The flip side, which you seem to endorse, is that people should have no way to censure (in the realm of public discourse or social opinion, not any legal sense) those whose views they don't agree with.

Obviously, Eich had some widely unpopular views, and much of the country didn't agree with his beliefs.

No one sued him, no one jailed him, people who didn't agree with him on a widely-debated social issue of the day just created a media campaign to draw attention to his retrograde views.

I'm curious, though. If he were donating to a more offensive cause, like the KKK or something, would you hold the same position that his political views should be beyond discussion?

Yes. In my opinion, as long as someone doesn't try to preach KKK value in the community or come to community gathering wearing KKK robe, whether someone donates to KKK is beyond discussion.

On what basis do you think that someone's political views should be beyond mere discussion?

I'm trying to figure out why--discussing the views held by your fellow citizen--that is a bad thing. I'm trying to understand how that advances any sort of democratic principle, to draw the line at "you can't talk about what I donate to".

I find it very significant that Eich's supporters always reference "his beliefs" in the vaguest possible sense, and never "his belief that gay Americans ought to be denied various legal rights."

Denying legal rights to a group of people is not compatible with Mozilla's mission or spirit.

> ought to be denied various legal rights

I think you have to be a little more specific. If merely removing a former legal right is evil, who were the bad guys when a Maryland referendum removed the right to own slaves[0]? Yes, I went there, but hear me out. I think you need to talk about moral rights, not legal rights, because some legal rights came about because of bad laws or the court evolving the laws contrary to the voters' wishes. (By referring to the voters' wishes, I'm not endorsing "might makes right" per se but noting that voters essentially, if indirectly, define what is "legal" so you ought to appeal to morality instead.)

Also, if the correct position is that marriage in any shape is a legal right, are we going to crucify people who made polygamy illegal?[1] Or since they're dead now, can we hold it against any current official who does not actively support this kind of marriage equality? Is tolerating an unjust status quo less evil than changing it for the worse? Or, what argument can you make to prohibit polygamy that won't sound awfully like the arguments against gay marriage?

I'm maybe being crippled by idealism and naivety here, but I guess I'm bothered by people adopting fashionable causes as a reason to hate people who don't believe in them, when we're all hypocrites and there's injustice everywhere if you have an open mind.

[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/the-not-qui... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmunds%E2%80%93Tucker_Act

    I think you have to be a little more specific. If 
    merely removing a former legal right is evil, who 
    were the bad guys when a Maryland referendum removed 
    the right to own slaves

I think the answer to that is clear if you subscribe to the principal that one person's rights end where another person's rights begin.

It's certainly true that the slaveowners had the rug pulled out from under them in a sense but their legal right to own slaves infringed (to put it mildly) on pretty much every single human right the slaves had.

With same-sex marriage, on the other hand, it's very difficult to see how one person's consensual marriage could possibly infringe on another person's rights.

    Also, if the correct position is that marriage in any 
    shape is a legal right, are we going to crucify people 
    who made polygamy illegal?

You're absolutely right: the polygamy question is very tricky. I can't give you a single objective reason why it shouldn't be legal.[1]

It's incredibly fallacious, though, to suggest that same-sex couples shouldn't have the right to marry simply because there's another tricky marriage-rights question out there. (If we discover that there's a wrongfully-convicted person serving time in a state prison, should we make him stay there because we haven't figured out what to do with the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay?)

    are we going to crucify people who made polygamy illegal?

I'd say that we should consider their views in the context of the times in which they lived. The human race has come a long way in the last couple of centuries in terms of recognizing human rights.

Hopefully some things that you and I believe today will be viewed as positively caveman-like in 200 years. That's the price of progress.

    I'm bothered by people adopting fashionable causes as a 
    reason to hate people who don't believe in them

This and the "crucify" thing are really straw man arguments. I'm certain there are some exceptions out there but during the entire Eich/Mozilla public debate, I didn't see anybody (certainly not anybody prominent) claiming that Eich was a terrible person or that we should hate him.

I certainly don't hate Brendan Eich; he seems like a good person in general. Even if it was the right thing to do, which I think it was, nobody "won" that whole mess. The Mozilla community lost a great contributor.

___

[1] I believe you should be able to legally designate whomever you like as a family member and assign whatever family-related rights you want to them. The government should generally stay out of the morality business as long as everything is between consenting adults.

From a purely legal standpoint, titles like "wife" or "brother" or "cousin" are really just titles that confer various sets of default rights and establish a default order of precedence for inheritance and power of attorney. (On a personal level those titles mean much more to me than that, but that's my business)

> it's very difficult to see how one person's consensual marriage could possibly infringe on another person's rights.

Maybe to you, but others argue that it's bad for society etc. It wasn't so "settled" in 2008 when Eich donated and that cause won the election. I'm not even sure a significant portion calling for his resignation would have supported an apology, if he decided to change his position. This is the opposite of a free, healthy, diverse society.

> It's incredibly fallacious, though, to suggest that same-sex couples shouldn't have the right to marry simply because there's another tricky marriage-rights question out there.

My intention wasn't to suggest that, but to note that for some reason gay rights are popular and polyamorous rights aren't. If Eich had donated to keep polygamy illegal, not nearly as many people would have cared IMO. People are being denied rights in both cases, but only one is fashionable to support right now. That hypocrisy bothers me, not the legal status of same-sex couples.

This is veering further off-topic, but BTW I can think of one reason to not give all the same legal rights to polygamous marriages: it's maybe too easy to "abuse" by marrying yourself to every friend you want to give a piece of your insurance coverage, tax breaks, etc.

> Hopefully some things that you and I believe today will be viewed as positively caveman-like in 200 years. That's the price of progress.

But if you weren't on the right side just 6 years ago, you're viewed just as caveman-like and don't deserve your job?

> This and the "crucify" thing are really straw man arguments.

Perhaps it's hyperbolic. On the other hand, the counter-arguments invoking the KKK are too. There's a difference between going out in a mob and killing people, or donating money to a reasonably controversial cause that is part of our political process.

    > Maybe to you, but others argue that it's bad for society etc. 
    > It wasn't so "settled" in 2008 when Eich donated and that cause
    > won the election. I'm not even sure a significant portion calling
    > for his resignation would have supported an apology, if he 
    > decided to change his position. 

I think a lot of people would gladly have accepted a change of heart. I know I would have - perhaps for selfish reasons, since I used to think gay marriage wasn't the best idea. [1] Certainly the public has shown a willingness to vote for politicians who've changed their minds.

   > This is the opposite of a free, healthy, diverse society.

The executives of a company are held to a different standard because they represent their companies to a much greater extent than the average employee.

I do not expect every Mozilla employee or contributor to subscribe to a specific set of political views, and I've never heard anybody calling for such a thing when it comes to Mozilla nor any other company. But I'm not going to be eager to support a corporation whose CEO has views I dislike. As we saw, a lot of other people felt that way as well.

Think about it: nobody would really blink an eye if they saw their Pepsi delivery man drinking a bottle of Coke - but surely we can understand how it would be big news if Pepsi's CEO drank Coke in public, and if it kept happening it might lead people to question whether or not he/she is the best person to lead PepsiCo.

   > all the same legal rights to polygamous marriages: 
   > it's maybe too easy to "abuse" by marrying yourself 
   > to every friend you want to give a piece of your
   > insurance coverage, tax breaks, etc.

Yeah, it would certainly be a logistical nightmare! Imagine all the software that would need to be rewritten. We are probably talking about a mess to rival Y2K. Relative to the Y2K thing, less software would need to be changed. But the affected software would need to be changed pretty drastically.

_________

[1] I thought legally recognized civil unions were a better idea, but then I decided it'd be "separate but equal" all over again and that didn't work the first time.

He has fucked up personal beliefs-- this is a fact. These personal beliefs could have been kept in a box in his mind, but when he spoke on this publicly and loudly as a public figure, well.....

It'd be nice if we could all do work that allows us to voice our exact thoughts at every moment.... or would it?

> He has fucked up personal beliefs-- this is a fact.

You find them distasteful. That's your opinion, not fact. His support of Prop 8 and the legal ramifications of Prop 8, are the facts here.

> These personal beliefs could have been kept in a box in his mind, but when he spoke on this publicly and loudly as a public figure

So you're only allowed to believe something if you don't actually act on that belief in a way that internet stalkers can find? Hmm, hopefully there's never an unpopular belief someone has that you would say is good, because they'll decide to keep it to themselves instead of risking getting fired. I'm not sure his position was public or loud, at least not until people dragged it into public. All he did was donate, thus getting himself on a legally-required list of donors.

There could be dozens of employees at Mozilla, even some execs, who voted for Prop 8 (voting against gay marriage) but didn't fund advocacy groups so that nobody knows. If Brendan Eich hadn't donated but voted and if nobody thought to publicly ask his belief and got an honest answer, he would still be at Mozilla to this day, quietly oppressing employees and infecting the world with his anti-gay views through Firefox. Or not, because I haven't heard any accounts of his political views actually entering the workplace until activists forced them to. To the public and to Mozilla employees, it was pretty much indistinguishable from "kept in a box in his mind."

> Denying legal rights to a group of people is not compatible with Mozilla's mission or spirit.

1. What about denying freedom of expression? (Is it OK if society is repressive if the laws are liberal?)

2. The case for special provision for heterosexual couples has never really been considered since it's generally shut down as hateful (or awkward... most people put a premium on seeming nice) before the conversation even starts.

"you endorse a behavior that is in and of itself toxic -- publicly crucifying somebody because you don't agree with their beliefs... it's downright disgusting."

Lol, didn't take you long to become a hypocrite on that one!

But seriously, "someone" and "CEO of a major corporation that relies on its good image" are different things. We rightly hold them to different standards. Holding unpopular (and exclusionary) political beliefs is incompatible with leading a company like Mozilla.

I disagree sempai. Holding a CEO to a different standard than a common employee is a recipe for elitism.

I will reiterate that a person's beliefs have no bearing on their ability.

You hold CEOs to a different standard because they are the public face of an organization; their personal brand impacts the brand of the company. That's not elitism, that's common sense. If a common employee holds some unpopular opinion, why should anyone care? But if the CEO does, it damages the company, and the company should care about that.

Well, and go one further: if a common employee does hold an unpopular opinion and they publicize it widely, think how long they'll last at the company anyway.

Take a totally fictional example, a product manager at Intel who, on the weekends, has been leading neo-nazi marches and getting on the news. The reporters ask him, "what do you do to pay for all these flags and banners and tattoos?" "Oh, I work at Intel during the week. I'm a product manager in the networking hardware division."

Think how many weekends they'd give out that interview answer before Intel let them go for whatever reason.

I see what you did there.

So, would you accept a known racist in your community?

Let's flip this question around:

If the project owner is a known racist, should they accept a pro-equality person into their project?

Are you arguing that people should close off their communities to people with differing opinions, or are you arguing that people should close off their communities to people who you personally disagree with?

If it is the former, then you are short-sighted and petty, and if it is the latter, then YOU are what is wrong with the open-source world.

One of the major ideas behind the hacker ethic and the open-source collaborative ideal is that ANYONE skilled enough can contribute to projects, get their ideas heard, and improve the community effort. No amount of fascist and self-flagellating political bullying will make your walled-garden alternative a better idea than a truly all-inclusive community.

Yes, If a contributor spouts their political opinions on mailing lists or developer forums and derails discussions, then it is obvious that they are having a negative impact on the community. But kicking out a well-behaved and technically adept contributor simply because you don't like their views? By doing that, you have made your project appear FAR worse to potential contributors than accepting contributions from a "known racist" ever could.

The REAL "toxic people" in a community are those who try to get skilled and reasonable contributors thrown out because of childish political quibbles.

I would accept a demon that worked, rather than an angel that spoke.

A person's beliefs have nothing to do with the quality of their work.