Monday, April 07, 2014

Tolerance? Mozilla CEO Fired For Support Of Prop 8

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Brendan Eich worked his way up through Mozilla to recently become the CEO of the company.

However, he failed to learn one important lesson---until last week.

That lesson is described by a quote in the New York Times from a gay activist organization that helped bring down the CEO: "Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame and frustration are our enemies and we wish them nothing but failure."

Eich had contributed $1,000 to Prop 8 five years ago in California. He believes marriage should be between one man and one woman.

This degree of freedom is no longer tolerated.

The lesson? Those who are driving the agenda to redefine marriage and family, and normalize homosexuality, love the word "tolerance," but only to a certain point. That point comes when they are asked to tolerate the views of people who believe marriage is between one man and one woman.

Those who seek to destroy small businesses such as Arlene's Florist and Gifts in Richland, Washington, various cake bakers and photographers, and large national businesses like Chick-fil-A, apparently see "tolerance" as a tool, not a virtue.

Brendan Eich, who recently became CEO of Mozilla, the company who gave us the Internet browser Firefox, was forced to "resign" because of what he believes about the institution of marriage.

The LA Times says those who think Eich was wronged are on a witch hunt and are trying to making a foolish case. The Times says he has "no right to be CEO and never did."

Todd Starnes at Fox says, "The left does not believe people who oppose gay marriage should be allowed to engage in the democratic process. And they have a proven track record of intimidating and bulling those who do."

A Personal Note. This week is Spring Break in Washington State. I'm going to take off a few days to spend time with my grand kids. We will not publish this daily article tomorrow through Friday. We will resume regular publication next Monday, April 14.

I will continue to do the daily live radio program this week. Please join me live at 9 AM PDT from anywhere in the world---on the radio, on your computer, or on your i-phone. Here's how. The program is presently re-broadcast each evening at 7:30 PDT.

The Los Angeles Times tries to make the case that Eich's "resignation really wasn't about his beliefs regarding marriage."

Todd Starnes at Fox News says indeed it was. He says, "The road to political correctness is littered with the bodies of folks like Brendan Eich sideswiped by the tolerance and diversity bus."

What do you think?

I'll be talking about this and its chilling effect of democracy and religious freedom in America this morning on the radio.

I will also be giving commentary on several other topics in the news this morning.

Be Informed. Be Discerning. Be Vigilant. Be Prayerful. Be Bold. Be Blessed.


  1. This is less than 2% of the population ramming their views down the throats of the vast majority of Americans who just want to ignore wht they consider perverted behaviors in the bedroom. They don't want to keep their sexual habits in the bedroom...they want to parade them down the streets of Seattle in gay parades where they march bottomless and nude like naughty children who are screaming for attention via the 1st amendment. We the majority need to draw a line in the sands of our courts however-- that makes clear--attacking and viciously destroying the livelihoods of those who disagree with you is out of bounds.(Isn't that what the gays have said they want?) Hopefully, this is how the scenario will go.,,,peacefully and Constitutionally.

  2. This is troubling in a nation that values Free Speech. But what this causes me to suspect is that Mozilla must be actively discriminating in its employment practices against both Catholics and Protestants who believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. I am giving some thought as to how an investigation along these lines can be conducted. Their employment practices must legally have nondiscrimination clauses and I cannot see how they can have both those clauses and this kind of situation. I'm not trying to stir up a pot here. I'm quite serious that this is a legal issue that we need to dig deeper into.

  3. Sorry, but the CEO of a company like Mozilla becomes the public face of the entire company. And that image can enhance or ruin a company's fortunes. That's part of the reason they get the big money. At that level, it becomes a big mix of politics and business. And typically, there's a nice golden parachute that regular employees would never see. So, while I don't think employees should ever be fired for their religious beliefs, there probably is a different set of rules for the public faces of a corporation. There certainly is a different set of rules for how they will be compensated for the exit.

    He did much more than just have a belief about gay marriage, he took an active role in attempting to enact discriminatory legislation. Not a good image for a high tech company in this era and it was hurting their business. Gary, you constantly advocate that your followers support or avoid businesses based on religious beliefs. It sounds like you might be re-thinking that now that you represent such a minority.

  4. Sorry, but the bigger issue that Mozilla is that we all live in a nation that values freedom and that includes freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom to be who we are. There is a price that we all pay for that freedom. The price is being offended. You are guaranteed to be offended by my beliefs. And I am guaranteed to be offended by yours. We are forgetting that we should truly be joyful about that consequence. Absent it, we are no longer living in a nation of free people.

    If you go to the Mozilla website, you will see that it was the activist gay community outside of Mozilla that pressured him so much that he could no longer do his job, causing him to feel he needed to leave. That's behavior on the part of activists that I find shallow, short-term in thinking, and intellectually lacking in depth as it demonstrates an inability to step back and realize that the truly most important issue is our freedom to disagree with each other.

    We can lose that. We most certainly can become a different country where thoughts and speech and more are determined correct or incorrect by a large political body.

    Employees are already being discriminated at within universities, K-12 schools, in business and elsewhere for a belief that is nowhere near hate speech. Instead, it's simply a difference in opinion, a difference in values.

    If you truly seek our respect, then I suggest you learn to also be respectful of those who differ from your thought process. That is the lesson we all need to embrace if we are truly to continue as a nation of one people, undivided, but quite different from each other.

  5. Eich wasn't fired. He's still working for Mozilla.

    He just isn't CEO anymore!

  6. So much bad information here and in the comments:

    1. The "gay activist organization" Gary quotes was not a gay organization at all. It was OKCupid, a dating site. That is why Gary did not name it.

    2. Not a single mainstream gay organization was involved in this issue at all. Not one.

    3. There's no free speech issue here. Free speech means you can say what you want without being arrested. It does not grant you the freedom from reaction to your speech or consequences. For example, if I advocated sending blacks back to Africa, I would not be arrested (free speech) but I certainly wouldn’t keep my job at the head of a major company (consequences.)

    4. Donating to a discriminatory campaign is not a "religious belief." I don't recall ever hearing what his religion is (although it might've been made public). He would have faced the same consequences had he been an atheist who donated to Prop 8.

    5. Had he donated to a campaign that sought to ban Christians from marriage, he would have surely faced the same fate. Would you still have cried “free speech!”?

    The evangelicals on this site and elsewhere seem to be in some sort of a shock that actions and words that diminish gay people that were acceptable even a decade ago are no longer so. This isn’t 2004 anymore. Poll after poll have shown majority support for same-sex couples marrying. It’s time to wake up and question why you continue to push to hurt so many people.

  7. It was only February 7 when Gary wrote about "Sweet Cakes," the Oregon bakery that refused to make wedding cakes for gay couples. What did Gary and many commenters suggest same-sex marriage supporters should have done?

    "Find another cake shop."

    Now, same-sex marriage supporters are angry with another business because the face of the company they hired donated to Prop 8. When same-sex marriage supporters said they would "find another cake shop" so to speak, Gary is now up in arms.

    So, presumably, businesses can choose to force gay customers to go elsewhere when they know it won't hurt their business. But when it might, then gay customers must still support businesses that go against their values or else something about "free speech."

    Meanwhile, Christians got it good on both sides. As business owners, they can discriminate against gays, refusing to serve them. As customers, they can force business owners to serve them.

    Can you see why you're losing these cases in court?

    1. I have trouble following your case. It seems to be that Christians may force businesses to serve them. Why I don't know.

      Is it because if we wanted a one man, one woman marriage cake, and a bakery that catered to homosexuals would refuse to put a male groom and a female bride on a cake because it went contrary to what they believed in, that we would force them to do it anyway?

      Or, is it that we are forcing companies to serve us because we speak up against unrighteousness, unfairness, and injustice, even though it's our constitutionally protected and God given right to do so?

      It seems to me your case has no merit as well as no virtue. Or is it that there is something I'm not understanding about it?

      It seems to me that you want Christians to be silent concerning morality and be forced to go along with the gay agenda of forcing a perverted will upon others, and are against Christians speaking up against such a thing, and for what reason?

      They didn't have much of a reason to have Jesus killed did they? According to John 7:1,2, Jesus' life was being sought after as early as 6 months prior to the time, and for what reason? Wasn't it because there were things about how they were living that he was against?

      The thing about this is....They who sought to kill him couldn't really find anything against how he was living, though they tried to make up legitimate reasons.

    2. Good cases may be lost in courts when Judges have no sense.

    3. Good sense is always found on the side of the Bible.

    4. Yes, I think you understand. You want Christians to be able to discriminate against gays in public accommodations. But, no one is allowed to turn away customers because of their Christianity.

      And, customers who "find another cake shop" is OK with you as long as that cake shop isn't hurt by the exodus of customers. But when it is, then all of a sudden it's a "free speech" issue and those customers should have stayed despite their personal values.

      What makes this hypocrisy so difficult for you to understand?

      Serving a customer is not the same as advocating for their life choices. Let's stop pretending. And even if it were, why should Christians have a special right to discriminate against others when no one can discriminate against them for the same reasoning?

      I like the current system: we all serve each other if we want a public business, without taking into account religion, race, orientation, marital status, veteran status, etc. And the courts seem to agree repeatedly.

  8. I glad that God is love. He isn't luva. There is a difference.

  9. I actually support the right of a business to hire employees, or a CEO, that represent the values of the business, in the same way that I support the right of a business to decline jobs that violate the values of the business (sodomite wedding cakes, etc). However, I have a right, and a duty, to not patronize businesses that actively promote perversion and attack my beliefs and that yield to and embolden small factions that seek to silence freedom of speech and deny freedom of belief.

    To that end, I have ceased using Firefox after having used, promoted and supported Mozilla products since about 2002. As of last night, I am now using Opera. There are many alternative browsers out there. However, many of those alternatives may also support humanist, socialist and immoral causes. One of my reasons for going with Opera is that I just listened to a podcast ( in which the guest, who is the President of the Center for Marriage Policy, stated that "Opera does not get involved in cultural Marxism." And besides that, I'm actually liking Opera!

    1. Bob, glad you found a browser. But I'm curious what you run it on since all the OS's that'll run it are from companies who support equal rights including gay marriage. btw - Firefox has been losing share for a long time, not because of politics, rather it's just getting stomped by a much better browser - Chrome.

    2. Bob, I'm glad to see there's a Christian here who disagrees with the premise of Gary's blog post. According to Gary, by putting pressure on a company by boycotting their products, you are violating their right to free speech. It might pressure them to change their values or pressure members of management to resign. According to Gary, that's wrong and you should continue using their products.

    3. Boycotting is an exercise of one's own rights and he may decide for himself what he will boycott. We can not boycott everything as we need products others produce, but we can do without some things.

      I have never heard Gary say that boycotting is a violation of another's freedom of speech. I assume such a statement to be a false accusation, something to be repented of, as God has not called us to the workings of darkness, but rather to light which is in Christ Jesus.

    4. I’m not sure how you typed that without laughing.

      This column is CLEARLY about retaliating against a company because of the values of management, which Gary frames as a “freedom of speech” issue. The most effective way to retaliate against a company is through hurting their bottom line – ie, boycotting. Eich agreed to resign because he and the board knew that his presence would hurt the bottom line of the company because customers would flee their product.

      Are you trying to seriously say that when Gary is admonishing this retaliation, he’s only referring to phone calls and letters to the editor, and that he’s ok with the most effective and hurtful retaliation of all – boycotting?

    5. Strange how some people claim truth to be funny. Woe unto you who laugh now, for one day you shall weep.

    6. Since you are changing the subject, I'm assuming you do not have a response to my question?


Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.