A CEO was fired for his donating money to Prop 8. Is this acceptable for a company to fire someone for their beliefs?

Should this be a litmus test for employment? Are there other positions that should not be allowed to filled with non-PC beliefs?

https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/03/brendan-eich-steps-down-as-mozilla-ceo/

There is a bit of an illusion that we have free speech without restriction. Economic and social pressures inhibit a person's ability to express themselves freely.

With regard to Mozilla, I think there was a bit of a contradiction between the stated mission to be an open, colloborative company and then have to a CEO who perhaps showed that he was not tolerant with regard to gay people. So it is kind of a unique company and so what happened may be unique. But it may be as well that gay people are trying to make outward signs of intolerance towards gays as unacceptable as outward signs of racial intolerance are unacceptable.

So the question is not whether it is acceptable for a company to fire someone for their views. Companies generally speaking will do what it is in their best interests and I suspect that it became impossible to have at least a perceived anti-gay CEO at the head of Mozilla. The guy could be a wonderful human being but Mozilla could not afford to keep him as CEO. Gays are a very small percentage of the population but a much larger group of people is finding intolerance towards gays to be, well, intolerable. And what happened at Mozilla is an indication of that. Clearly, this would not have happened even 5-10 years ago. The right to be treated as an individual and not as a member of a group continues to progress.

He wasn't fired.

I guess I don't know enough about the situation to say whether the resignation was purely voluntary or not. The fact that the company apologized when announcing the resignatio butn may indicate that he felt pressure to resign from within the company but I don't know. But, yes, the title of this topic is incorrect.

To me it was a case of being forced out. Who thinks he left voluntarily?

Whether Eich resigned (which he did) or was fired (was not) or asked to resign (well, that may be) is not so important, it seems to me, as the bigger issues here:

1. Freedom of thought and expression. Not only did Mozilla employees complain, but advocacy groups called for boycotts and/or over-stated the issue. In short, if you hold a contrary opinion, that is no longer acceptable; you must get in line or be hounded, vilified, and boycotted. You have no right to do or say something that offends anybody. Even if you said it or did it in the past. Whenever!

And isn't this just another form of bullying (which is supposed to be another official no-no). But irony and hypocrisy are commonly seen in the rabid snarlings of issue advocates. Never mind that Eich's business dealings show absolutely no evidence of mistreatment or bias regarding employee sexual practices or marital status.

2. Tolerance. Over the years the LGBT "community", worked very hard building on the importance and value of tolerance. But it now seems to have become intolerant of any kind of opposing point of view. Never mind that Eich's measly $1000 donation was made way back in 2008 (when most people (including Dems) opposed it, as well). I reckon that there is no statute of limitation for revenge and suppression. But it is very telling that the openly gay former editor of The Atlantic and New Republic, Andrew Sullivan, was highly critical of the "gay fanaticism" that pushed this opposition and result. He had a lot to say on the matter: http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/04/andrew-sullivan-disgusted-by-gay-rights-fanaticism-mozilla/

3. Guilt by Association. Never mind that Eich made the contribution before becoming CEO of Mozilla (okay, he's the co-founder, too). According to the news sources, the dating web site OKCupid posted an online letter of protest and would not permit users to access the site using Mozilla until Eich was removed. Apparently, some board members resigned to protest Eich, and employees demanded his resignation. I'm sure Eich resigned to remove further blowback on the company he helped found. But Mozilla must accept blame, as well, at least in the actions of various board members and employees who pushed for his ouster.

The website OKCupid, in fact, was proud that it had a role in bullying the CEO to resign. They posted "Today's decision reaffirms Mozilla's commitment to that cause. We are satisfied that Mozilla will be taking a number of further steps." http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/04/08/mozilla_anti_gay_marriage_boycott/ I wonder what further steps they think need to be taken?

While I don't agree with the way this man was hounded out of his position, I do find it interesting that Brad is so incensed since it would appear that this is exactly the sort of free market solution that he's been advocating so strongly here all along. It's not like the government had anything to do with it after all, it came about due to a revolt among a certain number of Mozilla's customers (or rather, a fear that the CEO's previous actions might cause reputational damage to the company that would lose them business). Isn't this the exact template for the way you think all such issues should be resolved Brad ?

Sassenach wrote:While I don't agree with the way this man was hounded out of his position, I do find it interesting that Brad is so incensed since it would appear that this is exactly the sort of free market solution that he's been advocating so strongly here all along. It's not like the government had anything to do with it after all, it came about due to a revolt among a certain number of Mozilla's customers (or rather, a fear that the CEO's previous actions might cause reputational damage to the company that would lose them business). Isn't this the exact template for the way you think all such issues should be resolved Brad ?

You get it Sass! Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

Some seem to believe that it is ok to hound him out of a position that an executive had in the past. Are they willing to apply this to all executives?

I, personally, am not. As Sass says, I am for the market deciding. I am wanting the market to decide in all cases.

george

not so important, it seems to me, as the bigger issues here:

You seem to be defending the right to broadcast and promote intolerance. against one specific minority.

There is a balance between free speech and the promotion of ideas and behaviour that seek to limiit the freedom and equality of minorities.(Equality of marriage laws is an equality issue... nothing more)
If he had promoted discrimination against jews, blacks, catholics or even women there wouldn't be a controversy about him being bullied. He'd be almost universally condemned for his past activities.

Intolerance against gays and lesbians has not yet reached the automatically reviled status that intolerance against other minorities has reached. But its getting there.
The majority of Americans, and indeed all westerners recognize that full equality for Gays and Lesbians includes marriage equality in the law. What Brendan represents is a vestige of thought that is becoming increasingly isolated. It isn't bullying to react aggressively against expressions of intolerance of any sort. And to be tolerant we don't nee to tolerate intolerance.

rickyp wrote:george

not so important, it seems to me, as the bigger issues here:

You seem to be defending the right to broadcast and promote intolerance. against one specific minority.

There is a balance between free speech and the promotion of ideas and behaviour that seek to limiit the freedom and equality of minorities.(Equality of marriage laws is an equality issue... nothing more)
If he had promoted discrimination against jews, blacks, catholics or even women there wouldn't be a controversy about him being bullied. He'd be almost universally condemned for his past activities.

Intolerance against gays and lesbians has not yet reached the automatically reviled status that intolerance against other minorities has reached. But its getting there.
The majority of Americans, and indeed all westerners recognize that full equality for Gays and Lesbians includes marriage equality in the law. What Brendan represents is a vestige of thought that is becoming increasingly isolated. It isn't bullying to react aggressively against expressions of intolerance of any sort. And to be tolerant we don't nee to tolerate intolerance.

RickyP, Do you think every executive who espoused a similar opinion, should not have their job?

It isn't up to ricky, or us. It's down to something wider - the market is not some magical force, it is simply the aggregation of individual actions. Markets are amoral - they can value the good, and also the evil, and the neutral.

As societal attitudes change, so will market attitudes.

It is not really a violation of free expression - it is more that freedoms to do things don't come with guarantees of no consequences. Offend a bunch of people and they may not buy your product.

The other thing about tolerance is that we are being asked now to 'tolerate' an intolerance - that we should not react to someone who wishes to use their economic influence to support moves to make the state less tolerant, manifested by banning same sex marriage.

And as for george's last passive-aggressive point, 'guilt by association' - Mozilla knew im 2012 that people were not happy about Eich's donation, and they appointed him CEO anyway. Cleary that was a poor decision on their part, given the reaction.

OkCupid are just another market actor. Had people disapproved of their actions, they could and would have boycotted them, and perhaps forced them to reconsider. But seems the point where the marketplace meets public opinion did not have as much of a problem with them.as it did with Eich and Mozilla.

bbauska

RickyP, Do you think every executive who espoused a similar opinion, should not have their job?

Danivon answered for me almost fully.
I'll only add, that if Brendan had been appointed to his position 15 years ago, I don't think there would have been the wide spread reaction.
And that is an indication of how fast society has evolved . Gays and Lesbians are not just a protected minority under law but under the court of general public opinion. The protections for equal access to equally recognized marriage under law lag public opinion. I'm not sure that's been the case with how fast public opinion changed for other minorities. I think sometimes the interpretation of the constitution and the creation of laws often informed and formed accepted norms later.
Its really a function of modern communications and media that gays have gained access to their rights so dramatically since the 60s. As an aspiring leader in modern communications I think the CEO of Mozilla should have evolved his thinking faster than he apparently has .... Although his resignation suggests he gets it. Too late.

“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian…it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”

So someone saying this back in the middle of 08, would not be eligible for being the Chief Executive? Tell me if you think that is the same thing as the ex-Mozilla CEO.

After all, that is why Mozilla CEO was "hounded out".

To answer Danivon though:
I see little difference between the market impact of a CEO and the photographer not wanting the business of the LGBT community. You say that market has the impact concerning a CEO, but the market should not be allowed to have an impact on the photographer.

bbauska - gosh, I wonder who you were quoting there?

Political office is not the same as corporate office. Expression of your belief is not the same as putting money into a campaign. I don't think anyone on Redscape has said what you want us to (so you could make such an argument), that any executive who did what Eich did should not be allowed to be CEO. I don't even think you understood Sass' point at at all.

While you may see little difference between Eich and a photographer who refuses to provide a service to LGBT customers (equivalence being your main line of argument it seems), you are making an assumption in your question to me. You assume that me describing how markets are is an expression of how they should work to the exclusion of alternative factors (like law, or fairness, or morality). Perhaps you are projecting a little.

Did we get rid of slavery through market action? Or segregation? Or bans on inter-racial marriage?