Brendan Eich

[SeattleUte]

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate...e-of-tolerance

Thoughts?

[SeattleUte]

Oh no. Some of you guys are in a lot of trouble.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2014/04/brendan_eich_quits_mozilla_let_s_purge_all_the_antigay_donors_to_prop_8.html

[Clark Addison]

Oh no. Some of you guys are in a lot of trouble.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...to_prop_8.html

Yeah, lots of Prop 8 contributors on this board.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Yeah, lots of Prop 8 contributors on this board.

Yeah, I don't know of any. A former colleague at a big SF law firm donated, though, and was excoriated publicly by one of his partners. This resulted in a public statement from the firm (Orrick) disavowing the shaming of the partner who had donated and expressing tolerance for all viewpoints. That was a smart move for the firm, just as it's a smart move by those who truly support gay rights. The fastest way to break down barriers is to treat the other side with respect, not scorn. This deep insight on my part may have application to other issues currently being kicked around.

[Blueintheface]

Yeah, not sure who you are addressing here, SU but it's obvious that tolerance and respect are paramount. If you're speaking to the church as a whole I'm hopeful at some point the powers that be will address the way in which they handled Prop 8 and how they've treated the LGBT community as a whole.

My father's youngest brother, a SP in Sacramento, refused to donate or do anything more than read the church letters from the pulpit and was chastised by the presiding authority. He maintains his membership and calling and writes it all off to fear and ignorance and has moved on.

[SeattleUte]

Yeah, I don't know of any. A former colleague at a big SF law firm donated, though, and was excoriated publicly by one of his partners. This resulted in a public statement from the firm (Orrick) disavowing the shaming of the partner who had donated and expressing tolerance for all viewpoints. That was a smart move for the firm, just as it's a smart move by those who truly support gay rights. The fastest way to break down barriers is to treat the other side with respect, not scorn. This deep insight on my part may have application to other issues currently being kicked around.

This is is not an easy issue. Here I see both sides of the argument. It seems that as more liberties are granted and society becomes more enlightened, the arguments become more knotty (though the LDS Church's positions are not enlightened about pretty much everything and it's easy to identify them as wrong). But Andrew Sulivan and others are comparing the forced resignation of a super wealthy CEO from a big rich tech company that needs to be sensitive to its public image in response to free speech exercise by directors, shareholders, employees, and customers with medievel burnings at the stake by religious zealots like Thomas More, and citing the First Amendment as authority for OPPOSING such forced resignation. This is just plain ridiculous, even ignorant. I don't feel to sorry for Eich. He's a big boy and should be willng to be held accountable by his fiduciaries and constituents for his own speech exercise.

What is a a partner at Orrick in San Francisco thinking donating to Prop 8? He wasn't thinking about the best interests of his colleagues. He should have; he owes a lot to them. His partner has good reason to be unhappy with him.

[LA Ute]

This is not about Brendan Eich, in my opinion. (I don't think Andrew Sullivan considers it to be about Eich either -- see his blog posts here and here.) My main concern is about intimidation of political opponents and chilling of public discourse. It is not an easy balance to strike. I'm hopeful that calmer heads will prevail and that people on your side of the issue, SU, will take the longer view.

Sullivan added this today:

Brendan Eich And Hillary Clinton

Some of the very same people who have jumped up and down with delight as Brandon Eich lost his job will doubtless be backing Hillary Clinton for president in 2016 if she runs. The “Ready for Hillary” ranks are crowded with gay men – and good for them. But it’s worth considering some consistency here. If it is unconscionable to support a company whose CEO once donated to the cause against marriage equality, why is it not unconscionable to support a candidate who opposed marriage equality as recently as 2008, and who was an integral part of an administration that embraced the Defense Of Marriage Act, signed into law by Bill Clinton? How do you weigh the relative impact of a president strongly backing DOMA – even running ads touting his support for it in the South – and an executive who spent $1000 for an anti-marriage equality Proposition?

[PaloAltoCougar]

What is a a partner at Orrick in San Francisco thinking donating to Prop 8? He wasn't thinking about the best interests of his colleagues. He should have; he owes a lot to them. His partner has good reason to be unhappy with him.

I believe he was the Oakland Stake President at the time. He made the significant, although less than Eich's, contribution without fanfare but when the donation rolls were made public, he was outed. The partner that rebuked him has a gay daughter whose marriage had to be cancelled (actually, simply delayed) because of Prop. 8 and he was furious, despite being one of the most mild-mannered people at the firm, at least to that point. As for the donor, he has actually done a lot within the church to promote change in how gays are perceived and treated in the church, including arranging a very well-attended seminar at which gay members and activists spoke; it was well-received, or so said the newspaper report I read a couple of years back.

Among large law firms, I suspect there are a lot of offensive, or at least goofy and potentially embarrassing, avocations of, or contributions made by, individuals. I'm uncomfortable with the idea that such things should be made public, especially when there's absolutely nothing in the public or professional conduct of the contributors that any reasonable mind could find objectionable.

[SeattleUte]

This is not about Brendan Eich, in my opinion. (I don't think Andrew Sullivan considers it to be about Eich either -- see his blog posts here and here.) My main concern is about intimidation of political opponents and chilling of public discourse. It is not an easy balance to strike. I'm hopeful that calmer heads will prevail and that people on your side of the issue, SU, will take the longer view.

Sullivan added this today:

Brendan Eich And Hillary Clinton

LA, both your points are good ones.

First, however, fortunately, this is only happening to rich CEOs, and business owners and managers and mangers of nonprofits and the like who had a lot of gay or lesbian shareholders, customers, employees, donors, etc. -- people who had helped make them prominent, elite and affuent -- and who really should have taken a longer or more pragmatic view themselves. The Slate article is like an Onion piece and fortunately not what most people are advocating.

Second, this may indeed haunt Hillary at least in the primaries. Maybe it should, but maybe somebody should declare a statute of limitations on this sort of consequence. One of our best most enligtened justices of the Supreme Court was once a Ku Klux Klansman.

[SeattleUte]

I believe he was the Oakland Stake President at the time. He made the significant, although less than Eich's, contribution without fanfare but when the donation rolls were made public, he was outed. The partner that rebuked him has a gay daughter whose marriage had to be cancelled (actually, simply delayed) because of Prop. 8 and he was furious, despite being one of the most mild-mannered people at the firm, at least to that point. As for the donor, he has actually done a lot within the church to promote change in how gays are perceived and treated in the church, including arranging a very well-attended seminar at which gay members and activists spoke; it was well-received, or so said the newspaper report I read a couple of years back.

Among large law firms, I suspect there are a lot of offensive, or at least goofy and potentially embarrassing, avocations of, or contributions made by, individuals. I'm uncomfortable with the idea that such things should be made public, especially when there's absolutely nothing in the public or professional conduct of the contributors that any reasonable mind could find objectionable.

These are all excellent points.

We're back to 1978, with the LDS Church making membership almost impossible for people to remain members who rely on the goodwill of the public for their happiness and well being or income.

[Moliere]

Obama should be the first to be fired for his rhetoric against gays during the 2008 campaign

[LA Ute]

What is a a partner at Orrick in San Francisco thinking donating to Prop 8? He wasn't thinking about the best interests of his colleagues. He should have; he owes a lot to them. His partner has good reason to be unhappy with him.

It was a political issue about a ballot initiative, and was for many people (including me) a matter of conscience. People voted and donated accordingly. You're succumbing to the same mentality that makes some people gleeful about Eich's ouster: that those who took the opposing view of Prop 8 were evil people, or at least supporting an evil. That's just leftish claptrap borrowed from guys like Saul Alinsky, who advocate demonization of those who disagree with them. The election's over, the courts are doing their thing, and the issue will be settled before too long. The idea that those who were on the other side must be punished for years to come is one I consider indefensible and that smacks of Maoism, frankly.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

Oh no. Some of you guys are in a lot of trouble.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...to_prop_8.html

Lol, mozilla forced out a CEO because of a protest started by OKCupid? "Hey we love casual sex and protests!" That's a powerful lobby.

[YOhio]

Oh no. Some of you guys are in a lot of trouble.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...to_prop_8.html

Political activists are such assholes. They should just dust off the HUAC and take care of it in one shot instead of having snipers take out random citizens from a 6-year old donor list.

[Surfah]

Lol, mozilla forced out a CEO because of a protest started by OKCupid? "Hey we love casual sex and protests!" That's a powerful lobby.

This was my first thought. OKCupid managed to force out the CEO of Mozilla?