> Then, he refused to apologize for it and dodged the question when asked if he would do it again. That's not "expressing an opinion," that's nearly sociopathic.
Forcing someone to apologize for something that is not universally considered to be wrong is a good example of bullying. As is calling publicly his behaviour "sociopathic".
> He was clearly working against his employees' best interest.
This is hardly considered to be a firing offense for a CEO -- in fact, in many cases this is considered to be good by many people, e.g. by anti-tradeunionists when CEOs fights with unions.
> Many productive employees threatened to quit because they didn't want to be represented by a person who explicitly expressed hatred towards them or their friends.
Saying that he explicitly expressed hatred towards anyone is misrepresenting the facts, and is another example of bullying.
I'm not religious, so I don't advocate for religious beliefs. I don't, however, deem people with non-violent religious beliefs, that differ from mine, to be "sociopaths".
So you'd be okay with, say, banning bacon because Jews don't eat it? I'm not arguing against a religious belief. I'm arguing against a religious belief being enforced by the government.
This isn't a disagreement over optimal taxation rates. There are people committing suicide because they've been demonized by people like those Eich paid money to support. There is real harm being done.
The alternative side to this argument is that if Eich discriminates against anyone at work he loses his job, but that inclusiveness includes including people we don't like - and that means Christians with weird but semi-private views about gay marriage.
The only reason anyone knows about his ciews is because political donations are public, not because of anything he did at work.
Yeah, sure, if you're privately a bigot, how is anyone to know?
But this was the CEO of a company unapologetically supporting a hate group aimed at many of his own employees. Then people have the balls to claim he was "bullied" out of his position as head of a major Internet company?
This isn't crazy programmer Ed going on about some conspiracy theory, this is the CEO of your company supporting hate directed at you and your friends. You can just wave Ed away. This guy is going after your fundamental rights. Screw that.
>But this was the CEO of a company unapologetically supporting a hate group aimed at many of his own employees.
There likely wouldn't have been a Mozilla corp or org if he hadn't founded the company and as Mozilla grew he did nothing to hamper its growth into a highly diversity-friendly company. Privately he had issues, likely religious, about the definition of marriage and this was, culturally, a mainstream view at the time.
> in fact, in many cases this is considered to be good by many people, e.g. by anti-tradeunionists when CEOs fights with unions.
Sure, but arguably they're benefiting the company then. In what way does denying some people fundamental rights that other people are allowed to have benefit Mozilla? It's a different situation.
> Saying that he explicitly expressed hatred towards anyone is misrepresenting the facts
It really isn't. Did you see the Prop 8 campaign? Do you know the kind of offensive garbage anti-gay groups spew, even today? They regularly call homosexuals pedophiles, rapists, accuse them of having an "agenda" to convert others to homosexuality, or that their god hates them. These groups are a wellspring of hate, and Prop 8 was no lily-white exception. The "National Organization for Marriage," a major supporter of Prop 8, has been classified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group.
That's what Eich was paying to support. If giving material support to a cause forwarded by hate groups doesn't classify as expressing hatred, I really don't know what does.
Forcing someone to apologize for something that is not universally considered to be wrong is a good example of bullying. As is calling publicly his behaviour "sociopathic".
> He was clearly working against his employees' best interest.
This is hardly considered to be a firing offense for a CEO -- in fact, in many cases this is considered to be good by many people, e.g. by anti-tradeunionists when CEOs fights with unions.
> Many productive employees threatened to quit because they didn't want to be represented by a person who explicitly expressed hatred towards them or their friends.
Saying that he explicitly expressed hatred towards anyone is misrepresenting the facts, and is another example of bullying.