Gay Marriage

Mozilla CEO's Resignation Over Donation to Anti-Gay Marriage Campaign Sparks Commentary and Myth

Andrew Sullivan says Eich was "a victim of the free market," some conservative commentators have falsely been saying the donation information was obtained thanks to an IRS leak

|

Thursday it was announced that Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich would be resigning after only a few days on the job in the wake of employees drawing attention to the fact that he donated $1,000 in support of Proposition 8, the Californian anti-gay marriage ballot initiative in 2008. Proposition 8 did pass but was ruled invalid by the Supreme Court.

After it was revealed last week that Eich had made the donation OkCupid asked its users who use Firefox, the web browser developed by Mozilla, to consider using other software.

Some have claimed that Eich's donation in support of Proposition 8 is only public because of an IRS leak. In fact, the list of people who donated money in the fight for and against Proposition 8 has always been public and can be searched on the Los Angeles Times' website, as Reason's Scott Shackford explains:

Two days ago, an anonymous tech industry worker wrote a piece about the outrage against Eich at First Things, a journal produced by nonprofit Institute on Religion and Public Life. The anonymous worker stated that Eich's donation came to light in 2012, "after the Internal Revenue Service leaked a copy of the National Organization for Marriage's 2008 tax return to a gay-advocacy group." This information is now being attached and included in coverage on other conservative blogs as well.

But it's not accurate. The names of all donors in the Proposition 8 battle, for and against, have always been public information, even before the election. The Los Angeles Times has a searchable database here. Eich's name is on it (as is mine—I gave $100 in opposition and ultimately regretted it after seeing the horrible, useless ads they put together to fight Prop. 8). The information came from the California secretary of state's office, not some IRS leak. This database is not dated, but they were available and were online at some media outlets prior to the 2008 vote.

In an article for TIME magazine Reason's Nick Gillespie argues that Eich's resignation is an example of businesses responding to market signals:

Whether you care about gay marriage or politically correct web experiences, Eich's resignation shows how businesses respond to market signals. "Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech," writes Mitchell Baker, the organization's executive chairwoman, in announcing Eich's stepping down. "And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard."

Just as the Internet has empowered consumers to find cheaper prices, more-extensive reviews, and a wider variety of goods than ever before, it's also made it easier for them to call out companies for all sorts of dastardly actions, screw-ups, and problems. I like that OKCupid's intervention wasn't a call for government action to limit people's choices or ban something. Indeed, OKCupid didn't even block Firefox users from its site — rather, it politely asked them to consider getting to the site via a different browser.

Over at The Dish Andrew Sullivan says that Eich's resignation highlights a degree of fanaticism in the gay rights movement similar to that seen in the religious right:

Will he now be forced to walk through the streets in shame? Why not the stocks? The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us.

In another post Sullivan wrote Eich was "a victim of the free market":

He did not understand that in order to be a CEO of a company, you have to renounce your heresy! There is only one permissible opinion at Mozilla, and all dissidents must be purged! Yep, that's left-liberal tolerance in a nut-shell. No, he wasn't a victim of government censorship or intimidation. He was a victim of the free market in which people can choose to express their opinions by boycotts, free speech and the like. He still has his full First Amendment rights. But what we're talking about is the obvious and ugly intolerance of parts of the gay movement, who have reacted to years of being subjected to social obloquy by returning the favor.

More from Reason on gay marriage here

Advertisement

NEXT: No, the IRS Didn't Leak Mozilla Ex-CEO's Donation in Opposition to Gay Marriage

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This type of intolerance is rampant not only in this case, but is pervasive throughout the entire tech world. I have been subjected to the same king of high-tech lynching as Eich, merely because I disputed the concept of “gender inequality” in an international science conference.

    Attacking the sacred cows of the Left, even if it is your personal opinion, can be just as deadly as blacks opposing the KKK in the ’60s.

    1. Attacking the sacred cows of the Left

      On economic issues i’m farther to the right than most on the right.

      My sexual orientation has nothing to do with “the Left”. It’s not my fault that i’m attracted to scents put off by both the same and opposite sexes.

      You sound like one those “you’re a racist if you hate racists” contrarians.

      1. “My sexual orientation has nothing to do with “the Left”.”

        It also has nothing to do with your job.

        “You sound like one those “you’re a racist if you hate racists” contrarians.”

        You sound like a grievance mongering asshole.

        1. It also has nothing to do with your job.

          I never said it did.

          You sound like a grievance mongering asshole.

          You sound like a thirteen year old with a username like “TransVaginalMesh”.

          1. You sound like someone who lost the debate and has resorted to cheapshotting screen names.

            1. The butt hurt is strong with this one…

        2. Well said.

      2. He’s talking about the intolerance of the tolerance crowd. It’s a pretty valid assertion to make considering the behavior of these tolerance warriors against those with whom they disagree.

        1. Is hating racists the same as being a racist?

          1. It’s a form of bigotry to toss around the racist label without regard. Most people who actively apply the label to others do so for political reasons or plain ole ad Hominem. Nor is it the biggest deal in the world, that the “anti-racists” make it out to be.

            1. If Al Sharpton, to name one shining example, really thought that racism was the most immoral and egregious offense against humanity, he would put a gun to his head and pull the trigger.

              1. Al Sharpton has a history of racism. He is a hypocrite and a very poor example to use.

                1. Ummmm? Is used him because he’s an obvious racist who is also self-described anti-racist. That’s exactly why I used that as an example when discussing the hypocrisy of the “anti-racists”. Is that really not obvious to you?

                  I’m trying to figure out if you really don’t know how incorporate logic into your thinking, or if you just feign to have poor reading comprehension to distract from your shitty arguments.

                  1. How can Al Sharpton be a real anti-racist when he’s actually a racist himself? Use a different example, and no Jesse Jackson doesn’t count either.

                    Does being anti-homophobia make someone homophobic?

                    1. “How can Al Sharpton be a real anti-racist when he’s actually a racist himself?”

                      “used him because he’s an obvious racist who is also self-described anti-racist.”

                      Like I said, weird blend of stupid/incoherent/illiterate that just doesn’t make any sense.

                  2. I can’t figure it out either, it’s a weird blend of stupid/incoherent/illiterate that just doesn’t make any sense.

                    1. “self-described” does not count.

                    2. It does to Al Sharpton.

                    3. “self-described” does not count.

                      It does when you’re calling someone a hypocrite. So once again we’ve come back to the key question: ‘what the fuck are you talking about?’ Do you realize how irrational and disingenuous you appear to others?

                      I like these debates with you because your every word is a win for teaching people how not to think. But on the other hand it’s like beating up a paralyzed retard for the good of the boxing sport. So I’m conflicted.

                    4. All spice no protein.

      3. What a bullshit statement. The fact is the left viciously oppresses any speechwriter which they disagree. Those of us who are not progressives are tired of this crap.

        So like it or not, the left has made pretty Goddamn sure your sexual orientation is their business and are crusading for it against decent people who don’t agree with them.

        I personally don’t give a shit about who you’re interested in fucking or not. But when the rest of us are forced to restructure society, and participate in activities related to your orientation, I have a huge problem.

        I think most people are just fine with ‘leave us alone’. But now it’s , ’embrace our behavior’ and ‘bake us a cake or else’.

        1. Define decent. I only believe in things for which there is evidence so religious arguments don’t count, and if you wear short sleeve shirts you’re a hypocrite.

    2. “Attacking the sacred cows of the Left, even if it is your personal opinion, can be just as deadly as blacks opposing the KKK in the ’60s.”

      This is ridiculous hyperbole

      1. Not anymore it isn’t. They will destroy your life if they can.

        1. Yes it is. Only someone who is completely ignorant of the threat the KKK posed to those who opposed them would actually think that’s a valid comparison.

          I didn’t think he deserved to get fired for simply opposing gay marriage, but it’s Mozilla’s decision to make. Nobody was forced to do anything, they had a PR headache on their hands and chose to deal with it how they saw fit. That isn’t oppression, nor is it “deadly.”

          It seems especially absurd to somehow imply that being anti-gay marriage in this country is putting yourself at greater risk of harm than being gay. With the exception of a few localities here or there, that’s categorically false.

          1. “it’s not deadly” is simply a difference in degree, not in kind. If your career and reputation can effectively be trashed for not thinking the “proper” thoughts, that’s a hell of a lot of power people have over you.

      2. “”Attacking the sacred cows of the Left, even if it is your personal opinion, can be just as deadly as blacks opposing the KKK in the ’60s.”

        This is ridiculous hyperbole”

        I agree, that statement is hyperbolic. That doesn’t mean those on at OKCupid weren’t PC assholes and that Mozilla wasn’t stupid. But the whole episode isn’t nearly to the level of a lynching or even a cross burning.

        1. I was just commenting on the absurdly hyperbolic and frankly offensive nature of that comparison, I wasn’t giving an opinion on this situation.

          I agree that people made too big a deal about this, although I don’t know if Mozilla made the wrong move. It was bad PR, rightly or wrongly, although I suppose this could result in a Chik-fil-A type situation where anti-gay marriage people boycott Firefox.

        2. Your defense of the left tells me what an idiot you are.

    3. The jackbooted thugs are the of the same ilk – they just now have better dress sense.

  2. May two brothers marry one another?

    Perhaps a mother might marry her two daughters?

    If four gay males marry one another, will that be okay?

    If two guys want to marry one another, but say they are not gay, is that acceptable?

    If not, why not?

    1. Incest is completely different than being attracted to the scents put off by the same sex, and not everyone in a same-sex relationship is HOMOsexual.

      1. “Incest is completely different than being attracted to the scents put off by the same sex,”

        The same is true of the opposite sex.

        Your answer was anything but useful, and didn’t address anything he asked at all.

        1. The same is true of the opposite sex.

          I like those scents too, but he wasn’t comparing incest to that.

          Your answer was anything but useful, and didn’t address anything he asked at all.

          Your reply was anything but useful, and didn’t address anything I said at all.

          1. He wasn’t comparing anything to anything, he was pondering hypotheticals.

            “didn’t address anything I said at all.”

            Except I said “The same is true of the opposite sex.” in direct response to you, and it advances the discussion, so you’re lying because you have no response.

            Is that your plan, to simply lie?

            1. He was not comparing those hypotheticals to opposite-sex relationships but same-sex ones.

              1. No, he wasn’t comparing anything to anything, he was pondering hypotheticals.

                Stop trying to change the basis of the discussion to avoid looking like an idiot, it’s too late.

              2. In addition, you claimed

                “Your reply… didn’t address anything I said at all.” which I deonstrated was a lie.

                Are you ok with being a liar?

                Why was your response only to address the already disproven assertion that he was making comparisons?

                You made a false claim, and now having had the chance to correct it, allowed it to stand unmodified.

                I have to conclude that you are ok with being a liar and unconcerned with your credibility.

                1. Stop trying to change the basis of the discussion to avoid looking like an idiot, it’s too late.

                  You already did that by posting under the name “TransVaginalMesh”.

                  1. Conceding defeat this soon?

                    I guess you can’t get out of being a liar.

                  2. Stop trying to change the basis of the discussion to avoid looking like an idiot, it’s too late.

                    You already did that by posting under the name “TransVaginalMesh”.

                    Hey look, Mary’s back and she’s still mentally ill.

                    1. It’s like debating the intricacies of the English language with an alien that’s never heard vocal communication.

                  3. Well, that proved your point.

    2. May two brothers marry one another?

      If they are both consenting adults, sure. This sort of relationship is almost universally frowned upon. Social disapproval is enough to deter the regularity of such relationships. Not to mention psychological and biological factors that mitigate it.

      Perhaps a mother might marry her two daughters?

      Repulsive? Yes. Consenting adults? Then yes.

      If four gay males marry one another, will that be okay?

      Yep.

      I don’t see how you are an interested party in any of these hypothetical relationships. Your personal preferences about the voluntary relationships of other people is entirely irrelevant. Any attempt to enforce those preferences is thoroughly immoral.

      1. Immoral? I guess you have never heard of Societal norms. Homosexuality is a perversion. I guess you are alright with perverts? Maybe you are one yourself.

        I don’t know that, but I do know that you are a fool.

        1. Believing in big government is a societal norm.

  3. let’s be clear here, part of the hysteria is the silent threat of lawsuits somewhere down the line, along with vigilante justice in the form of DoS attacks and the like

    1. Or maybe they just don’t want a cultural luddite on their board.

      1. Cultural Luddite? Is that just a poorly constructed metaphor, or is there some other meaning you’re going for?

        1. He’s just taking potshots because he’s wrong and knows it.

          1. Ironically Mozilla’s decision to remove him, which is why this story was posted in the first place, proves me right.

            Unlike some mom/pop store in hee-haw corporations have multiple owners and the other owners didn’t want him. That’s very basic knowledge contemporary economics.

            1. Is that a response to something?

            2. and so I someone doesn’t “accidentally” take my comment out of context the modern private corporation is a fairly recent phenomenon.

              1. “and so I someone doesn’t “accidentally” take my comment out of context the modern private corporation is a fairly recent phenomenon.”

                You’re not even coherent, you really don’t need to worry about your comment being taken out of context, when the context is hot steaming incoherent stupid.

              2. Is that a response to anything? Are you just randomly proclaiming victory over arguments that aren’t being made?

            3. Well, it proves you’re a bigot.

              If you are ok with that, that’s your cross to bear.

              1. Well, it proves you’re a bigot.

                Explain.

                1. Um, do you not know what “bigot” means”/

                  In addition, you claimed

                  “Your reply… didn’t address anything I said at all.” which I deonstrated was a lie.

                  Are you ok with being a liar?

                  Why was your response only to address the already disproven assertion that he was making comparisons?

                  You made a false claim, and now having had the chance to correct it, allowed it to stand unmodified.

                  I have to conclude that you are ok with being a liar and unconcerned with your credibility.

                  1. Trans, he. Is a self proclaimed liberal. So by definition he is dishonest. Everything for him. Is about how he feels. Logic and rationality escape him.

                    1. Well, he’s actually a self-proclaimed classical liberal. Not the same thing as what the term “liberal” generally refers to in the US

                    2. And nothing he has said here makes me wrong.

                    3. Its arguments make me doubt the ClassicLiberal portion of its moniker.

                    4. His username has the modern disqualifier “classical” appended to liberal. With that disqualifier he is unknowingly describing himself along the lines of contemporary libertarians. We can add his username to the list words he tosses around without knowing it’s meaning or context.

                    5. @ Free Society

                      Not all classical liberals adhere to the libertarian ideology.

                      What else are you going to call a fiscally conservative civil libertarian who does not adhere to the libertarian ideology?

              2. “Well, it proves you’re a bigot.”
                /DERP

                1. which sock puppet are you now?

              3. Calling someone a bigot is similar to calling someone a racist. It says a lot more about the accuser than the person being accused.

            4. Earth to stupid asshole: He resigned. He wasn’t fired.

    2. Yeah that must be it. Mozilla is really vulnerable to lawsuits because their CEO donated $1,000 of his own money to a political campaign six years ago (when he wasn’t at Mozilla).

  4. As long as no minors are involved, who cares how many people enter into a voluntary contract and call it “marriage?”

    1. Political institutions care. And they’re all the more evil for it. Freedom of association is absolute and any violation of it is tyranny.

    2. “As long as no minors are involved, who cares how many people enter into a voluntary contract and call it “marriage?””

      Well most taxpayers will eventually care. There are a lot of free bennies to be had by being “married”. And while “gay” marriage might be occasionally useful in this regard, it’s unlikely to drastically effect the current government tax / allowed benefit structure. But any kind of multiple marriage will probably become a huge tax shelter and a way to glom on to any employer offering premium benefits. The Feds for example.

      Certainly line marriages could be used to permanently avoid inheritance taxes.

      Now my personal opinion is that we should change the tax structure, but there are going to be plenty of lawsuits over the ongoing societal changes to the concept of marriage.

      1. Well most taxpayers will eventually care. There are a lot of free bennies to be had by being “married”.

        I hope someone reminds the tax-victims that one injustice does not justify another. If the government is unduly awarding benefits, take it up with them, instead of taking it up with other people’s liberty.

        Beyond protecting people’s right to freely associate and their right not to associate, the law has no valid authority on the issue of marriage.

        1. Yep. That’s why marriage and taxes should be separated.

          As far as benefits, my previous employer voluntarily covered same-sex couples. If employers/insurers don’t want to cover multiple partners, then too bad.

          But, I agree, as a first step, to eliminate any tax preference for married people (and simplify the tax code in general).

          1. Eliminate all social engineering, whether it’s the government offering a carrot or a stick, the law of unintended consequences renders such policies to be ineffective at best and destructive at worst. Not to mention it’s totally immoral, but that can be said of all government action.

    3. But if all marriage becomes is just a contact between consenting adults, what will stop a baby from marrying ten goats?!!!!!!

      1. I guess you think you are being funny. Actually you are showing your ignorance.

  5. Personally, I support the right of any adult to marry any other adult. I don’t even care if you want to marry multiple adults. It’s not my business what you do in the privacy of your own home.

    That being said, this was a terrible example of bullying. Assuming the Eich was truly the best suited for the job, his being forced to resign means that we will potentially receive an inferior product. If someone’s personal opinions do not influence how they treat people in their company or their customers, it should not matter.

    The ultimate end result is that companies will now feel justified in hunting down every aspact of your history to ensure they can’t receive any backlash and this means that the products being produced by companies will be potentially inferior because the person best suited to do the job may not be politically correct. This is not a path I want to see taken to the end.

    1. Would you have a problem if a company kicked a racist or theocrat off of their board? And the term “politically correct” means politically expedient, not anything that goes against the notion of an invisible man sitting on a cloud floating over Israel, and Mozilla is not and has never been a culturally conservative company.

      1. Yes I would IF their beliefs were not in any way related to, as I said in the example, how they actually treat people in the company and customers. Fact is, there’s LOTS of bigots out there who go to work every day and don’t actually treat anyone poorly. Companies should not be in the habit of punishing people based on their beliefs.

        1. Companies tend to punish what markets punish. Freedom of association is a two way street.

          1. He wasn’t CEO long enough to know if the market would actually have a negative impact. As far as I know, Chick-fil-a is doing just fine despite the previous boycott. This was a knee-jerk reaction to some negative press.

            I get that this is a result of Freedom of Association, but all I see is that the quality of products available on the market are reduced because of people not liking a personal belief. If I need brain surgery, I want it from the best surgeon, not the best surgeon who didn’t get let go because of their personal beliefs.

            1. Public perception influences the otherwise rational decisions of consumers. In this case the negative public perception was great enough that Mozilla’s owners felt they couldn’t ignore it. It may or may not have been the right decision, but there is no question that they had every right to make it.

      2. If you accept this, the flipside becomes true. If it’s a company in the Bible Belt, for example, if it came out that a CEO was supporting same-sex marriage and that information caused people to boycott the company, that company would have the right to remove this CEO. Mozilla didn’t remove Eich because they didn’t agree with his politic; they removed him because of the negative backlash.

        1. They do have that right.

        2. Absolutely.

      3. Another bullshit argument. In 2008′, he held the same position on this issue that Obama, and both the Clinton’s held. And you’re comparing this guy to KKK and Nazi’s?

        Seriously, go fuck yourself.

        1. I never voted for Obama or any other Democrat.

          1. Which in no way relates to my statement. Don’t care who you voted for. I said Eich held the same views on this subject as Obama and the Clinton’s.

    2. There is already a backlash. I have been on a lot of sites where the commenters are saying they will no longer use Mozilla products. My wife and I deleted Firefox and went back to IE.

      I will boycott any company that penalizes their employees for their opposition to gay marriage or homosexuality in general.

      Decisions have consequences.

  6. Mozilla’s a lost cause anyways. Sure if I weren’t on a Unix system I would take Firefox over Internet Exploder with no hesitation but Chrome, Opera and Safari beat Firefox any day (unless you’re into pirating low quality YouTube videos, in which case there’s an extension for that).

    That being said, RIP Foxy.

  7. “Would you have a problem if a company kicked a racist or theocrat off of their board?”

    If they make money? Yes I would.

    Business isn’t about making fags feel good, or queers feel included. It’s about making money.

    “And the term “politically correct” means politically expedient”

    Yeah, that’s just plain fucking stupid Tulpa.

    And your new sock is weak sauce.

    1. Is Tulpa? I just assumed it was some teenage who discovered these newfangled political terms and has no idea what they mean or how to use them.

      1. Is Tulpa. No idea why he decided to show his face again.

    2. Godless people make more money.

      Business isn’t about making fags feel good, or queers feel included. It’s about making money.

      Ironically gays and bisexuals are far more likely to be business owners than government employees.

      1. None of which has anything to do with the point.

        In addition, you claimed

        “Your reply… didn’t address anything I said at all.” which I deonstrated was a lie.

        Are you ok with being a liar?

        Why was your response only to address the already disproven assertion that he was making comparisons?

        You made a false claim, and now having had the chance to correct it, allowed it to stand unmodified.

        I have to conclude that you are ok with being a liar and unconcerned with your credibility.

        1. You posted much of the same nonsense in another reply.

          Only a teenager would post under a name like “TransVaginalMesh” and more often than not it’s teenagers who are as idealistic as “Free Society”.

          1. So your response to being proven a liar…is to cheapshot my scree name?

            You’re still a lair if I change it.

            You’re still a liar if I’m 5 years old.

            It says a lot about you, that in response to being shown to be a liar, you defense is to attack a SCREEN NAME.

            I guess that means you’re conceding that you’re a proven liar.

            1. Your accusation is baseless.

              “AlgerHiss” was bringing up incest in a discussion revolving around homophobia.

              1. “Your accusation is baseless.”

                You claimed

                “Your reply… didn’t address anything I said at all.” which I deonstrated was a lie.

                You can’t even keep track of what you’re being called a liar about.

                The conversation is right there. You made claims that were false.

                And now, you can’t even keep track of them.

                And at the end of it all, your response to being proven a liar…is to cheapshot my screen name?

                You’re still a liar if I change it.

                You’re still a liar if I’m 5 years old.

                It says a lot about you, that in response to being shown to be a liar, you defense is to attack a SCREEN NAME.

                I guess that means you’re conceding that you’re a proven liar.

          2. Only a teenager would post under a name like “TransVaginalMesh” and more often than not it’s teenagers who are as idealistic as “Free Society”.

            What’s so idealistic about being logically consistent? If I were an idealist I would be a person who claims that the government can be reformed into being an institution that exists solely to serve the moral good. But thanks to figuring out how to apply philosophy in a logically consistent fashion, I’m not you. You would be lucky to fashion your sentences with logical consistency, my idealist foe.

            1. Only an insane person would do away with worker’s comp (the Cato Institute has alot of good information on reforming it) or allow civilians to have nuclear weapons.

      2. Ironically gays and bisexuals are far more likely to be business owners than government employees.

        Since when are “gays and government employees” mutually exclusive groups?

        1. I didn’t say they were.

      3. And is there a point to this comment?

    3. How do you know that Mozilla didn’t make this decision because they felt it would be the best one from a financial perspective? Bad PR has real costs

      (And isn’t Mozilla non-profit anyways? Or am I remembering incorrectly?)

      1. I don’t, and never claimed to.

    4. The lovely thing is that it doesn’t matter how you feel about what the company does, because what the company does is their own business, and your opinion has absolutely zero value.

      Isn’t liberty great 🙂

  8. Its sad because the guy is a genius, he developed JavaScript, one of the most commonly used languages in the world, and he will probably be most known (by non-tech people) as the guy who supported prop 8. Just because something fits within the libertarian view as being NAP-ok (because they didn’t use government) doesn’t mean its OK. I think it was pretty petty to go after someone based on a personal choice and opinion that happened 6 years ago.

    1. It’s petty and unfortunate. But on the other hand when it comes to people who advocate the use of violence against you, I can see why the intolerant tolerance crowd got their panties in a bind.

      1. Yeah. We’ll see when the violence swings the other way when the photographer who doesn’t want to work a gay marriage gets sued.

        1. It already swings that way. And forcing people to associate others is akin to slavery. One injustice does not justify another injustice. The initiation of aggression against others is either immoral for everyone or immoral for no one.

  9. How about the proposition that when you’re using time and resources to deal with things like this, you’re wasting resources that are better spent elsewhere, like in improving your bloated, slow, often broken product?

  10. The government should concentrate everyone that doesn’t agree with the majority and put them into some kind of camp where they can be educated on proper thought.

  11. Meanwhile, I’m not seeing any public rage against a senator who is suspected of taking bribes from criminal organization that deals in weapons.

    Mozilla is free to fire anyone they like and lefties can credit free market action (snicker) but the own medicine is going to taste pretty bitter when right leaning organizations fire someone for supporting affirmative action or think polygamy is gross. Cross dressing might turn off potential customers too.

    Unemployment and poverty level among minorities (notably blacks) is at a record high under Obama’s watch. And that’s the guy who used to pal around with known anti-semites and terrorists! Save some of your outrage for people who really deserve them, you liberals.

  12. It was a business decision.

    And a good one when you operate a business in a world full of pansies and retards who elevate this crap to a point of relevance.

    Get married if you want to, who cares. If it is not legal yet, just wear a ring. You get legal protection and insurance benefits except
    the marriage exemptions which will come in time.

    Freedom of speech and expression in this country only applies when you are in the majority.

    Smart businessmen do not care what color, creed, or preference you are. Your money is still green.

  13. Meanwhile, I’m not seeing any public rage against a senator who is suspected of taking bribes from criminal organization that deals in weapons.

    A vocal proponent of gun-control state senator, who deals in gun-running, no less.

    Unemployment and poverty level among minorities (notably blacks) is at a record high under Obama’s watch. And that’s the guy who used to pal around with known anti-semites and terrorists!

    Hey be reasonable! Everyone knows that hating Jews is acceptable if you’re not white and you neglected to mention that the ‘terrorists’ he was paling around with were left-wing terrorists so their terrorism is excusable because equality or something.

  14. So much for Free Speech…

  15. It was a cowardly decision by Mozilla. A better decision would have been to say:

    “While we may disagree with Mr Eich’s position on various issues, we value his competence and contributions to Mozilla and respect his freedom to participate in the political process according to his conscience. Mr Eich’s views in no way represent Mozilla or any of the Board of Directors or employees of Mozilla.”

    1. Bravery and cowardice are irrelevant in the face of business crippling public perception problems. Businesses, be they non-profit or not, require funding and it would be more shameful if Mozilla was sunk entirely by the tolerance nazis.

    2. That would require they weren’t all a bunch of fa99ots.

  16. Reason’s obsession with being wrong on this issue makes me want to leave this site and never come back. No wonder you guys are a joke to most actual libertarians.

    1. I’m genuinely interested in who’s wrong about what now?

      1. They have posted a half dozen articles about what a great thing for liberty this example of mob rule is, just because it (ostensibly) doesn’t involve the government.

        Which is B.S. in itself since we all know the government is deeply involved in every facet of society.

        1. If a bunch of anti-gay marriage people want to make a big stink about not buying someone’s product, what’s wrong with that? Ignorant people are allowed to exert influence upon markets too.

          1. As demonstrated by the left trying to boycott Chik-fil-A and failing miserably.

  17. my roomate’s sister makes $72 /hour on the internet . She has been without a job for eight months but last month her pay check was $12251 just working on the internet for a few hours. have a peek at this web-site…….
    http://www.Works23.us

  18. Speaking of political donations. What is really unfortunate about this little witch hunt is that it raises some very serious questions about transparency.

    The supposed point of transparency is to provide information about whether a particular political issue is being hijacked/corrupted covertly.

    When it is very obvious (and proven here) that the REAL purpose of transparency is to shoot those with whom one disagrees in order to silence debate altogether.

  19. You know how many comments I get back wailing that no one is forcing their lifestyle on anyone? Sure you are?from the bakery to the church, to a Sergeant in the Air Force and now to a CEO. Everyone conform you scream in your Progressive mantra.

    These issues are the same as any deviant issues or issues of entitlement or issues of illegality when the Progressive takes up cause.

    Well it isn’t normal. It is deviant. It is a deviant sexual lifestyle. It is not up to us to celebrate it or accept it. It is up to the gay to keep his deviance away from us. But I don’t expect society to get that at all now. Not the society the revers Miley Cyrus.

    You are an immoral society. You children are reflections of it. If you haven’t noticed they are opening fire on each other. Family breakdown you see. And the Progressive answer?let’s alter the family even more to accommodate the gay community. Eventually as my fiction and history predicts we will collapse as a society. And don’t blame the wingnuts Mr Progressive. The blame will fall squarely on you.

    Charles Hurst. Author of THE SECOND FALL. An offbeat story of Armageddon. And creator of THE RUNNINGWOLF EZINE

    1. You nailed it, Charles.

  20. my roomate’s step-sister makes $77 /hr on the internet . She has been unemployed for 8 months but last month her income was $18827 just working on the internet for a few hours. see page…..
    http://www.Works23.us

  21. “Perception is reality.” Your challenge regarding information sitting in a database vs. an IRS leak seems to trivialize that a goober-mental body took the time to divulge it.

    Your point is understood, but why have you chosen to ignore the “IRS Leak”?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.