Skip to main content

View Diary: Brendan Eich and Tolerance (162 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  In order: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tonedevil, anon004
    Are we not entitled to our own private beliefs?
    Who says otherwise? Eich's still entitled to his. What "entitles" him to be CEO of Mozilla (or anything else)? Nothing that I know of. He is, however, also still entitled to contribute to any anti-gay/discriminatory ballot initiative he chooses, as well as to bear the responsibility for any consequences occurring in the marketplace for any product or service he represents.
    When they do not cross any legal lines?
    Is Eich being prosecuted for - or been accused of - any crime? Red herring.
    His position was essentially the same as the Presidential candidate

    The position of that candidate:

    "I’ve stated my opposition to this. I think [Prop 8 is] unnecessary. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman...But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that’s not what America’s about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don’t contract them."

    And I, as were others who voted for him, was aware of that position (and the opposing candidate held an even more rigid one: he supported the proposition).

    ...a majority of voters in California held that opinion.
    7 million out of 17 million registered voters and 22 million eligible ones. And the amendment for which those 7 million voted was subsequently ruled unconstitutional by two federal courts, including the highest. The election was legal; the proposition was not, so: moot point.

    Now that all the distractions have been cleared away, I ask you this: do you possess the right to discontinue support of any product/service/company employing someone with whose views you strongly disagree, and to communicate that withholding of support to that company?

    Of course you do. That's all that happened here.

    •  My goodness (0+ / 0-)

      we can remove a CEO for having just barely, slightly different, views than the prudent. By all means persecute the guy for that. He IS being persecuted- run out of a position for his legal beliefs. Again I am not up in arms over this, but it is just so, fundie:. "Heretic! He does not believe the same as we do now (although we did too 5 years ago) lets make sure he cannot be a CEO".

      it isn't a red herring, his private views resulted in a hypocritical campaign to remove him as CEo by another CEo.

      The voters who cared enough about the issue to vote made their views known. You got the red herrings there.

      Sure I do, but it doesn't mean I SHOULD.

      •  We'll have to agree to disagree. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tonedevil, anon004

        I've answered your points and made mine.

        I'll even address one more, since you brought it up, with this question: "SHOULD" you continue support of any product/service/company employing someone with whose views you strongly disagree?

        That's for you to decide. In this case, that's what others did, and - again - that's all that's happened here.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site