My thoughts as a gay man on the Mozilla CEO thing

[Cyan]

Note: it's a little harsh, but I got really mad when I seen the news.
----------------------------------------------------
Wow, so the Mozilla CEO resigned because gay people wanted to force their opinions of whats right on him. Sure doesn't sound like bullying to me.

This is harassment, done by gay bullies who I feel should be at a higher standard, personally. It's good to have opinions, and differing ones as well, but when you try to get someone in a non-public position fired because of his beliefs you're passing the line from free speech to a fucking blood thirsty mob.

I thought the LGBTQ community stood for equality, but I'm starting to think the LGBTQ community is worse then hardcore feminists. You know the ones who hate men and want men to suffer while females prosper? That's what the LGBTQ community apparently is. It's quite sickening.

this man didn't use Mozilla's money to donate to prop 8, he used his own fucking money! HIS OWN MONEY! That's like if I got a mob, and harassed your work until you got fired because you went shopping at a non-union store, and thus "Didn't support unions like my mob believes you should."

A man is fucking more than his love or hate for sexual orientations, and preferences. I'm willing to fucking bet that if you're in a house on fire you're not going to stop and ask the fireman who comes to rescue you what his thoughts are on your sexual orientation, or gender identity and ask him to leave if his views don't 100% match yours. Personally, I don't care if my browser hates or loves gay people, I'm not that petty.

So yeah, I wish the LGBTQ community would quit being dickheads about getting people fired from private jobs because said people don't believe in their views 100%.

You're on your way to becoming just as bad as Westboro Baptist Church.
Seriously, grow the fuck up.
-----------------------------------

Sorry that it's in a angry tone. Feel free to post your thoughts about what happened, and what I said.

 

[Tucker]

 

[Laer_HeiSeiRyuu]

Ara you wrote that?

 

[Jacesonnall]

I've never seen a person like you from the LBGT community, Cyan. Probably because the only ones I hear about from that community are very vocal.

I've gotten blocked from LGBT YouTube channels ('oooo') for saying things like this, even when I make it clear that I'm above speaking out against homosexuals despite how I might personally feel on the matter (I'm at the point where if I was running a state, I'd make homosexual relations legal, because who cares?).

Great to see that people like you who don't have an agenda (other than being honest) exist.

 

[Cyan]

Ara you wrote that?

Ara?

Yeah I wrote it. I was, and still am mad about it happening.

 

[Laer_HeiSeiRyuu]

It's j-lingo. Pops up in mu writing now and then

 

[Ksquall1]

I really like how you summed up your thoughts. I feel exactly the way that you do.

 

[mattavelle1]

I couldn't add nothing more than what everyone has said. I agree Cyan great OP.

 

[Juegos]

I also agree. It's become too easy to bully public personalities for their stance on specific topics, particularly LGBT rights and feminism. It's gotten to the point where people are so predictable and blind about violently enforcing such ethos without thinking of other people on a personal level, that companies like EA have used it to their advantage (EA pretending that they got voted as the worst company in America twice in a row because they are "for LGBT rights"). But this hardly does any good. Anyone who preaches compassion and tolerance can't do so by setting the opposite as example. You can't beat empathy into people; you just breed more negativity and violence against you.

So what happens when the LGBT movement forces a company CEO to resign? The fans of that company, and the sympathizers of that CEO, suddenly have reason to despise the LGBT movement. Before, chances are that none of them gave a shit, for better or for worse. But after the fact, they definitely give a shit for the worse.

I leave with this piece from the Onion:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/supreme-court-on-gay-marriage-sure-who-cares,31812/

 

[Odo]

It works like that:

People must tolerate.

But if you don't agree with me, I won't tolerate you.

Gay marriage must be legal because of tolerance.
But if you don't agree with that, you don't deserve tolerance.

Mad & totalitarians LGBT party wins.
Everyone freedom loses.

 

[the_randomizer]

Yeah, we call that double standard bullshit. It's annoying as hell. He shouldn't have resigned or felt like he was being pressured to, but, he was. The LGBT community asks for us to be tolerant, but, if people use the right to not agree, they're labeled as bigots and hateful people automatically.

 

[Cyan]

Yeah, we call that double standard bullshit. It's annoying as hell. He shouldn't have resigned or felt like he was being pressured to, but, he was. The LGBT community asks for us to be tolerant, but, if people use the right to not agree, they're labeled as bigots and hateful people automatically.

Well, it's not that it's not a bigoted, hateful opinion, but it's that people should, and need to be able to have hateful and bigoted opinions about things without getting fired from their job as long as it doesn't effect their job, now if this guy started trying to take away Mozilla's gay partner benefits thingys then it would be a different story, or had used Mozilla's money, but he actually said to the company that their benefits were safe, and he would do nothing to change them, and the money he used was hi own hard earned money.

I.E. if Jake, the boss, is gay he shouldn't be treated any differently at work, but if Jake begins telling people he's only hiring men because he doesn't like girls THEN he should be fired. The Mozilla CEO (Now Ex-CEO) was seemed to be handling things just fine.

I find it really stupid to think any group will be accepted by EVERYONE when NO group before has ever managed to do that. The LGBTQ community should be fighting for the rights they deserve to have, not making examples of perfectly good CEOs that happen to have a bigoted idea that doesn't even effect their work.

 

[the_randomizer]

Well, it's not that it's not a bigoted, hateful opinion, but it's that people should, and need to be able to have hateful and bigoted opinions about things without getting fired from their job as long as it doesn't effect their job, now if this guy started trying to take away Mozilla's gay partner benefits thingys then it would be a different story, or had used Mozilla's money, but he actually said to the company that their benefits were safe, and he would do nothing to change them, and the money he used was hi own hard earned money.

I.E. if Jake, the boss, is gay he shouldn't be treated any differently at work, but if Jake begins telling people he's only hiring men because he doesn't like girls THEN he should be fired. The Mozilla CEO (Now Ex-CEO) was seemed to be handling things just fine.

I find it really stupid to think any group will be accepted by EVERYONE when NO group before has ever managed to do that. The LGBTQ community should be fighting for the rights they deserve to have, not making examples of perfectly good CEOs that happen to have a bigoted idea that doesn't even effect their work.

Exactly, it's bullshit, he shouldn't have to give in to peer pressure of such a group if it was his own money. Heaven forbid he uses that!

 

[sjmartin79]

I don't feel he should have resigned either, and I do think it went too far, but from a purely hypothetical standpoint, let's look at it from another angle.

What if instead of donating money to Prop 8, Pat Buchanon, and the other places he did... what if this were the 60s and he was the new head of a large, PUBLIC company, but before he was hired on, he had donated to the KKK or political organizations that supported Jim Crow laws. Just like with this, it wouldn't affect how he would run a company. There were tons of people against desegregation at that time. They were very vocal. They would have said he has a right to his opinion and to spend his money how he sees fit. (Now when we look back on those people who were for Jim Crow Laws and segregation, they aren't viewed in the best light. Yes, racism still exists and will for... well, possibly forever. But I digress.)

But do you think Dr. King or any of the other leaders of that time would have stayed silent? Do you think there would have been a public outcry in parts of the country? Consumers threatening to boycott? He most likely would have been pushed out of his position there too.

And do you know why? It's not because it was the right thing to do. It isn't because a radical group of a vocal minority caused it. It's because with him at the helm and completely legal actions in his private life, his public company could have been perceived as being racist as well. In the business world, perception is reality. (Hell, that's true for 99% of life too.) Is it right? Is it fair? Nah, probably not. But that's the world we live in. Companies are ruled by the almighty dollar, and this company and other companies would rather get rid of a very qualified leader than to lose any of their $$$ due to upset consumers.

As I said, I don't feel he should have resigned, and it went too far, but just like in politics, public CEOs have a higher level of media scrutiny. Hence why the mere mention of a sex scandal can cause a CEO to running from one company to a more private one.

 

[thelittlelaughingman]

He didn't resign by choice, he was pushed out the door.

 

[sjmartin79]

^Yes, I know. And in my hypothetical, he wouldn't have resigned by choice either. And I'm guessing 90% of CEOs involved in any sort of scandal don't resign by choice, even if they do say that they are "resigning".

 

[Odo]

Well, it's not that it's not a bigoted, hateful opinion, but it's that people should, and need to be able to have hateful and bigoted opinions about things without getting fired from their job as long as it doesn't effect their job, now if this guy started trying to take away Mozilla's gay partner benefits thingys then it would be a different story, or had used Mozilla's money, but he actually said to the company that their benefits were safe, and he would do nothing to change them, and the money he used was hi own hard earned money.

I.E. if Jake, the boss, is gay he shouldn't be treated any differently at work, but if Jake begins telling people he's only hiring men because he doesn't like girls THEN he should be fired. The Mozilla CEO (Now Ex-CEO) was seemed to be handling things just fine.

I find it really stupid to think any group will be accepted by EVERYONE when NO group before has ever managed to do that. The LGBTQ community should be fighting for the rights they deserve to have, not making examples of perfectly good CEOs that happen to have a bigoted idea that doesn't even effect their work.

Seriously, a world where you can't work without fearing of making public your own opinions and making public what you do with your own money, makes me worry.

Imagine, I work hard, I do what I should do, I make results, I'm a boss, but I'm not a tyrant, but if I make public what I think about things, people can get mad at me and fire me. This is outrageous. It's a system of fear.

 

[Jacesonnall]

@Negative_Hippie

Hope you find this thread useful.

 

[Negative_Hippie]

*ahem*

I respectfully disagree with the sentiment that he was bullied out of his position. Mozilla needs a progressive CEO. The CEO not only knowingly supported the removal of constitution rights in defense of homosexuals, but he did not even express any regret for his actions. This is not the equivalent of someone being fired for shopping at a non-union store. Shopping at a non-union store is an act of support for something other than unions. What he did was, he spent money as part of an attack on homosexuals. This is certainly not a homosexual problem - if it was, the largest story right now (tragically) wouldn't be about a now-dismissed racist basketball team owner.

 

[Cyan]

*ahem*

I respectfully disagree with the sentiment that he was bullied out of his position.
Mozilla needs a progressive CEO. The CEO not only knowingly supported the removal of constitution rights in defense of homosexuals, but he did not even express any regret for his actions. This is not the equivalent of someone being fired for shopping at a non-union store. Shopping at a non-union store is an act of support for something other than unions. What he did was, he spent money as part of an attack on homosexuals. This is certainly not a homosexual problem - if it was, the largest story right now (tragically) wouldn't be about a now-dismissed racist basketball team owner.

Mozilla needs a CEO who is good at being a CEO. Will their new CEO be "resigned" for his views on his personal life as well? I find that gay people more and more are falling into the "stupid christian trap" as I like to call it, since I first noticed it with ignorant christian people. This trap is the mindset that follows - "You're free to do as you want, as long as I don't think it's wrong." A example of this is the "religious freedom" bills that say you can refuse service to a gay person who wants to shop at a store. That's clearly messed up because you're bringing your personal feelings into work. this is also why you should find better places to donate money to aside of the red cross, which is known for being anti-gay/anti-choice.

But not once did my browser shut off because of my sexual preference while Mozilla's now ex-CEO was in charge. He left his beliefs at home, as a good person should. The fallacy in your logic is thinking that the use of the governmental system for something you don't agree with is a attack. It's not. Someone coming into your home and shooting you because of your sexual preference would be a attack on gays. What you're talking about is just using a system as it's meant to be used. In this life there will be people who are willing to fight for things you don't believe in, and I'd rather they make their point in the voting system then with a gun.

Lastly being gay isn't "good" or "progressive" or "right." It's just a sexual preference, and like anything else in this world there's going to be a lot of people who want to see you suffer for your preference. No one will be accepted everywhere, and no one will always get everything they deserve.

The important thing is to try to understand one another, and try to help each-other as much as we can. People are MORE then their thoughts sexual preferences, and thoughts on old books. Everyone is a person, and the second you forget that you've become just as bad as those "CEO's attacking gay people."

 

[Juegos]

I would RAP that post but I imagine there will be more and more developments on this, and I just want to keep reading the awesome discussion that comes out of it.

At the end of the day though, I would definitely advise everyone to keep this more-than-RAP-worthy line in mind:
"People are MORE then their thoughts sexual preferences, and thoughts on old books."

Here at TNE we're about the people, not the controversies, so while the controversies and discussions about all topics are great, don't let a dissenting opinion, regardless of how wrong you think it is, sour your opinion of someone else from here.

 

[the_randomizer]

Think I've had enough fun watching this thread, time for me to unwatch it.

 

[Negative_Hippie]

An anti-gay CEO is a liability. Much in the same way that an anti-black team owner is a liability. You're trying to paint this as a problem of the LGBT community (or I'm erroneously reading that from your posts), but you need to realize that this is a problem found in all minority groups (problem defined by whether you like it or not). Ever since the Civil Rights era, we witnessed a lot of people in power punished or damaged due to racist beliefs. We are simply going through the same period with the advancement of LGBT interests.

I appreciate the stance that it has nothing to do with his job, but quite frankly, it kind of does. Shouldn't LGBT Mozilla employees be able to feel that their employer has their best interests in mind? I mean, this isn't Don Sterling's racist rants, this was actually worse (although Don Sterling is overall a worse person for his discriminatory housing policies, that no one really talked about since he wasn't discriminating in the context of popular sports). What the CEO did was take his free opinion, and spend his money to make sure that his free opinion had more power than most other peoples' opinions by helping a movement to take away a constitutional amendment by popular vote. The whole thing in general was unconstitutional and generally un-American, but the fact is that this Mozilla CEO overstepped the line between "this is just my opinion" and into the "I'm specifically advocating against LGBT rights" territory. At that point, I would not trust him as a CEO, and I don't think that LGBT Mozilla employees should have to either.

 

[Cyan]

Mr. Hippy, did you just join to ragefully shout your gay rights opinions at people? Youre going to get what you give in this community. I suggest you give kindness and respect.

Sent from my N800 using Tapatalk

 

[Juegos]

I think it's fine that Hippie has strong opinions on the subject. As long as he's aware that not all his opinions will be taken at face value just like he shouldn't take all of our opinions at face value, it should be fine. This is the sort of place where we're ok with having arguments as long as we get to chill out the next day. I mean, we have pretty heated religion debates consistently, too, but that doesn't really stop us from coming back.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I admire the effort and intelligence put by Hippie into his posts, I would hate to see him go just because of an argument over one or two issues.

 

[Negative_Hippie]

Okay, Cyan, when you make a post that exists only as an attack on character, it makes it impossible for you to receive my respect. Address the issues. This is the number one reason why discussions like these fail - they stop being discussions like t his and become personal attacks against one group or another.

At what point did I show a lack of kindness or disrespect in my last post? Unlike your reply to me, where you make back-handed comments like I was "just as bad" as those who attack gay people, my reply had nothing to do with "you" but rather your "opinion." It makes me frustrated how often I make well-thought out disagreements and all I get in return are weasely replies that ignore everything I've said in favour of attacking me for making the disagreements in the first place.

If you found something objectionable in my post besides the fact that it exists, feel free to point it out. I'm fairly disappointed so far, because from what I hear you're a pretty great user. It stands as a huge disservice when you make posts like that where you can't even be bothered to have a dialogue with a person without making it about the quality of your opposition rather than what they are saying. You've not once acknowledged my argument that the LGBT outrage happens in ALL minorities - as proven by the fact that the biggest story was about a man who lost his basketball team for expressing racist views - and I would like to not make bad faith assumptions as to why. You made this thread, so please, instead of attacking people who don't agree, work to convince them and have a civil dialogue.

By the way, I was invited into this thread after making a handful of posts in another thread about a current event. The majority of discussions in which I have partook have nothing to do with this subject. So, if you want to have a dialogue about this subject, I would love to participate. If you would like to be disrespectful towards me, then I haven't any interest.

 

[Negative_Hippie]

Excuse any frustration in my post. Cyan, I respect your opinion on this matter, which is why I have done nothing more than disagree and give pretty significant elaboration for why. So please respect mine.

 

[JustTheTrick.tm]

I was going to put in my two cents, but I'm not sure I get a good exchange rate, plus the fees...

Possibly another way to look at it is that if the CEO doesn't reflect the rest of the business then it's not a good fit.

I agree with both sides here, but business is business and if someone is going to negatively affect business then they gotsta go.

Whereas Chick fil a should stick to their guns and be anti gay. If people decide to spend their greasy fattening food money elsewhere because of it then Chick fil a are their own worst enemy (and not those filthy homosexuals).

Maybe it's my British sensibilities, but the best way to stick your fingers up at something you're against is to do it with a smile. Fuck the bigots, but as long as we can have a pint whilst doing so all the better.

 

[mattavelle1]

I was going to put in my two cents, but I'm not sure I get a good exchange rate, plus the fees...

Possibly another way to look at it is that if the CEO doesn't reflect the rest of the business then it's not a good fit.

I agree with both sides here, but business is business and if someone is going to negatively affect business then they gotsta go.

Whereas Chick fil a should stick to their guns and be anti gay. If people decide to spend their greasy fattening food money elsewhere because of it then Chick fil a are their own worst enemy (and not those filthy homosexuals).

Maybe it's my British sensibilities, but the best way to stick your fingers up at something you're against is to do it with a smile. Fuck the bigots, but as long as we can have a pint whilst doing so all the better.

Alright dude quit already you can stay, your awesome!

 

[JustTheTrick.tm]

Alright dude quit already you can stay, your awesome!

You say that now... Don't worry, I'll spoil it soon enough.

 

[theMightyME]

http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s06e14-the-death-camp-of-tolerance

 

[Shoulder]

I was going to put in my two cents, but I'm not sure I get a good exchange rate, plus the fees...

Possibly another way to look at it is that if the CEO doesn't reflect the rest of the business then it's not a good fit.

I agree with both sides here, but business is business and if someone is going to negatively affect business then they gotsta go.

Whereas Chick fil a should stick to their guns and be anti gay. If people decide to spend their greasy fattening food money elsewhere because of it then Chick fil a are their own worst enemy (and not those filthy homosexuals).

Maybe it's my British sensibilities, but the best way to stick your fingers up at something you're against is to do it with a smile. Fuck the bigots, but as long as we can have a pint whilst doing so all the better.

This is similar to what I was going to say actually. I had a whole post a few days ago ready to go talking about how businesses run, Chik-Fil-A, Mozilla as a company, etc. Like you said, Trick, unless the business is adversely affected, it really shouldn't matter what beliefs that person holds, because at the end of the day, you can always choose to opt out in supporting whatever business there is. I personally didn't care for what the CEO of Chik-Fil-A had to say awhile back, so I don't eat there, simple as that (We also don't have those in our area, so win-win for me). No protests, no muss, no fuss. I just choose not to eat there, and if anyone has an issue with that, then they don't understand both sides to someone's beliefs and thought process. We have the freedom to believe in whatever we want, but at the same token, someone cannot say your beliefs are wrong and you should be believing in this and not that type of thing.

I may not always agree with what someone says, but he/she will also not agree with what I say, so it's a double standard. I can understand both sides of the subject when it comes to this CEO of Mozilla. On the one hand, this is his personal beliefs and not the overall beliefs and business practice Mozilla stands for, and as long as this person does not infringe his beliefs onto the model of Mozilla, what's the problem? On the other hand, by the very nature that there's someone who does hold a strong disbelief for same-sex relationships, there can be lots of people (just as I mentioned above with Chik-Fil-A) who may feel they will no longer support Mozilla as a result of his beliefs, even if it doesn't affect the company's business dealings. Money can always be on the line in situations like this.

One final note I'll add is Donald Stirling, who made racist remarks to his girlfriend, and now the NBA, the players, and loads of other people are asking for him to resign his position as majority owner of the Clippers. One of the big reasons why the NBA stepped in so quickly to ban Stirling for life was all business related. The NBA has loads of contracts, sponsors, advertisers, etc all providing money to the NBA and to the teams. If the NBA had not taken such a strong stance in this, the NBA would've stood to lose hundreds of millions of dollars because people would be pulling out of deals and whatnot. Hell, it's already happened with the Clippers, imagine if it was widespread to the rest of the NBA? They simply cannot allow that, so they take this stance to keep their sponsors, advertisers, and other contracts.

So yeah, there's two sides to this and I understand both of them. Perhaps in some respects, it was in Mozilla's best interest to have him resign, but in other aspects, it's just one man's opinion and beliefs, so does it actually affect the rest of the company?

Just my thoughts.