Hacker News Reader

Comment by masklinn | Hacker News Reader

> Mozilla is not an organisation with an agenda about marriage or LGBTQ rights.

They disagree with you: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/03/29/mozilla-supports-lg...

> Brendan Eich is not and never has campaigned against their civil rights.

Brendan Eich has given $1000 to remove access to marriage from same-sex couples. Marriage being a civil right (Loving v. Virginia) and money being speech (Buckley v. Valeo), yes he has campaigned against their civil rights.

> before this appointment Brendan Eich already held a "relatively important and visible position."

He was CTO, he didn't get to decide of Mozilla's overall.

> He was joined in his view by a MAJORITY of voters at that time.

And he was just as wrong[0] as they were, why does the majority being idiotic make things any different?

[0] since it was a majority voting for something which was later found unconstitutional

View on HN

>> Mozilla is not an organisation with an agenda about marriage or LGBTQ rights.

>They disagree with you:

Perhaps I was careless with terminology, perhaps you took an unusual interpretation of what I said (see below.) I will let each reader draw their own conclusion. What I meant was that Mozilla is not an organisation established with the specific aim of advancing LGBTQ rights, nor equal marriage rights for all.

>> Brendan Eich is not and never has campaigned against their civil rights.

>Brendan Eich has given $1000 to remove access to marriage from same-sex couples. Marriage being a civil right (Loving v. Virginia) and money being speech (Buckley v. Valeo), yes he has campaigned against their civil rights.

Well done, you quoted some cases and used them to redefine "campaign" far away from any natural and commonly accepted meaning of the word. If you want to argue semantics not substance we could around in circles all day except that I am not interested and won't bother.

>> He was joined in his view by a MAJORITY of voters at that time.

>And he was just as wrong[0] as they were, why does the majority being idiotic make things any different?

The people of California were voting for what they thought marriage should be, not whether gay marriage was constitutional. They were therefore not wrong.

Their opinion on what marriage should be was morally wrong.

Their action was also constitutionally wrong. When voters vote on propositions, they exercise legislative powers much as elected representatives do. As with elected legislators, they are required to adhere to the state and federal constitutions, even though, as with elected legislators, they are not individually punished by law for their unconstitutional acts.

Lets not pretend this is a universal moral. Their opinion on what marriage should be is morally wrong according to you.

If the standard were whether something is universal, there would be literally nothing bad enough to justify not hiring someone. Should serial killers be CEOs?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com