Mozilla CEO steps down amid gay marriage controversy

[Spider-Dan]

There may have been a some shift in the 5 years since, but opposing ssm is still a very mainstream opinion, it is not comparable to wanting to appeal the 13th amendment.

At this link, you can see that public support for SSM has went from 39/52 (for/against) in August 2008 to 54/39 (for/against) in February 2014.

Furthermore, at what point did it stop being "mainstream" to oppose interracial marriage?  The very fact that this kind of backlash exists pretty much proves that it's no longer mainstream to oppose SSM.  That is precisely the difference between 2008 and now.

But, okay to take your example, do you think it would be okay for a company to take the position we won't hire anyone who made a political donation to GWB?  Because that is what he did, he donated to a political cause.

I don't believe political affiliation is a protected status, so therefore a business can say "I won't hire any Democrat" and that's perfectly legal; their customers will respond accordingly.  The same would apply to GWB donators, Romney voters, Republican party members, etc.

How would you feel if a company in California adopted a policy of not hiring anyone who donated money NoOnProp8.com?

Exactly the same way I feel about the topic at hand, and my choices as a consumer would reflect that.  For example, I don't buy products from Chick-Fil-A or Papa John's.

It would be against the law to have a policy of refusing to hire blacks, but let's say Hoodie LLC had the following hiring policy, "We will not hire anyone who has ever donated money to: Obama, Jessie Jackson, UNCF, NAACP, Rainbow Coalition or Acorn."

Again, I don't believe political affiliation is a protected status, so the gov't shouldn't be involved.  But I don't think anyone has suggested the gov't get involved, so I'm not sure why you mention the CRA.

If he had done more than just had a political position, different story.  Let say day one he declare that the company is ending benefits to same sex partners in any state where this would not violate the law.  Well then I would agree with the boycott to drive him out.

I find it rather puzzling that you find support of a government ballot initiative to prohibit SSM as acceptable political speech, but denying benefits to partners (when benefits aren't even a guaranteed part of employment anyway) is a bridge too far.

One of these things is much more impactful than the other, and you've got it backwards.

[pondwater]

Being disliked or having the free market reject you or your product.  This is especially true with famous people or people in the public eye with large corporations.  Even if you do keep your job, you can financially suffer because people choose to reject your product because they don't like you.

I don't dislike or hate gays. l interact with several on a regular basis and get along great with them. However, I  find homosexuality as an abnormal behavior. I could give a shit about being disliked by a very small minority. Being famous and rich would only reinforce that. If it was me, I would take my millions and tell everyone to fuck off like FAU said.

This is especially true for markets where there are many other choices that are relatively the same.  For browsers or fast food, there's another comparable option just across the proverbial (or literal) street.

And speaking of fast food choices and Chick-fil-A. They seem to be outspoken against homosexuality and doing rather well. Actually, they are thriving. They just overtook KFC by almost $1billion as the leading chicken franchise in the US with only around 1/3 retail locations. Hell, I don't even have time to eat lunch at Chick-fil-A because they are so crowded every day. So much for being disliked or having the free market reject you or your product for disagreeing with the PC crowd. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/chick-fil-a-stole-kfc-s-chicken-crown-with-a-fraction-of-the-stores-151835949.html

[Dave Gray]

I could give a shit about being disliked by a very small minority.

Great.  But my point is that if you DID care, you can't go citing freedom of speech for people not liking you.

[Phishfan]

do you think it would be okay for a company to take the position

Way off base since we are not discussing a situation where the company had any such position. In fact, he was promoted within his company.

[Dave Gray]

^ Exactly, this is a response from the public at large...not a private entity.

[Spider-Dan]

And speaking of fast food choices and Chick-fil-A. They seem to be outspoken against homosexuality and doing rather well. Actually, they are thriving. They just overtook KFC by almost $1billion as the leading chicken franchise in the US with only around 1/3 retail locations. Hell, I don't even have time to eat lunch at Chick-fil-A because they are so crowded every day. So much for being disliked or having the free market reject you or your product for disagreeing with the PC crowd.

As long as Chick-Fil-A is content to remain a primarily regional franchise (specifically: the South), their political positions shouldn't hurt them.  Given that their business is concentrated in the Bible Belt, making a "religious" stand probably helped them.

I doubt we're going to see Chick-Fil-A expanding internationally any time soon.

[pondwater]

^ Exactly, this is a response from the public at large...not a private entity.

Then why hasn't the public at large responded negatively to  Chick-fil-A? As noted earlier, they are thriving. I think we can agree that Chick-fil-A has been more outspoken about a perceived abnormal lifestyle than Mr. Eich's petty donation from 8 years ago. Chick-fil-A has been in the media several time in the past couple years right in everyone's face. Mr. Eich's donation took some digging and 8 year to come to light.

Mozilla is a non profit company and the majority of it's products are free. Chick-fil-A is very much a for profit company and their prices are kind of high. You would think that given those facts that the "public at large" would be able to hurt Chick-fil-A much more than Mozilla by voting with their wallet. Yet, Chick-fil-A is thriving while Mozilla has allowed itself to be intimidated and bullied by the PC crowd. Seems like nothing more than a media fueled PC witch hunt.

[Dave Gray]

Then why hasn't the public at large responded negatively to  Chick-fil-A? As noted earlier, they are thriving.

Probably a few reasons:
First off, Chik-Fil-A did have backlash, but they rode it out.  Also, Chik-Fil-A can sell more than 1 product to a consumer.  So, you may like Chik-Fil-A's stance and go there more to make up for someone who doesn't.
Browsers aren't the same way.  You use one.

But also, demographically, the demographic that eats fast food chicken is more likely to be conservative, I'm guessing, as compared to a more youthful group that are tech savvy enough to make informed decisions about browsers.

[pondwater]

As long as Chick-Fil-A is content to remain a primarily regional franchise (specifically: the South), their political positions shouldn't hurt them.  Given that their business is concentrated in the Bible Belt, making a "religious" stand probably helped them.

I doubt we're going to see Chick-Fil-A expanding internationally any time soon.

KFC has roughly 3 times the locations, located everywhere in the US. And Chick-fil-A is kicking their ass as primarily a regional franchise in the south. If Chick-fil-A expanded to every market that KFC was in then they would only gain market share over what they already have now. They sure aren't going to lose the lead they already have by expanding. The simple fact is that they provide better service and better quality than the competition and people vote with their money at Chick-fil-A. Mozilla and/or Eich were weak and allowed themselves to be bullied. The weak don't survive!

[Dave Gray]

I dropped Firefox a little while back, unrelated to this issue.

I haven't eaten at Chik-Fil-A in about a decade (aside from one time when someone treated me to lunch), which is too bad, because I like their food.

[Phishfan]

I could care less about the owner. I love that damn chicken.

[pondwater]

Probably a few reasons:
First off, Chik-Fil-A did have backlash, but they rode it out. 

You're correct, they rode it out. If Mozilla/Eich rode it out, it would be a non story a month from now.

Also, Chik-Fil-A can sell more than 1 product to a consumer.  So, you may like Chik-Fil-A's stance and go there more to make up for someone who doesn't.

Pure speculation on your end.

Browsers aren't the same way.  You use one.

They are exactly the same way. They are both a product. If people who disagreed with Eich were going to boycott Mozilla, then people who agreed with Eich's stance could have changed to Mozilla products to support them. Just like in your example above. All of that is pure speculation on your part. If they would have rode it out, it would have played itself out and the brain dead media sheep would have moved on to another "cause" to harass someone over.

But also, demographically, the demographic that eats fast food chicken is more likely to be conservative, I'm guessing, as compared to a more youthful group that are tech savvy enough to make informed decisions about browsers.

How is that any different than saying, demographically black people eat more fried chicken? I would say that political affiliation is no more an indicator of fried chicken consumption than race or age. As far as I'm concerned, most people like fried chicken.

[Dave Gray]

You're correct, they rode it out. If Mozilla/Eich rode it out, it would be a non story a month from now.

Perhaps.

Pure speculation on your end.

Of course, aren't we speculating POSSIBLE causes?  Isn't that the whole point of this thread?

They are exactly the same way. They are both a product. If people who disagreed with Eich were going to boycott Mozilla, then people who agreed with Eich's stance could have changed to Mozilla products to support them. Just like in your example above. All of that is pure speculation on your part. If they would have rode it out, it would have played itself out and the brain dead media sheep would have moved on to another "cause" to harass someone over.Quote

How is that any different than saying, demographically black people eat more fried chicken? I would say that political affiliation is no more an indicator of fried chicken consumption than race or age. As far as I'm concerned, most people like fried chicken.

I'm not saying that conservatives eat more chicken than liberals.  I'm saying that, as compared to browser usage (and yes, I'm speculating, but based off of known trends) that it's more likely to be conservative.  People who are concerned with different browser types are more likely to be of a younger generation, which skews liberal.

[Cathal]

I could care less about the owner. I love that damn chicken.

This is really it. Their food is damn good (albeit, a tad expensive). Sure people may boycott them but others will make up for that lost by buying more to support Chick-Fil-A's position. If their food sucked, they'd be gone.

[pondwater]

I dropped Firefox a little while back, unrelated to this issue.

I haven't eaten at Chik-Fil-A in about a decade (aside from one time when someone treated me to lunch), which is too bad, because I like their food.

I'm like Phish, I could care less about the owner. If I like it and I want it, I buy it. Levi Strauss is anti gun and I am very pro 2A. I only wear levis though. Everything doesn't have to be a "cause" to fight for.

So Dave, you like Chick-fil-A but don't eat there because the owner doesn't agree with homosexuality?