Donating, being against was at the time, and still is, a legitimate political action. It falls under free speech and free association.
And it was his private stance, he never promoted his personal political views as a Mozilla CEO.
But it was obviously too much for a woke politically correctness extremists at Mozilla. They prioritised politics and their own view of morality over technical excellence and vision.
They showed their priorities and I lost trust they would prioritise building technically best browser. And the time showed I was right, since Firefox slowly lost ist magic and is currently just a shadow of what it was.
You're allowed to say whatever, that doesn't mean I'm forced to employ you.
If you call your boss an asshole, that is free speech. And you will be fired. Welcome to the real world.
And, if you favor free market dynamics instead, consider: as CEO, you are the face of the company. Perception is a form of advertising.
You don't want negative advertising. Ultimately his views and donations were costing Mozilla actual money. People were upset, and that matters when you sell stuff and ask for donations.
Him being fired was the free labor market at play.
Fine. But then, let's not pretend that Brendan was a bad person or that he did something wrong. They fired him because they didn't like his personal views, not because he was a bad CEO or technically incompetent person.
And it's my right to lose trust and stop using Mozilla products for prioritizing woke issues instead of technical excellence.
Mozilla losing money and market share is the direct consequence of their decisions. Finally, it's a free market, and their customers/users voted with their feet. I could only smirk and remind them of the proverb: "go woke - go broke".
> I think he did something wrong. Lots of people think he did something wrong.
That's your opinion. The majority of the California voters agreed with him, and not with you, on that topic. Why do you think you have the moral right to decide the majority is wrong?
If you don't like democracy, which governance form you like more?
> Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry
> Yes 7,001,084 52.24%
> No 6,401,482 47.76%
> What you're NOT entitled to is playing victim and lying about your rights. Your rights were not violated.
And where did I say my rights were violated? Stop accusing me of something I didn't say.
> Nobody's were.
Brendan lost his job because "people like you" (tm) decided everyone who doesn't share their values should lose their job, even if their opinion doesn't have to do anything with their job, and is not controversial at all.
> Grow up.
This is the point where any attempt to continue civil discussion with you is pointless.
>But then, let's not pretend that Brendan was a bad person or that he did something wrong
A majority of people in the US at one time felt slavery was perfectly fine. A majority of people in the southern US that could vote supported the Ku Klux Klan and Jim Crow laws at some point too.
Would you have supported these positions and justified it with other people think the same way too? Being in the majority can make you a bad person.
Robert E Lee was a traitor to the country that fought for slavery. The rewriting of history and spin from the Lost Cause to talk about how reluctant he was, how he went to church, and how nice he was to other white people that supported slavery does not mean he wasn't a bad person.
Discrimination against gay people is usually justified by religion in "polite" conversation, but slavery often was too during its time. In actuality its usually just a hatred with the justification made after the fact.
Good example. Only 1,6% of Americans owned slaves at its peak. Hundreds of thousands even died to free slaves. So no, the majority never supported slavery.
On a side note, do you really think opposing same sex marriage is equivalent of supporting slavery or taking self justice? Better bring Godwin straight ahead, so we can end a discussion right now ;)
Using statistics to lie shows your weak position. Slaves were the backbone of the southern economy. Saying slavery only was supported by 1.6% of the population is the equivalent of only counting the owners of the church building when discussing whether the south was/is religious.
And yes, I tend to group different forms of discrimination together. You can substitute Jim Crow laws, the Chinese exclusion act, Japanese internment camps, or some other form of discrimination in your head if you like. But its useful to know that if someone says that slavery wasn't so bad and is ok with it, that I am wasting my time with a fully bad person.
> And where did I say my rights were violated? Stop accusing me of something I didn't say.
You spent the last few comments crying about free speech, which is, evidently, something you don't understand.
Your free speech Rights weren't violated. This victim mentality has got to stop. Just because people don't like you or your opinions doesn't mean you're marginalized.
I said I won't answer anymore, but your lies and allegations can't stay unanswered.
No, you were unable to understand. It's not about me, I never mentioned my rights. I don't even live in a country that pretends to have free speech protection.
It's you who invents lies about me, twists my words, and then criticizes me for something that you said I claimed. It's petty and manipulative. Your above comment shows one more time what kind of person you are.
And it was his private stance, he never promoted his personal political views as a Mozilla CEO.
But it was obviously too much for a woke politically correctness extremists at Mozilla. They prioritised politics and their own view of morality over technical excellence and vision.
They showed their priorities and I lost trust they would prioritise building technically best browser. And the time showed I was right, since Firefox slowly lost ist magic and is currently just a shadow of what it was.