Rightbloggers Defend Mozilla CEO Eich -- Not For Free Speech, But Against Gays

tomt200.jpgLast week, under pressure from employees and board members who did not approve of his 2008 donation to promote California's anti-gay-marriage Proposition 8, Brendan Eich, the new CEO of software company Mozilla, left the post and the company.

We hate to see anyone lose his job but, as we reflect whenever a CEO, cabinet secretary, or other high-ranking rich person is forced from office, Eich is much less likely to suffer and much more likely to find new employment than most of us would be if we were canned.

As it turned out, he is also much more likely to be wept over by rightbloggers -- who are not normally too bothered when someone gets fired (it's creative destruction!), but who made an exception for Eich because he was, in their view, a martyr to the "gaystapo."

It would appear that Mozilla (and maybe Eich) made a calculation about what was best for the company. You would think rightbloggers would accept and approve this, for normally they would deny our captains of industry nothing, including the power to fire a CEO or anyone else. Yet the brethren wept with outrage, because Eich's ouster was not normal corporate hurly-burly, they said, but the purge of a politically incorrect martyr by America's new homosexual overlords.

Eich, formerly Mozilla's chief technology office, made his $1000 donation to the fight against gay marriage in 2008. People have known about this since 2012 at least, but it became a big deal when Mozilla boosted him from CTO to CEO. Apparently a number of Mozilla employees are gay or have gay friends or just don't approve of depriving gay people of their right to marry.

gaysbeatupobama.jpg
Gays beat up Obama to make him gay, but Brendan Eich said no so gay Hitler, basically. (Via)
These employees complained publicly and -- this is big -- three members of the Mozilla board quit. One of them, former Mozilla CEO John Lilly, told the New York Times he quit "rather than appoint [Eich]."

We never got our MBA, but this sure does sound like a management crisis to us, and the disposal of Eich sounds like a businesslike response. Business magazines like Inc. treated it as such. But rightbloggers saw it as a civil rights issue.

Which is strange, isn't it? Some rightbloggers may somewhere exist who have complained when, for example, Christian company WorldVision banned gay-married employees from its service, or the Boy Scouts prohibited gay scoutmasters, or Senate Republicans withheld the job of head of the DOJ Civil Rights Department from Debo Adegbile largely because he'd supported Mumia Abu-Jamal. (In fact, rightbloggers were more likely to find Adegbile's rejection "Justice Served," as the Washington Free Beacon put it, and be on the lookout for, as National Review's Jonathan Keim put it, "The Next Debo Adegbile" to reject.) But we're hard-pressed to find them.

In this case, however, the CEO's ouster over gay rights was to them an outrage. In fact, John Hinderaker of Power Line thought it was "something new in our history, as far as I know" -- not that someone would be kept out of a job because he had unorthodox beliefs (as we've seen, that's not unprecedented) but because "a corporate officer has been driven out of a company because he holds unpopular political views." He wasn't just some little scoutmaster -- he was rich!

Hinderaker found this "a harbinger of things to come," and added, "The Left is mobilized and on the march, and has no intention of taking any prisoners. Anyone who thinks some kind of accommodation or compromise can be reached with these people is mistaken. They are vicious bullies, and must be dealt with accordingly."

The Left? We thought Eich was pushed out by his own company, not by the Third International.

Well, this was a common conflation: The actions of a corporation were, in this unique situation, generally confused with the actions of liberals everywhere (and also homosexuals -- but then, what's the difference?).

Ace of Spades ruminated darkly on "the left's sudden embrace of Progressive-themed fascism," and claimed "the Unleashed Left is also calling for 'global warming deniers' to be prosecuted for manslaughter." He was talking about one guy, Adam Weinstein at Gawker, who is apparently now in charge of The Left's climate change division. Michael Mann will be pissed!

"I'm beginning to think that the only thing the left found wrong with the 1950s blacklists was that they were aimed at... the left," sniffed Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit. "Pink Mafia claims another scalp... Chalk another win up for the intolerant left," snarled Weasel Zippers. "Why are they called 'homofascists'? Here's why," J. Matt Barber prefaced his ravings at Renew America. "This is the culture of the left not being satisfied with making an argument or even prevailing in an argument, but in destroying personally and marginalizing people who oppose it," said Charles Krauthammer.

"The hatred and the bigotry and the intolerance here is all on the side of the fascists on the left!" said Rush Limbaugh" "Brendan Eich has been the first straight guy forced to fall on his sword at the behest of the LGBT Mullahs," said Brendan McNeill of A Conservative Perspective.

"Having won the battle in California, the sore winners are roaming the battlefield with bayonets and taking no prisoners," said the editors of National Review. They were speaking not of the members of the Mozilla board, but of "the nation's full-time gay-rights professionals" who "simply will not rest until a homogeneous and stultifying monoculture is settled upon the land" with a "lynch mob... the gay agenda of the moment is, ironically enough, to force nonconformists into the metaphorical closet." If you thought the closet gag was funny, get this: "It is one of history's little ironies that some of our current batch of prim-faced, puritanical, intolerant, and miserable thought police call themselves, of all things, 'gay,' something they manifestly are not." Nothing in there about Adam and Steve, alas.

"This is the emerging face of gay-rights activism: hateful, intolerant, illiberal, persecutorial," cried Rod Dreher at The American Conservative. "They're not going to stop at Brendan Eich. Because error has no rights, nor do people who hold to it." Also, when a member of the board of the gay-marriage-unfriendly WorldVision resigned last week because, she said, "I disagreed with the decision to exclude gay employees who marry," Dreher assumed it was "under pressure from gay rights activists." Because why else would anyone oppose such a policy, except out of fear?

Bryan Preston of PJ Media trumped them all, though.

My Voice Nation Help
16 comments
cjmcwaffle
cjmcwaffle

"lynch mob... the gay agenda of the moment is, ironically enough, to force nonconformists into the metaphorical closet."


Ah, remember the bad old days in the south, when mobs of white people would gather to peacefully demand the resignation of black executives? It was truly a dark time for our nation, and I never thought we would see a return to that period of terror in my lifetime.


It seriously offends me the way the National Review wants to devalue the term "lynch mob"

cnawoichik
cnawoichik

This is just another example of the GAY MAFIA (termed by Bill Maher) pulling their bullish games of immaturity — in order to fuel the extreme leftist agenda that is infiltrating the nation. I have nothing against gay rights or same sex marriage, and I fully support all LGBTQ rights; but I would never destroy someone’s career over their personal opinion of free speech. If gay rights advocates characterize Brendan Eich’s 2008, one thousand dollar contribution to Proposition 8 as hate speech — then their reaction to his actions is definitely hate speech as well. They organized a petition to get him THROWN off of his CEO position at Mozilla, making a spectacle of his traditional right-wing conservative views, as if his opposition to gay marriage was something new – it is utter IMMATURITY among gang members of this neo-leftist agenda.

The only solution to combat foolish speech is to counter it with ‘true’ speech — as Dan Rea of WBZ’s Nightside says (paraphrased). The culture is incredibly divided into ‘tribalist’ groups of differing ideologies. The only people left with political intelligence who understand diversity — are the libertarians who comprehend constitutional freedom. They realize that “America the Beautiful’s” prosperity is the result of its longstanding history of it being a democratic republic that protects the individual and minority. US citizens will always disagree on issues, but there is no need to destroy each other’s lives over these discords.

Calming_Influence
Calming_Influence

I served with the Feminazis for a while, but the flannel shirt/bib overalls/work boots uniform wasn't really my style. I've been considering joining the Gaystapo, but now that I see their uniforms, I may have to rethink that. Are there any other extreme leftist *-stapo or *-nazi groups I could join with uniforms a little less, um, enthusiastic? I certainly want to do my part...

RogerAiles
RogerAiles

Does anyone believe Sully would fight to his last breath for anything, Androgel excluded?

StringOnAStick
StringOnAStick topcommenter

Why didn't the universe explode when Andrew Sullivan used the term "illiberal" like it was a bad thing? 

glennisw250
glennisw250 topcommenter

"this was no Jeremiah Wright type of sermon, I want to be clear about that. It wasn't hateful. But it wasn't equivocal either. It was energetic and it was clear."


Wait, what? He's defending an imaginary sermon that hasn't been given yet? by a fictional pastor?

McSalmon
McSalmon

While is always amusing to play the 'if the situation were reversed' game, it's also pointless. The conservative movement wants to punish freely and never be punished in return; of course they are hypocrites, they are bullies not philosphers. That's nothing new.

What's fascinating is how damned fragile they are over it. They started yelling the second this guy left over this, even though they support the right to protest his political views, and the right of the board to let him go, and the basis of at-Will employment. They are angry in the same way that people get angry at their favorite team fumbling a critical play. This is a game to the right; wins, losses, points, penalties, right down to the cheerleaders and color commentary. It doesn't matter that this is an internal issue at Mozilla, and that this guy isn't going to lose a meal. What matters is that the other side gained some ground. It's just a bloody game for them. I just wish that this game didn't have such high stakes.

Can't we just create a rollerball league for them? That seems like something they'd like.

cjmcwaffle
cjmcwaffle

PS - It's especially hypocritical given how they think it's not okay to call Eich a bigot.


Yeah, we wouldn't want to just assume somebody was bigoted because they donated to a bigoted cause, but equating boycotts with lynch mobs is totally cool and proportional!

McSalmon
McSalmon

@cnawoichik If you start your argument claiming that there exists a Gay Mafia and they are an extreme infiltrator of the body politic, you cannot then claim you support homosexuality in all it's gloried variety, unless you are willing to admit that half the post was dictated to you by a sock on your left hand. I'm not sure which hand you're using to pat yourself on the back for being politically diverse. 


As for the destruction of lives, let us remember that he will likely be dining out on any compensation package for a good long time and will likely find new employment within a year if he wants it. Unlike millions of other Americans who lost their jobs over the last 5 years due to old conservative executives just like him for barely any reason whatsoever. But, whatever - someone has to stand up to the poor mistreated flower who was brutally stomped on by not-rich people.


Libertarians: Failing the Turing Test since 1971.

cjmcwaffle
cjmcwaffle

@cnawoichik  


Well, except the first amendment also protects our freedom of association, including the freedom not to use certain products, the freedom to resign from the board of Mozilla, and the freedom to use speech to explain why we are doing those things.


If Mozilla then decides, in response to that speech, to fire Eich, that's just how the cookie crumbles.


Actually, I can't for the life of me imagine a libertarianism that sees boycotts as impermissable.


For some reason there's this modern desire to somehow argue against boycotts and political protest in general, even though there is no good general argument against them.


It seems to me that if you're concerned about Eich's firing, you should argue on one of two fronts:


1. Argue that Eich's specific views are totally cool. To be clear, I don't think they are; he's paid money to an evil, segregationist cause which is just as evil as racial segregation.


2. Argue for more robust protections for employees, so that when activists use speech to make demands of companies like Mozilla, people like Eich are more protected.


Perhaps there's some third option I'm not thinking of, but most of the people that Roy profiles here are essentially making the argument that the left should not use political protest to try to change things, and to me that's a hypocritical and silly argument.


Here's how I look at it: Imagine you found out that your plumber was a neo-Nazi. Now, you might very well choose to stop hiring him, even though he has the first amendment right to be a neo-Nazi, and his political views have no bearing on his skills as a plumber.


I'm actually somewhat ambivalent about this, believe it or not; if neo-Nazis can't get jobs because of their political views, then their "right" to hold those views is largely illusory.


At the same time, am I going to sit here and say that, e.g. an elderly concentration camp survivor has a moral duty to work with neo-Nazis?


No, I'm not going to say that, I can't bring myself to make that argument; the idea makes me queesy.


That is not an argument to be thrown out as glibly as the people Roy are mocking throw it out. That is not a general principle that should be treated as obvious.

GlockH.PalinEsq.
GlockH.PalinEsq. topcommenter

@cnawoichik "They realize that “America the Beautiful’s” prosperity is the result of its longstanding history of it being a democratic republic that protects the individual and minority."

A longstanding history stretching all the way back to next tuesday.

roy84
roy84

@cnawoichik  As soon as America turned against them on gay marriage, conservatives started to worry about minority rights; and when a CEO got burned by it, they became activists. 


Well, better late than never. 


GlockH.PalinEsq.
GlockH.PalinEsq. topcommenter

@glennisw250 While excoriating liberals for doing something they haven't done yet, so you must admit there is a certain symmetry.

MattinNOLA
MattinNOLA

@cjmcwaffle For some reason there's this modern desire to somehow argue against boycotts and political protest in general, even though there is no good general argument against them.


I've seen this a lot lately, too, and I think there's a significant factor to consider. It came to me when arguing with a cousin about the idea that maybe male comedians, especially successful ones, could tell a few less jokes that involve sexual attack and/or abuse, and people went apeshit. My cousin, for example, was heartbroken by that idea that if he couldn't tell rape jokes, some otherwise successful and popular comedian would be living out of a cardboard box, to which I could only reply, "Yes, and?" He also made a comparison with the idea "sometimes you need to laugh" that was so dumb that I wanted to invent a time machine solely to punch his dad.


 Anyhow, he says he's all for stopping rape and whatnot, so long as it doesn't cost anyone his job. So, no protests, no petitions and especially no boycotts. Unless, of course, it was against one's religious values to do whatever it is they're butthurt about this week. What occurred to me that one only really hears this argument when a upper-middle-class, usually conservative white guy's paycheck might be threatened.


 And I think that's the key, some white boy's making a lot of money and that's the only thing that matters, even if he's an asshole and no one wants to invite him to the Friday after-work meet-up. From what I understand, most of the resistance to this guy becoming the CEO came from within the company, and Mozzila decided they didn't want someone who's willing to lay down an entire month's pay for someone on minimum wage just to fuck over gay people as the face of their company. That's basic business, and that's why libertarians ain't getting it and probably never will.

Calming_Influence
Calming_Influence

@GlockH.PalinEsq.   Yeah, maybe. But I've heard the Gluten-Freikorps is pretty dull - it's tough to get a rise out of them.

Now Trending

New York Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...