openly poll against interracial marriage according to Gallup. Shall we coddle those bat poo crazies as well?

    But nice try blaming the victims for the public actions (political contributions are public) of someone who was more than happy to declare them sub human and not deserving of constitutional rights afforded to American citizens.

  • 157. DavidAZ  |  April 4, 2014 at 4:43 am

    Bullying? Brendan Eich was Mozilla's CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. NOT just a person or employee but the visible public face of the entire company. His $1,000 donation to PropH8 six years ago wasn't to annoy or outrage LGBT people. His financial support was to take away basic civil rights and HARM them. And it DID harm many, many people. It was done with animus. To this day, he has no regret for his action other than being called out on it. Eich has had no public epiphany on marriage equality these past 6 years. If not for Mozilla emloyees and a much more energized and aware public,he would still occupy the CEO slot. As an informed consumer I had every right to do what I could to send a message to Mozilla. The message is this: Equality is a given. It is not subject to whim or open to debate..EVER.

  • 158. Dr. Z  |  April 4, 2014 at 5:51 am

    Eich's donation was an act of public speech which inflicted irreparable harm on gay people.

  • 159. Corey from Maryland  |  April 4, 2014 at 9:35 am

    @Samantha, when Eich, as CEO, was asked about his current beliefs, he refused to clarify his beliefs now.

    I think that the San Jose Mercury Times article (from the heart of Silicon Valley) summed it up best:

  • 160. Deeelaaach  |  April 5, 2014 at 6:35 pm

    Samantha, I saw this all the time a few years ago when my kids were young. One kid hit the other (bullying her). The second kid hit the first kid back, defending herself. The first kid came running to me, crying and telling me that the second kid was the bully.

    Now why can't you see that you hit us first and we just defended ourselves? Bully? No. Mutual combat apparently. But you don't like it when we defend ourselves, and like a little child, you blame your hurt on us. Maybe if you don't want to get hurt, you shouldn't hit people in the first place. And when you do hit them, for once please expect consequences for your actions.

  • 161. JustMe  |  April 5, 2014 at 6:40 pm

    We didnt hit first … you did.

    When you sued to redefine marriage… first punch thrown.

  • 162. Deeelaaach  |  April 6, 2014 at 1:43 am

    To an earlier post I said that our opponents have no sense of irony either. Thanks for the proof positive, JustMe! I forgot to say they have no sense of history either.

  • 163. Lymis  |  April 4, 2014 at 8:09 am

    Unsurprisingly, turns out there's more to the story.

    Don't miss this from Michelangelo Signorile:

    Dear Andrew Sullivan: 'Left-Liberal Intolerance' Did Not Bring Down Mozilla's CEO

  • 164. Gregory in SLC  |  April 4, 2014 at 9:06 am

    agree, unsurprising. Good to know more of the story.

  • 165. Retired lawyer  |  April 4, 2014 at 10:48 am

    Lymis: Thank you for bringing Signorile's piece to our attention. He is right on the mark, and I, for one, would not have seen the item except for you.

  • 166. Chill Pill  |  April 4, 2014 at 10:18 am

    They say it’s a thin line between love and hate. For Honey Maid, it took just a couple of artists to prove it. After receiving some negative and anti-gay comments for a new ad campaign called “This is Wholesome” In the spot, Honey Maid displayed some of the critical comments that poured in on social media – as well as the supportive ones – and, with the help of two artists, quite literally transformed that criticism into love. Take a look at what they created:

    [youtube cBC-pRFt9OM youtube]

  • 167. matt  |  April 4, 2014 at 10:31 am

    UPDATE: HipHop Chicken & FIsh Restaurants Inc. just fired a Manager for donating money to a plural marriage rights ballot initiative.


    Please email the CEO.

  • 168. Dr. Z  |  April 4, 2014 at 12:35 pm

    As Michael Singorele has pointed out, Brendan Eich gave money to Pat Buchanan's 1992 presidential campaign. Younger readers here may have no context for what that really means. They only know Pat Buchanan as some guy who lost his TV show. But Buchanan was the person who first characterized America as being in a culture war. This is a famous passage from his keynote address at the 1992 Republican National Convention:

    "The agenda Clinton & Clinton would impose on America—abortion on demand, a litmus test for the Supreme Court, homosexual rights, discrimination against religious schools, women in combat units—that's change, all right. But it is not the kind of change America needs. It is not the kind of change America wants. And it is not the kind of change we can abide in a nation we still call God's country."

    Buchanan famously said of AIDS that "homosexuals have declared war on nature, and nature has exacted an awful revenge."

    THAT is who Brendan Eich wanted to be President of the United States in 1992.


  • 169. Mark  |  April 8, 2014 at 9:55 am

    So of course now we need to hunt down every person who ever voted for Pat Buchanan and have them fired from their job, too. Right? Do you people hear yourselves? The argument against having someone fired for something he does on his own time is stronger than you care to let on. Please reflect a bit more and stop with the ad hominem attacks as if those of us in the gay community who disagree with this particular act (getting him to resign) are a bunch of traitors to the cause.

  • 170. Eich Resignation Sparks F&hellip  |  April 4, 2014 at 1:31 pm

    […] […]

  • 171. Carlos  |  April 4, 2014 at 2:11 pm

    Victory for what? Why not go after the other Mozilla employees or the other people who put the other 96k supporting Prop 8 in the SanFrancisco area? Who's next? Where does it end?

    You pride yourself in tolerance… as long as you don't disagree with it. You pride yourself in being inclusive, only of the people who agree with you. You feel that because you've been in the receiving end of discrimination it's 100% ok to dish it out rather than be the better person. The politics of a man don't matter until he's in a position of power were you can derive the maximum exposure by bringing him down. How is this different than the work of the Religious right and the Tea Party?

    Orwell had it right "The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

    You may say that the goal is different… I'll call BS on that one. The means do not justify the ends

  • 172. bayareajohn  |  April 4, 2014 at 7:52 pm

    You want to believe that, so you will, and get another chance to trot out your greased-up slope arguments.

    If the worst you can call the most reactionary of us is "no better than our opponents", it starts to sound like when FOX NEWS starts shouting words to the effect of "They lie and cheat as much as we do!".

    Recall that one side of this debate has spent years and millions as an oppressor to crush the rights and lives of the other. If you have trouble recalling which side is which, you really are just trolling.

  • 173. Deeelaaach  |  April 5, 2014 at 6:43 pm

    Eich would make policy, not follow it. There is a big difference. As I pointed out to another poster earlier, this particular instance is not the same as others. We're having this conversation because of the various factors that led to it.

  • 174. Mark  |  April 8, 2014 at 9:59 am

    I agree with Carlos and disagree with bayareajohn. Why is Eich responsible for all of the past injustices our community has suffered? Are you going to search through every donor to every cause that went against us and have them all fired from their jobs (or raise such a public stink that they have to resign?) As Carlos says…where does it stop? When a gay man or lesbian is hounded out of his or her job as an executive of a major company because of his or her support of a cause the other side finds objectionable, how do you argue the other side? Would that be wrong based upon these same facts?

  • 175. Kevin  |  April 4, 2014 at 3:59 pm

    NOM's new boycott of Mozilla/Firefox

  • 176. StraightDave  |  April 4, 2014 at 4:31 pm

    What, all 2 of them???

  • 177. Guest  |  April 4, 2014 at 8:12 pm

    They're attacking free speech!

  • 178. Jay  |  April 5, 2014 at 12:48 pm

    A gay boycott of Mozilla is a dire threat to free speech. A NOM boycott of Mozilla is a brave action on behalf of freedom.

  • 179. Brian Dell  |  April 4, 2014 at 7:07 pm

    If it was poor form for Mozilla to promote a Prop 8 yes supporter to CEO it would also be be poor form for the organization to promote such a type to middle-manager, no?

  • 180. Dr. Z  |  April 4, 2014 at 7:26 pm


  • 181. Eric  |  April 4, 2014 at 9:07 pm

    If he has LGBT direct reports, yes. He has made his animosity towards them abundantly clear. Take a moment and look at what he and his ilk did. They took away our marriages at the ballot box. The state Supreme Court said that was unconstitutional, so they changed the state constitution to again ban our marriages. They then fought us every step of the way for five more years, until their animus was again found unconstitutional in the federal courts. How would you feel about someone that did that to you? Would you want someone like that as your manager?

  • 182. Brian Dell  |  April 5, 2014 at 1:01 pm

    Of course I would not want someone like that as my manager but would I be acting reasonably if I started or joined in a campaign to have him or her dismissed because he or she supported immigration restrictions, restrictions that personally hurt me as someone who would like to sponsor the entry of a loved one who was being discriminated against because of citizenship status as opposed to orientation?

    People involved in cross-citizenship relationships suffer at least a much as those in same sex relationships. Why is it that everyone is expected to get out of the way of same sex relationships but I just have to accept the government's blocking of mine?

  • 183. Rakihi  |  April 5, 2014 at 8:03 pm

    Perhaps you could elaborate on how the law that adversely impacts you violates the Constitution.

  • 184. Deeelaaach  |  April 5, 2014 at 6:55 pm

    Maybe if the same folks that hired Eich as CEO hired every single employee in the company, to any and all positions. They don't. The job of CEO is the job of the leader of the company. Other employees hire their subordinates. Mozilla is informed of the hiring choice and and the wheels start to turn. But the job of CEO is special, or so I'm told.

    Wait, you're right. The CEO position is just another position in the company – one of many other CEO's at Mozilla. These CEO's don't make policy, they all just follow it. And there are lots of CEO's out their who are white supremacists too and have proved it by making their private views public by donating to white supremacist organizations and political movements.

    So it's apples to apples when we're talking about types of employees but not when we're talking about homophobia and racism, sexism, etc. Oh yeah, I forgot, it's a choice. Someone, God I guess, forgot to tell me that when I was born this way. Apparently He forgot to make sure I was not LGBT before I was born.

  • 185. The letter that Mozilla s&hellip  |  April 4, 2014 at 11:17 pm

    […] and equality looks like. There are organisations and media outlets encouraging people to seek the victory of having people lose their jobs for not thinking like […]

  • 186. Guest  |  April 5, 2014 at 5:56 am

    Bill Maher slams gay rights activists:

    "I think there is a gay mafia," Maher said. "I think if you cross them, you do get whacked."

  • 187. Nyx  |  April 5, 2014 at 7:17 am

    Being a regular viewer I would at most call this a Bill Maher ribbing not a slam. What I found interesting was he got only two timid responses to the topic while 3 of the 5 panelists remained silent on the issue.

  • 188. Deeelaaach  |  April 5, 2014 at 6:57 pm

    I'm not a regular viewer of Bill Maher, but isn't he in his own way part of the very same mafia so to speak? If so, I would guess this wasn't meant to be a slam against the LGBT community or those fighting for their rights.

  • 189. » Eich Resignation &hellip  |  April 5, 2014 at 12:12 pm

    […] […]

  • 190. Fireskunk  |  April 5, 2014 at 1:33 pm

    I wasn't about to switch to a browser controlled by Google or Apple or Microsoft just because the only viable free software browser happened to have an a-hole CEO. Netscape was my first browser, back in the day, and later Mozilla and now Mozilla Firefox. I could care less if its leader voted for the NSDAP and marched with the brown shirts. I detest these ridiculous boycotts, the browser is better than any of the alternatives out there, and in the event that somebody decides to start discriminating against us Firefox users for our lifestyle choice, about:config makes it trivial to spoof my user agent. The only reason I might care about this man resigning is at least I don't have to hear about this BS anymore, so yes, I'm glad this particular tantrum of a boycott is now over.

  • 191. bayareajohn  |  April 5, 2014 at 2:57 pm

    Um, maybe you don't understand protests.They are voluntary. You participate if you agree with the point and the method. Or not. Don't bitch because someone else feels strongly and you don't. Just put your blinders on and merrily continue to support those who oppress you if that's what gives you personal joy.

    And this wasn't a boycott if you compare it to any NOM boycott in scope or language.

  • 192. Deeelaaach  |  April 5, 2014 at 7:08 pm

    Personal choice is I guess a boycott of sorts. I choose to shop at this store and not that one for a particular reason. Maybe their prices are too high. Maybe I don't like their policies. We know about their prices because we can see them, but we may not see their policies. Someone tells us about them and why their policies are important enough (to them) to tell us via their site. You probably do the same in general conversation with your friends. It's not a boycott then, just a choice.

    This site and others brought the Eich situation to our awareness and made a respectful request. Why do you not choose to shop one place or another? This is really no different. Some won't buy from an organization that uses what some call sweatshops. Is that a boycott? Or is it a personal choice? To someone who supports the company, it is a boycott. To the person making the choice, it is probably a personal choice, and may or may not have started as part of a boycott. Regardless, it's still a personal choice. and we (and you) make these same choices everyday.

    Boycott or personal choice? I suppose it depends on your perspective. Personally, I thank this site and others for telling me of their concerns. And full disclosure, I am posting this using Firefox. But I addressed that in an earlier post on this subject.

  • 193. gayguy  |  April 5, 2014 at 4:07 pm

    Everyone at Mozilla that doesn't believe in gay marriage should step down. Everyone that doesn't agree with with gay marriage should leave the US.

  • 194. Background Gal  |  April 5, 2014 at 6:25 pm

    The trolls keep on 'a trollin. When the real gays aren't being offensive enough, make believe you are one of them and say somethin stupid.

  • 195. Eich Resignation Sparks F&hellip  |  April 5, 2014 at 6:14 pm

    […] […]

  • 196. Jack  |  April 5, 2014 at 7:27 pm

    Backlash Against Brendan Eich Crossed A Line:

  • 197. bayareajohn  |  April 5, 2014 at 9:34 pm

    What boycott? As far as any coverage I've seen, a relatively obscure website named "OK CUPID" and this one put up simple suggestion popups explaining the situation and neither did ANYTHING to restrict access to those who use Firefox. It's likely that some other sites added it too, but the press only ever mentions "OK CUPID". How many of us even heard of it before this? What boycott? "OK CUPID" now is the spearhead for politcal action?

    Buffalo chips.
    The most on-point push appears to have come from within Mozilla, a very appropriate place for it. The increasing list of donations and affiliations with politics antithetical to the corporate direction made it clear that this man was the wrong choice to represent the company as CEO.

    WHAT BOYCOTT? Obviously, the one the RIght would like to believe occurred in order to fit their villainous opinion of the LGBT "mafia".

  • 198. Guest  |  April 5, 2014 at 10:27 pm

    Whose line? We're not afraid because the only lines that have been crossed are ours by a bunch of hoary Christianists, and they need to receive a healthy dose of revenge for their actions!

  • 199. Straight Ally #3008  |  April 5, 2014 at 8:06 pm

    What some of the people trolling for attention here have to realize is, public opinion is changing in this country at a rapid rate, and the religious right has been caught flat footed. Opposing civil marriage rights for gay people has become a minority position, and donating to legal removal of marriage rights, which is what Prop 8 was all about, is even more abhorrent today than it was in 2008. Unfortunately for people like Eich, we're in the information age, and donations are a matter of public record – the pressure of public opinion does the rest. There'll be some growing pains as the rest of the marriage bans around the country are struck down by the Supreme Court, but afterward it will be a non-issue for all but the fringes of society.

  • 200. Jack  |  April 5, 2014 at 8:31 pm

    "Straight Ally" what does this have to do with what I've stated? This isn't the mission of LGBTI's but clearly you represent the gay mafia too. Gay mafia does not represent all of the LGBTI community that wants to focus on real problems facing us. This is not one of them. And by the way do you really need to reassure us you're straight with that stupid name?

  • 201. Straight Ally #3008  |  April 5, 2014 at 10:26 pm

    What the hell does any sort of mafia have to do with Brendan Eich resigning? You're unhinged, son.

  • 202. StraightDave  |  April 5, 2014 at 10:57 pm

    One reason straight allies identify themselves as such is to provide reassurance and comfort to the LGBT community that they are not alone, as a small minority. There are plenty in the majority who fully and actively support them. They have strength beyond their own numbers. I happen to believe that matters to some/most of them. That's why I not only support them, but make clear exactly who it is that is supporting them.

    – another stupid name

  • 203. Jack  |  April 5, 2014 at 11:21 pm

    I don't need "comfort" from the straight community. Nor do I need to have Eich resign because of what he did 6 years ago. Are you all going to continue this bullshit with other companies? This site is no different than that stupid organization Millions of Moms.

  • 204. StraightDave  |  April 5, 2014 at 11:24 pm

    So I should leave, then?

  • 205. JayJonson  |  April 6, 2014 at 7:17 am

    No. I think Jack should leave. I rather doubt he is actually gay. He is certainly no ally.

  • 206. Jack  |  April 6, 2014 at 8:07 am

    Are you that stupid to think all LGBTI's agree that getting the Mozilla CEO to resign was really our mission? That isn't our mission. Our mission is to be treated equally under the law. That's it. It's not about hunting down who supported Prop 8. Learn to move on and focus on the real issues because this was sure a waste of time a resources. So before opening that trap Blanche I'd suggest you open your eyes. Got that dear?

  • 207. Dr. Z  |  April 6, 2014 at 8:37 am

    You missed something. Our mission is to be treated equally under the law, AND to ensure it stays that way in the future.

  • 208. Jack  |  April 6, 2014 at 9:17 am

    First Mozilla CEO doesn't have the power to pass laws. Second are you going to do this to anyone you come along that is against you? So because my coworker is anti-gay he should be fired? As I've stated several times on here you all are no different than Millions of moms

  • 209. Dr. Z  |  April 6, 2014 at 10:30 am

    Well, as you say both sides have stated their positions a number of times, so I'm not going to rehash Mozilla's CEO. Instead let's take a look at that "no difference" point you keep making. I don't agree at all, but just for discussion let's pretend it's true that there is "no difference" between the progay and antigay sides. These two positions are mutually exclusive; they cannot coexist. One side must eventually dominate, and the other must become dormant.

    Pick your side, Jack.

  • 210. Jack  |  April 6, 2014 at 10:43 am

    I pick the side of getting our elected leaders pass pro-LGBTI laws. I refuse to take "sides" with the radical right wingers nor will I take your side to continue to oust anti-gays that have no legislation power. He gave $1k 6 years ago. In 20 years from now and if he's CEO again will you continue this bullshit? Get over it! So shove your little take sides bullshit. This isn't a popularity contest.

  • 211. Dr. Z  |  April 6, 2014 at 11:01 am

    We are in agreement about passing laws. Where you and I part ways is that I also want to keep and defend those laws into the future. He gave $1000 to pass a ballot initiative that invalidated same-sex marriage for millions of Californians, and you want to give him a pass. He was given an opportunity to comment, and he could have said something like "if I had it to do over again I would have done some things differently." But he didn't, implying that he's not done trying to overturn those laws you want passed. Quite rightly, some of Mozilla's developers and employees took exception to that, which is also their right under the First Amendment.

    The right wing is never going to stop trying to pass antigay laws, Jack. You seem to think that there is some kind of end zone we're going to enter, and all the antigay laws will be gone and we can just get on with our lives as if being gay no longer mattered. It will always matter to bigots, which is why we will always have to remain vigilant lest those hard-won legal victories vanish with a couple of adverse Supreme Court decisions.

  • 212. Jack  |  April 6, 2014 at 11:11 am

    So he gave $1k against us dude. He is still working for Mozilla. I guess that means you should boycott anything that used JavaScript? Your logic is like a witch hunt.

    You still didn't answer my question on if he was hired back in 20 years.

  • 213. Deeelaaach  |  April 6, 2014 at 3:17 am

    Interesting verbiage. Above you tell us to "pick your battles." Here you tell us you are with us ("I don't need 'comfort' from the straight community.") I would expect an exhortation not to pick "your" battles, but to pick "our" battles if you were part of the community. "Your" implies you are outside the community, but here you imply you are part of the community. And yes, I know it could have been poor word choice.

    All I can say is that it is interesting to me. It makes me curious as to who you are and whose side you're really on. Further, your challenge to those with "Straight" in their name speaks of divisiveness. You say you don't need comfort from the straight community, but most of the LGBT I know are happy to have it – without it we'd more likely be fighting a losing fight, given that we are likely 2 to 3 percent of the population (some say up to 10 percent) at most. Without straight allies and friends, we might be up a creek without a paddle. So in the same statement you sound like an imposter – to me at least. (And thank you from me to all of our straight allies wherever they are.)

    If I can sum up what appears to me to be the sum total of your posts from the day – in my opinion – they say that you (Jack) don't agree with x, so shut up and go away ("Pick your battles!" "I don't need 'comfort' from the straight community." Among others). If my opinion is correct, that would not be the normal type of discourse from this site – respectful discussion. So I still have to wonder why you are really here and what you hope to accomplish.

    You imply you are LGBT but your posts don't sound like it. Again this could be poor word choice. But I still find you interesting, and a contradiction in terms at the very least. As I said before, your posts do say things about you, and not all of them things you intend to say. Two other things I see in your posts – sheer frustration and negativity, the second probably a result of the first. But I'm not sure if that is with this site, its goals, its members and guests, or with the LGBT community.

    Pertaining to your One Million Moms comments, I will say this – I've been with this site since the prop 8 trial, and we like to get things right on this site. It's a give and take between the authors and those who post comments, with corrections offered and freely taken between and within those groups. While I don't agree with all that folks say here, this is a very respectful site in my personal experience. Your experience appears to differ.

  • 214. Deeelaaach  |  April 6, 2014 at 3:18 am


    Your posts so far make it appear – to me only – that you are not a regular reader of this site, that you don't appreciate their mission or their efforts (not that you have to even if you are indeed LGBT), that you don't like what happened to Eich, that you want this discussion (and maybe even straight allies) to go away, that you are uncomfortable that we are even having this discussion about Eich (that sheer frustration) and finally make it appear that you probably aren't really a member of the community. That's what your posts are telling me, so far. Maybe others see something different. And I get the frustration, believe it or not.

    If you're not LGBT, maybe some basic research into who we are is in order. Sites that oppose us would make caricatures of us and reduce us to single base motivations (see MaryKay's post above) so you'd be better off reading sites like this. But be careful: when your research is done we might no longer be caricatures with single base motivations – we might actually be (gasp!) people. And if you do look for truth, the funny thing is you can never stop looking for it because it continues to make itself known in places and things and people all over the world and in our universe. That's what I find most funny about some (not all) religious people. They find their sole truth in a book and stop looking for it outside of their book when it is indeed everywhere, in His handiwork. So I ask you, do you seek truth?

    Oh, please note: It would be impossible to "analyze" you without having ever met you – not that I'm a qualified therapist or psychiatrist, I'm not. But I am parsing your words and your overall posts for meaning and finding things. And yes, what I've found could be wrong: I admit that freely.

  • 215. Deeelaaach  |  April 6, 2014 at 3:20 am

    Clarification: I'm not saying and will not say that you are not LGBT. I only said your posts don't sound like it.

  • 216. Deeelaaach  |  April 6, 2014 at 3:21 am

    to me that is.

  • 217. Chill Pill  |  April 6, 2014 at 3:59 am

    lol or he/she is a shady dame from Seville
    [youtube DGG_uj3sXGI youtube]

  • 218. Dr. Z  |  April 6, 2014 at 3:38 am

    Just a hunch, but Jack does sound LGBT to me – albeit someone who's conflicted about that, and very much still invested in trying to win love/acceptance from homophobes. I could be completely off base of course, but who among us hasn't been through that "bargaining" phase of internalized homophobia ("I'm not one of the bad homos, honest!")

  • 219. Deeelaaach  |  April 6, 2014 at 4:13 am

    Thank you Dr. Z.
    I'm suddenly conflicted by my own post. I usually put lots of thought into them and did so this time but sometimes after spending a lot of time on one, I still feel I fall short. I feel I did so this time. I returned to this thread to report my own post as inappropriate until I read your reply. Instead I will offer my apologies to Jack.

    Jack, if you are indeed LGBT, I offer my apologies. I worry about imposters on this and other sites and acknowledge wording led to those suspicions concerning you. That is not an excuse for questioning whether you are gay or not. I know better but made the mistake anyway. I am sorry. I ask for your forgiveness.

  • 220. Jack  |  April 6, 2014 at 8:15 am

    Dude we don't need to "win" over the straight community by getting a measly CEO of Mozilla to resign. Our country is on a turning point what more reassurance do you all need? Why do you feel that everyone has to agree to our life? As long as the law is on our side I could give two shits what some straight person thinks of me. I don't need their "approval".

  • 221. Dr. Z  |  April 6, 2014 at 8:34 am

    We may be on the cusp of winning ME in the US but we still have many years of struggles ahead of us. The red states are still red, and as we just saw in Mississippi the homophobes will continue to shift tactics and find new ways of using the law against us. In Madrid Spain the new conservative mayor is trying to shut down Pride by levying enormous fines by selectively enforcing noise pollution laws. The nature of prejudice is such that society must remain vigilant lest it make a sudden comeback, perhaps aided by some rabble-rousing demogogue. You cannot compromise with bigotry or offer to meet it halfway. If you drop your guard it will return, at a time and place of its choosing. Anti-Semitism didn't just spring into being in Germany in the 1930s. It had been there in Germany for decades, centuries. The Jews of Germany believed that they had achieved a workable compromise – that as long as they remained patriotic Germans, paid their taxes, helped fight the country's wars etc. they would be accepted as citizens with the same rights and privileges as others. If some people were anti-Semitic, well just avoid them; live and let live.

    Trouble was, prejudice isn't willing to "let live." You're a fool if you turn your back on it even for a little while.

  • 222. Keith  |  April 6, 2014 at 9:06 am

    Interesting how today's conservatives and bigots are using the same strategies, tactics, lies and propaganda that were used during the rise of the Third Reich. Not being knowledgeable about history is now presenting the benchmarks for repeating it.

  • 223. Dr. Z  |  April 6, 2014 at 3:30 am

    It does matter; and thank you.

  • 224. bayareajohn  |  April 5, 2014 at 10:01 pm

    It would be interesting to know how many of the new trolls here are the same troll using as many names as they like.

    I'm not saying I think it's just one looney with too much time and hate on their hands, but it seems strange that this site has had a 500% or more uptick in guest accounts that are posting troll in just the last 3 days.

    If it is all or mostly separate individuals, it would be interesting to know how so many came to know about this site so suddenly.

    There's certainly a chance that it's all legitimate posts by concerned people with "deeply held convictions" that sought this site out independently and that the appearance of many people represents the actual participants, and not the result of a pointed campaign by a few or even one person.

    A very small chance, I think.

  • 225. Jack  |  April 5, 2014 at 11:23 pm

    So the gays that don't agree on the direction of Courage Campaign are trolls?

  • 226. bayareajohn  |  April 5, 2014 at 11:26 pm

    I didn't pick any out, are you self-identifying?

  • 227. bythesea  |  April 6, 2014 at 7:09 am

    Seems oddly like that, doesn't it?

  • 228. Matt Rogers  |  April 6, 2014 at 9:51 pm

    I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be one straight guy.

  • 229. Background Gal  |  April 7, 2014 at 2:12 am

    Don't bet on the straight part. He may think he is…

  • 230. Lo strano caso di Mr Eich&hellip  |  April 6, 2014 at 2:03 am

    […] Eich sono state comunicate da Mozilla. “Victory!” I pro LGBT esultano e riaccendono i browser (Equalityontrial), mentre il direttore esecutivo di Mozilla sostiene “l’umanità” dimostrata […]

  • 231. Riaccendiamo Mozilla » g&hellip  |  April 6, 2014 at 4:01 am

    […] comunità LGBT esulta e riaccende i browser, mentre il direttore esecutivo di Mozilla sostiene “l’umanità” […]

  • 232. Rassegna Stampa domenica &hellip  |  April 6, 2014 at 7:45 am

    […] Eich sono state comunicate da Mozilla. “Victory!” I pro LGBT esultano e riaccendono i browser (Equalityontrial), mentre il direttore esecutivo di Mozilla sostiene “l’umanità” dimostrata dall’azienda […]

  • 233. Any  |  April 6, 2014 at 8:57 am

    Sad, but glad to see he stands on what he believes.
    The gay community has proved to be the most hateful and intolerant group of people.
    You can paint a horse to look like a zebra but it's still a horse!

  • 234. Jack  |  April 6, 2014 at 9:36 am

    And what has radical right wingers proven? The mission of main stream LGBTI's are not get CEO's to resign but to be treated equally under the law. I think what is going on here is that there are LGBTIs hurt by radical right winger bullshit of the past and need to move on. Just as you need to move on for the inevitable

  • 235. Who's the Victim?  |  April 8, 2014 at 11:27 am

    Ha, right. They are persecuting people for their religious beliefs because they don't affirm their lifestyle choices. It's fascist McCarthyism all over again. Non-violent fascism is still fascism.

  • 236. KarlS  |  April 6, 2014 at 12:45 pm

    Does your mommy know you play with her computer while she's out giving $5 blowjobs to buy crayons for you?

  • 237. bayareajohn  |  April 6, 2014 at 1:22 pm

    and there it is, the final descent into content-free name calling when there's nothing left to copy and paste into your reply box.

  • 238. Jack  |  April 6, 2014 at 9:38 am

    CEO's to resign because of their past support of anti-gay laws that is*

  • 239. Immoral  |  April 6, 2014 at 11:50 am

    Our society is going down the toilet!!! Lead by the oversensitive gays!

  • 240. Kevin  |  April 6, 2014 at 12:04 pm


  • 241. bayareajohn  |  April 7, 2014 at 11:44 am

    More info keeps coming out. Several directors at Mozilla resigned in protest even before the public announcement of Eich's appointment. He was a political and personal problem within the company before any LGBT awareness efforts. The uninformed are making a convenient scapegoat to fulfill their preconceived bigotry.

  • 242. Justme  |  April 8, 2014 at 4:13 am

    They didnt resign "in protest" … they had ALREADY resigned almost a year ago and were finishing out their terms.

    Q: Did Board members resign over Brendan’s Prop 8 donation?

    A: No. Gary Kovacs and Ellen Siminoff had previously stated they had plans to leave as soon as Mozilla chose the next CEO. John Lilly did not resign over Proposition 8 or any concerns about Brendan’s personal beliefs.

  • 243. JustMe  |  April 8, 2014 at 4:15 am

    And as far as him being a "political and personal problem"

    Q: Was Brendan Eich forced out by employee pressure?

    A: No. While these tweets calling for Brendan’s resignation were widely reported in the media, they came from only a tiny number of people: less than 10 of Mozilla’s employee pool of 1,000. None of the employees in question were in Brendan’s reporting chain or knew Brendan personally.

    In contrast, support for Brendan’s leadership was expressed from a much larger group of employees, including those who felt disappointed by Brendan’s support of Proposition 8 but nonetheless felt he would be a good leader for Mozilla. Communication from these employees has not been covered in the media.

  • 244. bayareajohn  |  April 8, 2014 at 11:31 am

    The reporting on this whole affair appears to be all over the board. Your details certainly seem to support a different angle than the stories I've read. When there's this much variation in presented facts, it's clear there's more to the argument than a simple answer or political position.

    Nonetheless, I have to observe that the "protest" as presented on this site was about as low key and non-pressured or hyped as I've ever seen. And the "Hello Cupid" site is the only one the media even talks about. I can't see "unfair pressure" from them comparing to the certainly wholly spontaneous and assuredly representative massive outpouring of bile accumulating in the Firefox comments now.

    There is massive pressure being applied to define/redefine this story to support agendas. Be suspicious.

  • 245. JustMe  |  April 7, 2014 at 5:51 pm

    Mozilla sets record for number of customer complaints – more than 35,000 in four days……

  • 246. Background Gal  |  April 8, 2014 at 11:03 am

    And it looks so very "GRASSROOTS (TM)".

  • 247. The Real Victim  |  April 8, 2014 at 11:25 am

    These gay fascists need to be stopped. They are bullying and persecuting people that have done NOTHING to them. When will the madness end?

  • 248. bayareajohn  |  April 8, 2014 at 12:12 pm

    It will end when equality comes, and folks like you realize that the "nothing" you've been doing to us for years has been unwarranted humiliation, physical abuse, and legal abuse.

  • 249. JayJonson  |  April 8, 2014 at 11:49 am

    The organized postings on the Mozilla site are by NOM-ites. They will not be taken seriously. They are the bullies.

  • 250. bayareajohn  |  April 8, 2014 at 12:41 pm

    So much use of "Fascism", so little understanding. Look it up.

    What I see on this site is a lot of differing opinion and enlightening discussion (not counting the trolls that are here only to disrupt). And even the trolls are allowed to post, and even get generally more civil responses than they merit.

    Compare that with, oh, NOM's talkback area (or nearly all the right wingnut sites). No diversity or discussion is permitted. You'll be notified of your next strongly held conviction and your posts about it will properly celebratory or they and you will be ejected. And recall that it is the Republicans who have an actual bundle of "loyalty oaths" that their members must actually sign in order to be supported by the Party. They must agree to defer their own judgement to the instruction of the Party, or they cannot even run for office as a Republican.

    If you didn't already look up Fascism, maybe now would be a good time.

  • 251. Lee  |  April 8, 2014 at 1:44 pm

    “What do you think of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich resigning over his donation to the pro-Proposition 8 campaign?

    Ted Olson: I think that it’s unfortunate, but it had something to do with that company, and the employees of that company, and their customers, and contractors and things of that nature. The fact that that individual contributed to the pro-Proposition 8 campaign six years ago, something like that, lots of people held those views at that particular time. The president was opposed to same-sex marriage at that point in time. What matters now is what’s in your heart today, and he shouldn’t have had to resign but I think that was internal to the company and there are probably issues there that we just don’t know anything about.

    David Boies: I agree with that.”

    David Boies and Ted Olson overcome differences to fight for marriage equality, story at

  • 252. Lee  |  April 8, 2014 at 1:48 pm

    Ted Olson and Jim Brown will be answering msnbc reader questions from the Civil Rights Summit at the LBJ Presidential Library in Austin, Texas. Ask them at

  • 253. Straight Ally #3008  |  April 8, 2014 at 2:17 pm

    At Chick fil-A, the CEO didn't step down over donations to anti-gay causes. At Mozilla, he did. The tech sector is different from the fatty food-eating sector, and the amount of blowback from staff and customers is going to be very different. Eich did the right thing and spared his company the drama.

  • 254. JustMe  |  April 9, 2014 at 2:45 am

    Uh-oh…. Looks like what happened to Eich wasnt legal…

    What these commentators seem to have overlooked, however, is that the California Labor Code has already resolved this debate. Under California law it is blatantly illegal to fire an employee because he has donated money to a political campaign. This rule is clearly set forth in Labor Code sections 1101-1102:
    § 1101. Political activities of employees; prohibition of prevention or control by employer
    No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy:
    (a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office.
    (b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees.
    § 1102. Coercion or influence of political activities of employees
    No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity.
    Donating money to a political cause is obviously the most core form of political participation. But employers and employees should also be aware that the California Supreme Court has broadly extended the scope of protected speech and conduct to include all types of advocacy. Indeed, in Gay Law Students Association v. Pac. Tel. & Tel. Co., the Court specifically held that one's espoused attitudes about homosexuality were a form of protected conduct.
    [Plaintiff's] allegations can reasonably be construed as charging that PT&T discriminates in particular against persons who identify themselves as homosexual, who defend homosexuality, or who are identified with activist homosexual organizations. So construed, the allegations charge that PT&T has adopted a “policy . . . tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees” in violation of section 1101, and has “attempt(ed) to coerce or influence . . . employees . . . to . . . refrain from adopting (a) particular course or line of political . . . activity” in violation of section 1102.
    As terminating an employee for "defend[ing] homosexuality" is illegal political discrimination, one would be hard pressed to come up with a principled argument that opposition to same-sex marriage is somehow not also protected.
    Thus, to the extent employers want to follow in Mozilla's footsteps by policing their employees' politics in the interests of "culture," "inclusiveness," or corporate branding, they should be aware that their efforts will violate California law.

  • 255. Guest  |  April 9, 2014 at 2:54 am

    Except he wasn't fired…

  • 256. JustMe  |  April 9, 2014 at 3:34 am

    constructive termination … same thing

  • 257. Jamie  |  April 10, 2014 at 6:10 pm

    You people are vengeful and creepy.

  • 258. Cal  |  April 13, 2014 at 5:43 am

    This whole thing is petty.

    Brendan Eich has every right to donate money to what he thinks is right! Especially when he gave it six years ago before his position with Mozilla.

    Gay people are doing the same thing willingly and freely. There are older gay couples that always lived their lives their way, and successfully also, without this petty divisiveness.

    He is not acting out like Anita Bryant did back in the 70’s, which was an all out witch hunt and it was deplorable to say the least.

    You can’t loose who you are, just live it! Otherwise it reveals deep insecurity and fear. I do realize that many, upon many have suffered at the hands of bullies, and self-righteous “religious” people, some have lost their lives due to it.

    I know I was bullied by students and by male teachers as a child and a teenager. I tried taking my life at the age of 14 due to the loneliness and personal family abuses. But when I became of legal age, I started to live my own life and left my family behind without caring how they felt.

    Just because we were oppressed, doesn’t and should not mean that gay society should now become the oppressors due to bitterness and unforgiveness.

    Grow up and don’t allow fear to guide you in such actions of vindictiveness and malice.

  • 259. bayareajohn  |  April 17, 2014 at 12:08 am

    And as suddenly as there was a "big crowd" of trolls, a week later they are all gone. Funny how that works. I'm sure it wasn't all ONE PERSON who got tired of multiple personality posting and went away… after just too many people rationally and relatively civilly replied.

  • 260. Captain Obvious  |  June 16, 2014 at 2:11 am

    The intolerance of homosexual fascists is exceeded only by their hypocrisy.

    But what can you expect from the militantly-perverse?

    And you’re the ones who “equate[…] our humanity with the single trait differentiating us from the rest of the population, i.e. our homosexuality.”

    Stop crying for creating your own mess.

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!