are at it again: www.bbc.com/news/technology-26868536 No matter how good someone may be at their job it seems that if they have personal opinions the PC mob will seemingly lynch them.

are at it again: www.bbc.com/news/technology-26868536 No matter how good someone may be at their job it seems that if they have personal opinions the PC mob will seemingly lynch them.

Mitchell Baker,did she actually say that? The absolute tosh that some people come out with makes the mind boggle.

Quote Dally="Dally"are at it again: www.bbc.com/news/technology-26868536 No matter how good someone may be at their job it seems that if they have personal opinions the PC mob will seemingly lynch them.'" You have to be quite high up the scale of dumbfookery if, as a potential CEO of a huge corporation or publically listed company you then take a controversial stance on any issue, sexual or religious prejudices are always going to cause you problems when you mix in any sort of social context. Trying to fob things off as "Its just my personal opinion" just won't wash in the context of the size of company he was head of and he should have known that - the fact that he didn't or didn't care makes him unsuitable for the job in the first place.

Quote Dally="Dally"are at it again: www.bbc.com/news/technology-26868536 No matter how good someone may be at their job it seems that if they have personal opinions the PC mob will seemingly lynch them.'" You have to be quite high up the scale of dumbfookery if, as a potential CEO of a huge corporation or publically listed company you then take a controversial stance on any issue, sexual or religious prejudices are always going to cause you problems when you mix in any sort of social context. Trying to fob things off as "Its just my personal opinion" just won't wash in the context of the size of company he was head of and he should have known that - the fact that he didn't or didn't care makes him unsuitable for the job in the first place.

He was going to be fired anyway. It's terrible now, it used to be fast but now it's ridiculously unstable.

Quote Dally="Dally"are at it again: www.bbc.com/news/technology-26868536 No matter how good someone may be at their job it seems that if they have personal opinions the PC mob will seemingly lynch them.'" So being "good at your job" means you get a free card to be a complete bigoted ar[is[/iehole? Mind you, I can see why you'd back the bloke

Quote Dally="Dally"are at it again: www.bbc.com/news/technology-26868536 No matter how good someone may be at their job it seems that if they have personal opinions the PC mob will seemingly lynch them.'" So being "good at your job" means you get a free card to be a complete bigoted ar[is[/iehole? Mind you, I can see why you'd back the bloke

Yes, every CEO or innovator really needs to be whiter than white in every aspect, just like all our politicians are.

Let those witches burn.

He made a $1,000 donation to a campaign group 6 years ago. I suppose you think he should be prosecuted for a hate crime over it too?

They do, or they need to keep their opinions to themselves, which is difficult because you tend to find (and I've met many in the past thirty years) that leaders of industry, self-made business leaders and senior management often have a very high opinion of themselves and their opinions and seem keen to expound them to anyone within earshot, whether requested or not.

As for politicians, I learned a long time ago what sort of personality is attracted to that lifestyle, and its got worse since then.

If this guy fired a good quality employee simply because he was gay then he'd deserve to lose his job. If he was involved in gay bashing when he was younger he'd deserve hounding out of a job.

But hounding him out of a job simply for making a donation to a cause he believes in is simply reverse gay-bashing. We don't know what his opinions are over gay marriage, we don't know why he donated the money, we simply know that he made a donation.

In the past gay people were hounded for their sexuality. That was wrong, and it is wrong. But it is just as wrong to hound someone simply for having a belief that gay marriage is wrong. Now I think his opinions on gay marriage are probably wrong, but pretty much everyone has plenty of wrong opinions on plenty of issues. But hounding him over this is pretty much bordering on having thought police.

I personally don't care whether gays are allowed to marry or not. I don't value marriage that highly anyway. If gay people want to ruin their lives by getting married then they can go ahead, I really don't care. But I also think that this guy should be allowed to have the opinion that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. He shouldn't be hounded out of a job for that reason.

He wasn't hounded out of a job. He resigned. The penny dropped that his views were simply untenable for the CEO of an organisation which very clearly sets out its fundamental commitment to equality of rights.

His [url=https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/attempted "swerve"[/url, written as the penny was clearly starting to drop, even if he hadn't quite realised it yet, shows to any fair minded person why he could not continue in his role. After he had published that, he must have re-read it and thought nah... that so doesn't fit:

Yes but you're not, though. It had also emerged that Eich had made campaign contributions in past years to fringe Republican candidates such as that nice chap, Pat Buchanan, who once said about AIDS:

Another Buchanan gem:


The problem isn't so much him supporting people with those kind of views, repulsive though I find them, it is him being the leader of an organisation whose stated and very public ethos is totally incompatible.

Its really nothing to do with any of that, its about money.

As it happens Mozilla is privately owned and so doesn't have shareholders who don't work for the company to worry about, but for most large corporations that is all that matters, what do the markets think of us, and if they think that we were a cool successful company selling cool products to an eager market in the past and so bought our shares on that basis, then what will happen to our shares when that cool facade is revealed to be led by a bloke who doesn't like gay people - it would have been carnage on the stock exchange when the likes of OkCupid were mounting an online protest to any client who accessed their site via Firefox, asking them to move to a different portal - muck spreads very fast on the internet and he SHOULD have realised this.

Its probably worse than being a public company actually because that very cool non-profit making, lets all share the code, sort of facade can crumble to dust when your users hear that your CEO is a homophobe who sponsors anti-gay pressure groups, moving from Mozilla is probably one of the easiest things you'll do in protest on the internet and it costs you nothing, no wonder they got rid quickly and apologised for not having got rid even quicker.

A $1,000 donation against gay marriage laws doesn't mean he's a homophobe. Just like Harriet Harman working for a legal organization that somehow managed to be linked with a loony bunch of kiddie fiddlers means she advocates sex with kids and should resign now.

But that's how you witch hunters work.

His donation may mean he's a homophobe, or it could simply mean he sees problems in allowing gay marriage laws to pass. For the record, if there's any men who want to give me 20 thousand quid to marry them so they can come and live and work in England, I value marriage so little I'd willingly take that cash and marry a bloke to let him come here. I'd also do that for a hot blonde Russian chick for nothing but sex and BJ's until she's been here long enough to divorce me.

If this guy is a homophobe then well done on burning him. I'm not personally convinced though. I hope that the owners of OkCupid are rabid anti-gays who simply used the fashionable cause to promote their website and their ruse is quickly exposed so you can see how easily you've been manipulated.