What do you think is different between donating and voting in this case? If you think it is legitimate to have a promotion ceiling for donators to a particular political side, why not voters?
I wouldn't know how he voted, perception for a CEO is kinda a big deal. Plenty of leadership type classes are out there talk about all sorts of behavior and such, .. imagine asking in one of chose classes:
"Hey what if I financially supported a cause that would restrict the marriage rights of some of my employees, but not others?"
What do you think they'd say about his leadership there?
> If you think it is legitimate to have a promotion ceiling for donators to a particular political side, why not voters
I feel like the other post you're over generalizing to the point of irrelevance.
> Obviously the majority of California did not donate.
Donating and voting are the same, in that both are actions of people harboring views that are (supposedly) at odds with effective and fair leadership. Of course, donations make the inability known, whereas by only voting, the inability is real but unknown. I can't say for sure which people voted for Prop 8, but can say that most people are ideologically unqualified.
> I do think a lot of people are in fact unqualified to lead
Naturally only a small percentage of the population are qualified across the board to be CEO of Mozilla.
But that's not what's interesting. What's interesting is that most Californians have political views outside of the realm of acceptability for CEO circa 2014.
Specifically, he donated $1000 to Prop 8. If you're going by that standard....literally the majority of California is ideologically unfit to lead.