Mozilla's Gay-Marriage Litmus Test Violates Liberal Values

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

Do you think an HN algo is demoting it, or do you think people are using "flag" as a proxy for "disagree"?

Well, there must have been on the order of 30 submissions of the anti-Eich articles that got no votes, but got flagged early.

I'm really bothered by this too. I feel like my freedom of expression is at risk by the internet mob.

I wonder how you'd feel if your company hired a CEO who would want to take away your spouse's benefits because [insert arbitrary reason here]. There is a reason why people are vocal: they get hurt otherwise.

Same here. To think that you can't even participate in the political process now without the thought police coming in years later to hold you accountable.

And some people wonder why various forms of political groups work so hard to keep their donor lists secret?

You can't have an open society when there are no reasonable limits on how people can judge and prosecute you for your privately held beliefs.

The point seems to be that pronouncing judgment for political expression only ends up making everybody more frustrated with the people with whom they disagree.

As someone who moves in circles heavily dominated by conservative evangelicals, I've been thinking about the parallels between this story and that of World Vision, the evangelical aid and development organization. They recently announced an intention to begin hiring married gay and lesbian people, if the marriages of those people were ordained by their congregations. This was described as a 'neutral' position in that they receive (or at least used to receive) support from quite a variety of churches including Episcopal, UCC, and ELCA congregations which support and conduct gay marriages where legal. But WV received a severe blowback from conservative church leaders and members, many who began withdrawing funding and child sponsorships over the desire to include married gay and lesbian people in their organization. Since the majority of their supporters come from more conservative churches, they decided after only two days to reverse course, lest they would no longer be able to support their core mission: to provide clothes, food, and shelter to those who need it around the world. This in turn disappointed and enraged liberals who had only cautiously supported the decision in the first place.

My point is that enforcing litmus tests, as described in the article, tends to divide people who have otherwise mutual goals to make the world a better place.

Curious -- Does anyone know how many Mozilla employees spoke out?

I only saw the first few articles referring to tweets by a small number of Mozilla's 600+ employees, but I haven't been following this story as closely as others.

People change.

This is a witch hunt from an action that someone did a long time ago. He didn't even do anything wrong. He just supported a mainstream proposition. He is on the wrong side of history, at that time, sure. But it doesn't deserve such a reaction. This mob justice is scary.

---

Edit: Censoring me with downvotes only proves how extreme things have become. My reasoning is rational.

You have never seen–and won’t see–“heterosexual only” and “gay only” water fountains, diners, buses, schools, in light of 75 years of oppressive Jim Crow laws.

You have not–and won’t–see homosexuals snatched away from their families at birth for the purpose of division and dehumanization.

Homosexual men/women have never endured a slave trade for generations and witnessed their ancestors dying by the numbers during a “Middle Passage” and being sold for raw goods.

Homosexuals have never been–or will be considered–non-citizens by laws of the United States that rob them of inalienable rights.

Homosexuals will never face a societal norm that allows–and even promotes–them to be beaten because they are seen as property and treated like cattle.

All of this is why I've always considered the "gay = racial minority" argument weak sauce.

Just because a person is a bigot doesn't necessarily mean that s/he is a bad person.

I've met racist people and even I am able to maintain some level of respect for them. This is what being open-minded is.

Hurting people just because they have a different philosophical belief than yours is the same kind of narrow-mindedness that leads to racism and religious fanaticism in the first place. Back in the past, if you said the world was round, people would classify you as crazy by virtue of you having an opinion that the majority did not believe. This kind of narrow-mindedness holds back open dialogue and progress.

As 'bad' as it is to be your definition of a bigot, to denote all bigots as having a broken moral code is as negative as bigotry itself.

I hate how people have this misconception that you have to hurt people to make them change.

On what basis is the claim justified that "he was fired" at all?

And, if he was fired (or, at least, given the choice to resign or be fired), what evidence is that that it was because of the donation (whatever it might provide "evidence" of), and not because of Mozilla board's concerns about the way he responded to the controversy over the donation? Managing corporate image is, after all, part of the CEO's responsibility.

This is silly. It's nothing of the sort.