It's one thing to campaign for the republican party, or donate money to them. That's not a problem. The problem is donating money to oppress a portion of the population based on their beliefs. That is an action, not a belief.
Well, for me the Republican party excludes and oppresses people. If MANY MANY more ways than banning gay marriage ever did. From starting all those wars under false pretexes that resulted to tens of thousands of casualties to everyday issues like health coverage.
Should we fire every CEO/CTO that's donated to it?
Or is it only an "action which excludes and/or opresses people" if you specifically disagree with it?
(Oh, and I don't have than much better an opinion on the Democrats either, just think the Reps are like a few percentage points worse -- plus it would get more people to agree with my statement).
Mozilla (and Eich) decided that this expression from the community was sufficient for Eich to step down as CEO. No one forced them to do it, much like no one forced them to make Eich CEO in the first place.
This is exactly how public dialogue is supposed to work. If you find that a particular executive at a company has taken actions you disagree with and this upsets you to the degree that you wish to stop using their products, you're free to do so. You're also free to talk to others and encourage them to do the same. The company is free to retain that executive or remove them depending on how they feel about the public outcry you've raised.
This is free speech and public dialogue. It's people deciding what products they want to use and talking about it. It's companies deciding what to do based on what's good for them and their objectives. Which one of those things do you object to?
You should research the labor concept of "constructive dismissal".
As it stands it wasn't just an outcry. You had companies like OKCupid hounding Firefox users who had nothing to do with Eich's donation. It was a pitchfork-and-torch expedition through and through, despite the fact that it all falls under the letter of the law regarding freedom of speech.
But as I tried to point out when this was all going on, freedom to speak does not imply that all speech is necessarily right.
What I don't understand is how the same people who will talk about "chilling effects" from government surveillance fail to understand the same exact principle applied elsewhere.
Also, on the Republican side search for Dakota 38 and find out why some think very poorly of Abe's character.
