Oh, come on. Let's not sling insults. I think treating others with compassion and respect is something that can go a long way.

I don't like Eich (heh) any more than the next reasonable human being. That doesn't mean I, or anyone else, should curse his name.

Here's the problem that I see:

Mozilla has now joined the ranks of many large organizations in adopting what once was, and should be considered taboo: lack of corporate neutrality.

Considered taboo? maybe. But don't lie to yourself that "corporate neutrality" has ever really existed, and when it has existed, its sole purpose has been to create a market. Gun runners, for example, don't care who their clients are or what they are doing with their product. Hospira, on the other hand, stopped creating the drug Sodium Thiopental (known as Sodium Pentothal) after it became the primary drug used in U.S. lethal injections (and also because they moved the factory to Italy, who wouldn't let them export it unless they could guarantee it would never be used for executions).

Frankly, most of this guy's post reads as "these companies support actions that are popular, and the public applauds them. A company or person support other actions that are growing less and less popular, and they are crucified. What's up with that?" To which I say, no shit Sherlock. A smart company will do one of two things: 1.) Support public opinion that they agree with, or see the writing on the wall about, or 2.) Keep their damn mouth shut. THAT is what helps the bottom dollar and makes the shareholders happy.

By giving money to a Pro-Prop8 fund, Eich, in effect, opened his mouth, and opened himself, and Mozilla up to criticism. Implying anything else is either naïve or disingenuous.

We’re all in this together, too, by the way. Christians are just as discriminated against as any other class, so I know what you’re dealing with.

Excuse me as I laugh into a pillow. At least I acknowledge that I'm privileged as fuck for being born white and middle class. Call me back when you've been pulled over for "Driving while Black", or dismissed in an intellectual conversation because you're a woman, or beaten because you wear a turban (which happened just this past weekend in new york. The man is Sihk, he's not even muslim). I'm not saying suffering should measured like a penis game, where everyone drops trow and compares, but perspective is certainly important when you get up on your soap box.

It's an interesting point, but it's also a long-winded way of saying "I'm important enough that I think I'm next." Lots of people have been dying to be persecuted (heh) because they want the attention. They've seen the passion play and they want starring roles.

He wasn't forced to resign, and he didn't peacefully oppose. The company, who's main product relies on a userbase to be able to use search engines which they are paid a (very, very small) amount to point towards Google by default. People were outaged at him and threatened to stop using the product.

Now they weren't outraged because he opposed gay marriage, but because he actively donated to a proposition to limit the rights of people. That was a political act, not a political belief, that relied on discrimination. Having a person like that as a head of a public company is not good, especially because it calls into question if he can reasonably separate his work from his personal biases. Would he not hire someone for being gay? Do we know if he have other discriminatory views? How can you know? And as a company, if you are paying a man, and he is using his own money to vote against gay marriage, you're indirectly doing the same as the company. Your name is attached to him.

Now on top of all this, he well and truly proved he had no right leading this company. He could have very easily lied and put this all to rest. He could have apologized for donated to the cause, said 2008 was a very long time ago, and made a simple sign of good will; but instead, he showed that his political acts and bigoted beliefs were far more important to him than leading the company. It simply didn't mean that much to him clearly. So he can fuck right off and go talk about the dangers of gays all he likes now, if he so pleases.

But that's pretty sad. The guy was forced to resign because he peacefully oppose gay marriage?

Not sad at all.

Eich was not qualified to be Mozilla's CEO. They are not a for-profit company existing to make money for shareholders. They are a non-profit organization existing to fulfill an innately social and ethical mission. Eich gave both his voice and tangible resources in the form of money to deny equal treatment under law to gay Americans. People within Mozilla and without rightly, in turn, voiced their opinion that he was not fit to hold the role of CEO for that reason. They were right.

Intolerance of intolerance isn't intolerance. Slowly but surely over the centuries our society is getting closer to giving equal treatment under law to all citizens...minorities, women, LBGT. We have a long way to go yet, but it isn't a sad day when a bigot doesn't get the high-profile job he wanted because because of his bigotry, not matter how civilly he wraps his words or frames his actions. It is right and good that people called him on this and the organization which exists for an ethical purpose recognized how unethical his actions were and his own refusal to justify them, and showed him the door. This has nothing to do with his 1st amendment rights or government censorship. He publicly held a stance and took certain actions that were deemed blatantly immoral by a large portion of the public and got called on.