Brendan Eich

[SeattleUte]

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.

Okay, you've said a lot here. Much of it I agree with. I don't think the opponents of proposition 8 were per se evil. I do think that they supported an evil. Calling it an act of concsience doesn't affect my view of that. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. However, for my part, I haven't punished or shamed opponents of gay marriage. I do think that in every instance in which I have seen this occur it has been business owners or prominent people who were hurt by their support of proposition 8. Aren't there employment and labor laws that forbid firing an employee for an exercise of first amendment rights?

My comment about the Orrick partner was a pragmatic one. If you are a member of a firm based in San Francisco and that represents many silocone valley companies be prepared to lose clients and suffer emnity or alienation by work colleagues if you support propostion 8, which gays and lesbians regarded as an act of extreme cruelty. Likewise, if you're a lawyer in Utah it may behoove you to be careful what you say about the LDS Church.

But I said there should be a statute of limitations. The times are a changin. That's what America is about and the very meaning of social progress connotes a change in perspectives.

[Walter Sobchak]

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.

The Atlantic agrees with you.

<http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...values/360156/>

Calls for his ouster were premised on the notion that all support for Proposition 8 was hateful, and that a CEO should be judged not just by his or her conduct in the professional realm, but also by political causes he or she supports as a private citizen.

If that attitude spreads, it will damage our society.

[...]

It isn't difficult to see the wisdom in inculcating the norm that the political and the professional are separate realms, for following it makes so many people and institutions better off in a diverse, pluralistic society. The contrary approach would certainly have a chilling effect on political speech and civic participation, as does Mozilla's behavior toward Eich.

Its implications are particularly worrisome because whatever you think of gay marriage, the general practice of punishing people in business for bygone political donations is most likely to entrench powerful interests and weaken the ability of the powerless to challenge the status quo.

And for SU:

“I believe, when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties, they lead their country by a short route to chaos.”
Sir Thomas More in Robert Bolt’s A Man for All Seasons

[SeattleUte]

Thomas More burned heretics at the stake.

Look, this is not about liberty or McCarthyism. It's a difference of opinion is all. I'm not saying I would have called for his ouster had I been in a position to do so. He yielded to the will of his constituents. Big deal. He's a big boy and this was not unforeseeable. The shareholders, customers and employees had a right to do what they did. They didn't lie, they didn't break laws. This is much ado about nothing.

[SeattleUte]

Also regarding the Thomas More quote, I'm not impressed by "consciencious" acts that offend my own value system. It was conscience that led Robert E. Lee to turn down Lincoln's appointing him supreme commander of the Union forces and lead the Confederates. It was a lapse of moral judgment pure and simple.

[Walter Sobchak]

Look, this is not about liberty or McCarthyism. It's a difference of opinion is all. I'm not saying I would have called for his ouster had I been in a position to do so. He yielded to the will of his constituents. Big deal. He's a big boy and this was not unforeseeable. The shareholders, customers and employees had a right to do what they did. They didn't lie, they didn't break laws. This is much ado about nothing.

Thomas More burned heretics at the stake.

Also regarding the Thomas More quote, I'm not impressed by "consciencious" acts that offend my own value system. It was conscience that led Robert E. Lee to turn down Lincoln's appointing him supreme commander of the Union forces and lead the Confederates. It was a lapse of moral judgment pure and simple.

My cousin knows Eich personally and published a piece on his blog defending his friend. In the entry, he included the quote above. It made me think of you.

[USUC]

OKCupid's protest might have just been a publicity stunt:

On Thursday, OkCupid released a statement saying "We are pleased that OkCupid's boycott has brought tremendous awareness to the critical matter of equal rights for all individuals and partnerships."

But there's a hitch: OkCupid's co-founder and CEO Sam Yagan once donated to an anti-gay candidate. (Yagan is also CEO of Match.com.) Specifically, Yagan donated $500 to Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah) in 2004, reports Uncrunched. During his time as congressman from 1997 to 2009, Cannon voted for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, against a ban on sexual-orientation based job discrimination, and for prohibition of gay adoptions.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014...ti-gay-firefox

[byu71]

OKCupid's protest might have just been a publicity stunt:



http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014...ti-gay-firefox

I heard that Andrew Sullivan thought the forced ouster of the CEO was ridiculous and that actually a lot of gays are denouncing this method in advancing their cause. Good for them and I will have a more open ear to their opinions going forward.

Sadly I thought the majority were solidly behind the marchers and whiners.

[Walter Sobchak]

Why on earth would anyone (particularly those of a conservative political persuasion) support disclosure of political donations? (Isn't there a case up before the SC about this matter?) If donations to campaigns (and causes) are going to be used against a person (now, or 10 years in the future) to dislodge them of their employment, not sure how SU can consider this "much ado about nothing". lol.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Why on earth would anyone (particularly those of a conservative political persuasion) support disclosure of political donations? (Isn't there a case up before the SC about this matter?) If donations to campaigns (and causes) are going to be used against a person (now, or 10 years in the future) to dislodge them of their employment, not sure how SU can consider this "much ado about nothing". lol.

I am encouraged by the national backlash on the firing. SU really whiffed on this one.

[Uncle Ted]

Why on earth would anyone (particularly those of a conservative political persuasion) support disclosure of political donations? (Isn't there a case up before the SC about this matter?) If donations to campaigns (and causes) are going to be used against a person (now, or 10 years in the future) to dislodge them of their employment, not sure how SU can consider this "much ado about nothing". lol.

It seems that you don't watch enough "House of Cards"...

My brother works somewhat high up in the government and political donations are pretty much a requirement for promotion. One would think that this is to make sure that political favoritism isn't used in job promotions. Actually the information is kept by the party and used within, I believe. In practice it seems that is how the job promotions in the government works. Not donating or donating to the party that is not in power isn't good for some government careers.

As for prop 8 some time back I saw a spreadsheet of Prop 8 donors and noticed it included a lot of people I knew including many members of my former stake presidencies. See:


https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?...XxE8wYX5qWeoIw


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...rriage/_2.html


Back when prop 8 was going on the ballot in California I was approached to make a donation as well. (Apparently, folks involved with this thought I was a good mormon of wealth and taste.) I told them I wasn't interested in limiting the agency of others. I am pretty sure my response was reported back to the SP. On the bright side I am pretty sure this helped me not receive any stake level callings that would just take a lot of my time.

[Walter Sobchak]

It seems that you don't watch enough "House of Cards"...

Haven't started it yet, been meaning to though.

I'm glad you turned down the Prop 8 donation, this means you are still in play for the position of CTO for the company I still work for.

[Uncle Ted]

I'm glad you turned down the Prop 8 donation, this means you are still in play for the position of CTO for the company I still work for.

And it is a good thing I don't see your name on that list. Otherwise I might have to fire you after I accept their offer.

[YOhio]

That would be fun for you guys to work together! But no more top secret SE guerilla campaigns.

[Walter Sobchak]

Relax YO, we suspended our guerrilla group after we got UT admitted into the SE (in a landslide IIRC).

[Walter Sobchak]

More Thomas More refs... this time from the NY Times (bold emphasis added):

And his offense was not to be an outspoken social conservative, a major donor to Focus on the Family, a public paladin for the religious right … it was to have made a modest donation six years ago to a ballot initiative that won a majority at a time when most Democratic politicians still defended the traditional definition of wedlock.

Or rather, it was to have made that donation and then to have refused, six years later, to publicly recant: While he twisted in the wind, Eich made a lot of promises about diversity and sensitivity and the gay and lesbian and transgendered communities, but he declined to say, “I have changed my mind, marriage is not the union of one man and one woman.” And for that refusal, he had to go.

So what we have here is not an example of an explicitly ideological institution making an explicitly ideological choice. (Indeed, Mozilla’s post-resignation statement rambled on an on about how non-ideological their culture is supposed to be — open to all forms of diversity, open to free speech and conversation and debate, etc.) Nor is it example of the usual ways (a mix of self-selection, social pressure, groupthink and subtle discrimination) in which conservative views have traditionally been disfavored in Silicon Valley or Hollywood or academia. Nor, finally, is it a case where a would-be leader went out of his way to publicly promote values noxious to his community and team and suffered the inevitable consequences.

Instead, it’s a more stringent requirement for conformity, with a much more stringent test: “Even though we insist that this is not an ideologically-motivated organization, still we have to ask — have you ever done anything to support the older definition of marriage, and do you privately still believe that it has merit?” (Eich failed the first half, obviously, and on the second he seems to have taken the Thomas More, qui tacet consentire approach … but that did not suffice.)