Probably because there are 22 comments for 26 points, which is triggering something (or people are flagging it). Everyone clearly wants to talk about this -- it's getting really annoying that it has to keep jumping threads because of whatever HN's algorithms are doing.
Edit: And, now THIS thread has been censored too, currently with 50 points and suddenly banished from front-page to #94. C'mon guys... the anti-Eich articles were upvoted all over the place, but now articles critical of it shouldn't be seen? I'm sorry, but that's just wrong.
I came here to convey this same sentiment, well done. I agree that it's getting tiresome. This is a topic relevant to HN. Why can't it be discussed civilly?
Close to 1000 people saw my own article on the subject in the 5 minutes it survived the front page. Enough people to carry on a discussion if they were inclined to do so. I'm not too bothered by it.
Between the way our industry has handled this latest thing with Mozilla and the way that related issues like gender inequality is handled at various conferences, I am finding myself less and less wanting to be involved with the community at large. It feels more and more like if you disagree with what a very vocal minority believes, you are going to be ostracized to the point that you could lose your job.
I have a family to take care of so losing my job would be a pretty big deal. I don't doubt that many of the other people that get caught up in these incidents are in a similar situation.
So, every time I consider speaking my mind publicly or even being involved in a public tech conference as an attendee, I think twice and am starting to just avoid them altogether.
It's sort of a shame because even local conferences are getting besieged by self-righteous people who are hell bent on righting some unintentional "mistake" by the people who work very hard to put them on in the first place. I find what our industry's community is starting to be something I don't much want to be associated with.
I share all the same concerns you just voiced. It's unfortunate, but I think one of the unintended consequences of all this is that it will drive people into enclaves—exactly what the people who trolled Eich into resignation claim they want to avoid. But maybe fairness and openness is something they feel only they deserve. Political incorrectness apparently has no rights anymore in the Valley.
> I have a family to take care of so losing my job would be a pretty big deal.
I wonder how you'd feel if your company hired a CEO who would want to take away your spouse's benefits because [insert arbitrary reason here]. There is a reason why people are vocal: they get hurt otherwise.
"Does anyone doubt that had a business fired a CEO six years ago for making a political donation against Prop 8, liberals silent during this controversy (or supportive of the resignation) would've argued that contributions have nothing to do with a CEO's ability to do his job?"
I also suspect many of the outspoken opponents against devout Christian viewpoints (or exercising those viewpoints - various people have insisted they're fine with people having such viewpoints as long as they're never exercised) would not protest against other religions which hold similar viewpoints.
As a supporter of gay marriage, and somebody who believes spirituality isn't real, this still strikes me as picking on someone. And also a shitty way to advocate gay rights.
As a supporter of gay marriage, and somebody who believes spirituality isn't real, this still strikes me as picking on someone
Same here. To think that you can't even participate in the political process now without the thought police coming in years later to hold you accountable.
And some people wonder why various forms of political groups work so hard to keep their donor lists secret?
You can't have an open society when there are no reasonable limits on how people can judge and prosecute you for your privately held beliefs.
I don't think it's fair to say "privately held belief." He supported a campaign to change public laws. What society can we have when there are no reasonable limits on how people can judge and prosecute you for your attempts to change public law?
Oh, certainly... What does that have to do with my comment?
In my comment, I say nothing about whether or not the campaign was reasonable. I don't think that's a good argument to make. I did say that it's reasonable to judge someone based on their (reasonable or not) attempt to change public law.
> Would American society be better off if stakeholders in various corporations began to investigate leadership's political activities on abortion and to lobby for the termination of anyone who took what they regard to be the immoral, damaging position?
I don't think it's useful to try to find some blanket rule that works for this case and all other cases somewhat similar to it.
There's a lot of variables in play. The likeliness of affecting change. Eich's worth as CEO. What Mozilla stands for. How his political beliefs and political actions relate to people. The list goes on. Each individual with an opinion on the matter made a call, factoring in the variables that are important to them, and acted accordingly.
If you find Eich's specific beliefs regarding gay marriage to be disgusting enough to suggest he not take the specific position of CEO of Mozilla, go for it. Does that mean that you should protest against every CEO of every company you have stake in, if you disagree with them on some political level? No, of course not. You should make the call on a case by case basis.
Here's one thing I've been unable to understand throughout this whole controversy:
What are we supposed to do about it?
As far as I can tell, this was a completely grassroots thing with no organization, no central control, nothing. It just spontaneously happened.
Now, I don't know how important this whole thing is. To me, it looks like an awful lot of fuss over a very little thing. But let's say that it is, in fact, the worst thing ever to happen in the history of the universe. Even then, what should we do? Writing long articles about how terrible it is doesn't help at all unless we have something we could actually do to change things.
What actual concrete proposal is being made? Is there one? Or are people just wringing their hands?
Assuming for whatever reason that these things need concrete proposals and takeaways, and that criticism and analysis are not sufficient, maybe the idea is to suggest individual corrections in the readers' responses to things like this. Perhaps to not use the politics of an employee to judge a company unless, maybe, they were outspoken about those politics.
The point seems to be that pronouncing judgment for political expression only ends up making everybody more frustrated with the people with whom they disagree.
As someone who moves in circles heavily dominated by conservative evangelicals, I've been thinking about the parallels between this story and that of World Vision, the evangelical aid and development organization. They recently announced an intention to begin hiring married gay and lesbian people, if the marriages of those people were ordained by their congregations. This was described as a 'neutral' position in that they receive (or at least used to receive) support from quite a variety of churches including Episcopal, UCC, and ELCA congregations which support and conduct gay marriages where legal. But WV received a severe blowback from conservative church leaders and members, many who began withdrawing funding and child sponsorships over the desire to include married gay and lesbian people in their organization. Since the majority of their supporters come from more conservative churches, they decided after only two days to reverse course, lest they would no longer be able to support their core mission: to provide clothes, food, and shelter to those who need it around the world. This in turn disappointed and enraged liberals who had only cautiously supported the decision in the first place.
My point is that enforcing litmus tests, as described in the article, tends to divide people who have otherwise mutual goals to make the world a better place.
The main thing that needs to be done, is the public needs to learn & adjust its behavior. This is a sociopolitical problem, and I think it needs to be fixed by those means. Either through adjusting norms of socially accepted behavior (i.e. don't crucify someone for what they did 10 years ago) or through strong leadership from political figures/groups.
I think you will find the public will learn the opposite of what you want: This is an example to progressives that they too in some situation have the power to send strong signals about standards expected of those who expect to be in leadership positions - even in private companies.
This has been the case "forever" for moralists on the right, from long before McCarthy. Try to become a politician or high level exec in the US while showcasing features of your personal life that does not fit into a relatively conservative, Christian narrative. Your odds just became vastly worse.
This is one in a short, but growing, set of examples of situations where people have been successfully ousted for supporting relatively mainstream but still bigoted viewpoints.
Except for the fact that a large chunk of the support for _California's_ Prop8 came from outside the state (specifically: Mormon Utah), especially in the form of money. How do you counter that "sociopolitically"?
That aside, I can agree that someone shouldn't be crucified for a bad decision that is well in the past, especially if they've learned the error of their ways.
Ballot strategy is a different topic; I was specifically addressing how a grassroots movement (e.g. the online lynch of Eich) would have to be tackled.
Ballot strategy is more about the organized manipulation of swing voters, which is almost certainly what Utah did, so values & beliefs become less important than FUD & counter-FUD.
Ah, thanks for that clarification. I do think that people need to be unafraid to express their opinions, if for no other reason than the slightly cynical one of knowing who you're really dealing with. Sure, it's lousy that there is a figurative lynch mob for Eich. But I do think that that particular position is inconsistent with Mozilla's tenets.
In other words, I don't think that Eich fits very well as a guiding light for mozilla, a position which might very well be embodied by a CEO. He probably shouldn't have become CEO of Mozilla in the first place. I'm fairly certain there are plenty of corporations more aligned with his goals that he can work for, so it's not like he'll be out a job for long. Just wish it could have been handled better, that there had not been a virtual lynch mob, and the inevitable turning of Eich into a martyr for free speech, all the while ignoring that the repercussions for supporting discrimination aren't nearly as bad as some people are making them out to be.
>> Clearly calling people out publicly is not allowed.
I have a possibly weird/complex take on this whole thing.
I think it was absolutely fine for the public/customers/partners to call out Eich to resign based on his Prop 8 vote.
On the other hand, I have mixed feelings about Mozilla employees calling for his resignation publicly.
Where I live, I think Eich would have a case for workplace harassment against those employees. I don't know what workplace harassment laws are like in the US, but publicly shaming a coworker for something legal they did that you don't morally agree with is usually grounds for some sort of action, regardless of that person's position of power.
I don't really know. I can speculate- well-reasoned & accessible pieces that avoid throwing around blame (public figure). Friends speaking with friends (grassroots). Political guidance/commentary from The Party (political figure).
All I'm hoping for right now though, is that people will individually start to recognize the pattern & begin to lose their bloodlust.
I think that's a good point. Realistically, once the cat was out of the bag and the initial PR response from Mozilla failed to connect, the matter was realistically out of their hands. They could've encouraged Eich to stay and weather the storm, ensuring that the controversy kept going and Mozilla itself remained in the background of the gay marriage question, or they could've let him do what he did, and now endure the controversy from the other side.
I've watched this from the sidelines, and I read the mozillazine blog site at least daily. There was plenty of support for Eich within Mozilla, and many gay employees blogged their support for him too.
I read mozilla's statement of "we let you down and should have been better" as referring not to promoting Eich, but that they let the internet infection fester and didn't attempt to lance it immediately.
If my read is correct, then the entire basis of Friedersdorf's article is wrong.
The strangest omission from articles like these is the effect that it had on people inside Mozilla, many of whom spoke out. You can exclude every reaction given by people on Twitter, HN, and personal blogs—and Eich stepping down as CEO still seems like the likely outcome.
Curious -- Does anyone know how many Mozilla employees spoke out?
I only saw the first few articles referring to tweets by a small number of Mozilla's 600+ employees, but I haven't been following this story as closely as others.
It's sort of a dystopian fantasy that I don't really believe will actually happen, but you can easily picture the natural endgame for this sort of behavior. Much like union & non-union shops, you wind up with conservative & liberal companies. Not just companies that tend one way; companies that say "You want to work here? I'm sorry, I see you voted for Reagan, goodbye," Signs that read, "Liberals need not apply".
(Again, I know this is wild & somewhat exaggerated)
Brendan Eich has the freedom to support what he wants to support. The public (and Mozilla employees) have the freedom to respond how they wish to respond. It is up to Mozilla to choose what to do with that public response and now they've chosen.
Too often this "what about freedom of speech?" argument fails to apply the same logic to both parties. People were unhappy that someone with this controversial belief was elevated to a leadership role – why should Mozilla employees have stayed quiet?
People are more than free to express any opinion they have, including the opinion that bigoted discriminating opinions are wrong, and don't really fit the ideals of an organization such as Mozilla.
I'm still not sure where I fall on this issue, but one thing people sometimes leave out of the discussion is the fact that a CEO is the public face of the company. Part of your job is to "embody" or communicate the brand, mission, what have you, of the company you represent, and I don't think Eich had the ability to do that. His interview with the Guardian was bizarre, and not what I'd expect from a CEO dealing with controversy.
"In other words, no one had any reason to worry that Eich, a longtime executive at the company, would do anything that would negatively affect gay Mozilla employees."
Utter bullocks. Would we entertain this idea that the tolerant must tolerate intolerance if Prop 8 was about race, rather than gender? Of course not. Nobody pretends that we must not speak ill of racists; certainly nobody pretends that speaking ill of racists makes you just as bad as racists.
It is apparent to me that we as a society still have a lot of ground to cover when it comes to the appreciation of the importance of gender and sexuality equality.
That was 6 years ago. The majority of Californians supported Prop 8 at that time. Even Barack Obama opposed gay marriage back then. Why aren't we raising the pitchforks against Obama?
People change.
This is a witch hunt from an action that someone did a long time ago. He didn't even do anything wrong. He just supported a mainstream proposition. He is on the wrong side of history, at that time, sure. But it doesn't deserve such a reaction. This mob justice is scary.
---
Edit: Censoring me with downvotes only proves how extreme things have become. My reasoning is rational.
That post is neither an apology nor a recant. He does not acknowledge that what he did was wrong. It is nothing more than a tone-deaf defense of himself.
He also apologized for causing pain. He also stepped down. And since when is an agenda of equality a bad thing?
He probably doesn't think his support of the proposition was wrong. I don't either. I'm for Gay Marriage. I'm also for rational public discourse that respects different points of view.
---
Thanks for the downvote. I know it's an emotional subject. Maybe you have a good counterpoint to express? Expression via downvotes it hardly a good point. It's immature, to be honest.
"I'm sorry for the way you took that." is the classic non-apology. He has done absolutely nothing but defend himself.
> "Thanks for the downvote."
I didn't downvote you. I cannot downvote you because you cannot downvote responses that you receive on HN. Such a persecution complex you've got going on there...
At this point we are mincing words. He said sorry he caused pain. That is hardly a nonpology. It does not justify the reaction and pain caused to him.
He has promoted equality within Mozilla. The sad thing is people also started to protest Mozilla, an organization with LGBT workers. It's free software with an independent agenda. Now it's malaigned as being homophobic.
The debate is being dumbed down with namecalling and blowing things out of proportion. It's become black and white with no room for nuance.
It's sad and scary.
-
I'm commenting on the downvotes and flagging as an act of suppressing a rational discussion. Its similar to the shaming and cyber bullying. The whole "you disagree with me, I'll punish you" mentality that this movement has taken is not good for our culture. Surely we are more mature than that.
I don't have a complex and its not for you to judge.
You think that downvoting is cyberbullying, and leaped to the assumption that I was the one that was doing it to you only because you disagree with me.
You plainly do have a persecution complex. The first step to correcting that is admitting it.
I never said you were downvoting me. Your assumption is false. Re: your so called "persecution complex" diagnosis, read my points above and below...
I never once attacked you & I don't think I attacked anyone else. If you disagree, please let me know. I always want to improve. :-)
The only truth I can find in your statement is that I'm contrarian at times, have a high resolution of perception, & I'm suspicious of group coercion. Especially when members of the group say people are wrong, or diseased, to think differently; and they have "persecution complexes" when calling out something ridiculous like being punished for voicing an opinion in a respectful & rational way.
I don't know if you realize that you are labeling me as being diseased for the way I think. Homosexuals were once labeled as diseased. How is that different? Sadly, many people are "different" are incorrectly labeled as diseased; and subsequently mistreated. I believe labeling someone as diseased is bad behavior and should be discouraged.
These power dynamics are algorithms of intolerance & injustice. They are the "dark side". It doesn't matter if it's on a small or large scale. I believe humans should resist such urges and should become more enlightened.
There's been studies done about human behavior & power dynamics. Perfectly "normal" people behaving badly in certain contexts. I hope we have more studies.
The tactic of public shaming and (to a lesser extend) downvoting rational, respectful, & well articulated points is borderline (& in the spirit of) persecution.
No, it's not killing people, but it's group coercion & punishment for holding an opinion. I believe that is wrong and something that we need to address in this age of transparency (no privacy) if we are to successfully evolve. Otherwise, we all need to start thinking the same. That would really suck for people like me.
The threshold of persecution should be revisited. It's about cause & effect. Saying something bad about another is not in itself persecution. However, if that statement causes one to be fired, psychological harm, unhealthy behavioral modification, etc., then I believe it is persecution.
> The first step to correcting that is admitting it.
Maoist China also "corrected" people's "divergent & diseased" thinking. The first step that the "diseased" Chinese person had to take was admitting their "disease".
So no, I'm not going to admit to some "disease" that you made up in your head because I disagree with your position & can articulate why. That's like me saying you are a "psychopath" because you are lacking empathy in this situation. It's all rubbish. I choose not to play that game.
If you can have rational counterpoints, then let's discuss. Please refrain from name calling. It's disrespectful & childish. I see you participating on other threads with me, so you should have a good understand of what I am about.
What evidence, besides the popular vote (52%? Wow, that's a big majority /sarcasm), that Prop8 was popular? How about factoring in the ton of money the Utah Mormons threw behind Proposition 8?
It doesn't even have to be the majority to be a mainstream point of view.
I wonder, at what point does someone become a "bad person"?
When they agree with the 50%? 30%? 10%? 5%?
---
I have haters. Yay!
Nothing brings out the haters like the truth ;-)
So I'm going to limit my exposure by using the wonderful edit feature.
---
I agree that oppressive points of view is bad, no matter how overwhelming the majority.
Obviously, a 100% majority won't judge themselves as bad people for taking a position. History is a different judge.
It is also bad to demonize a minority point of view, no matter how small the minority. We should respect people who take a "bad" position.
> It's irrelevant how many people agree with it. 100% can agree with something that is still oppressive.
With a rational discourse, we become more intelligent and can progress further as a civilization. By shaming & other negative actions toward the "bad" people, we become oppressive.
You're right, people change. And when people change, they can be forgiven.
Frankly all it would have taken to squash this controversy is an apology. I am confident that a quick "People change, I've changed. I understand now that people deserve the same rights and equal protection of the law, regardless of what gender they fancy." would have put this all to rest.
An apology is what we would expect from a CEO that was found to have been racist in the past. It is not unreasonable to expect it now. If he hasn't actually changed, therefore making an honest apology possible, then your "People change." is rather irrelevant, isn't it?
Edit: And downvotes are not censoring. Everyone can see and read your post even when you are downvoted, so quit your bellyaching.
It looks like he does not support gay marriage today. He does support equality.
He holds more conservative viewpoints than most people. He is also a white male in his 50's born in Pittsburgh.
The point is he has his position. It may change. He isn't involved in the LGBT community, so he probably is not exposed to this issue causing pain until now. It wasn't going to affect the policy of equality within Mozilla.
We can treat him with respect & have respectful dialog or we can coerce him to change his mind with public shaming & bullying tactics. I don't think the ends justify the means. Respectful discourse would be more effective and would make all of us better.
---
Downvoting is censorship. The post moves down and becomes hard to read & otherwise deemphasized. It also discourages further dialog by punishing someone who is expressing their opinion.
> It looks like he does not support gay marriage today. He does support equality.
Which is it? The two (not supporting gay marriage, and supporting equality) are mutually incompatible.
> It wasn't going to affect the policy of equality within Mozilla.
Do you understand why a lot of people have concerns that this might not be true, whether openly, or indirectly through decisions he might have made? Or have concerns that his views may send a signal to a lot of people that he would not welcome them the way he would welcome other potential hires?
> Which is it? The two (not supporting gay marriage, and supporting equality) are mutually incompatible.
He supports equality at a lower resolution (in abstract) than most of us in some areas. We all have moral blind spots. He has his life experience. You can tell that his intent is good by his effort and humility. He also has a reputation of being forthright and not deceptive.
> Do you understand why a lot of people have concerns that this might not be true, whether openly, or indirectly through decisions he might have made?
That is true. He also recognized this bias and promoted a system of oversight to ensure that the culture is inclusive. Everybody has bias. We need to set up our systems to account for that reality.
You have never seen–and won’t see–“heterosexual only” and “gay only” water fountains, diners, buses, schools, in light of 75 years of oppressive Jim Crow laws.
You have not–and won’t–see homosexuals snatched away from their families at birth for the purpose of division and dehumanization.
Homosexual men/women have never endured a slave trade for generations and witnessed their ancestors dying by the numbers during a “Middle Passage” and being sold for raw goods.
Homosexuals have never been–or will be considered–non-citizens by laws of the United States that rob them of inalienable rights.
Homosexuals will never face a societal norm that allows–and even promotes–them to be beaten because they are seen as property and treated like cattle.
All of this is why I've always considered the "gay = racial minority" argument weak sauce.
Side note: Where I live, holocaust denial is a crime (considered to be hate speech). I was a little surprised to read that it's actually legal in the US.
It's constitutionally-protected in the U.S -- a ban would require a constitutional amendment, which is very, very hard. Many of us on both sides of the political spectrum consider America's robust free speech protections to be the keystone of our society and government.
One of these articles has to survive the flagging brigade (likely made up of the same McCarthyites that brought us to this position) and stick to the front page. Maybe this will be it? It's certainly fair and well-composed.
Brendan Eich was not fired because he made a political donation. He was fired because the particular political donation he made is evidence that he is a bigot, that he has a broken moral code. There is not, and never has been, any justification for denying gays the right to marry except prejudice and bigotry. Every single non-religious argument against gay marriage has been definitively debunked. Therefore, discrimination against opponents of gay marriage is morally justified, just as discrimination against other kinds of bigotry is.
In fact, even if discrimination against opponents of gay marriage were not morally justified on its own merits, it would be at least as morally justified as the discrimination against gays that Brendan Eich once wanted to see enshrined into law.
> He was fired because the particular political donation he made is evidence that he is a bigot
On what basis is the claim justified that "he was fired" at all?
And, if he was fired (or, at least, given the choice to resign or be fired), what evidence is that that it was because of the donation (whatever it might provide "evidence" of), and not because of Mozilla board's concerns about the way he responded to the controversy over the donation? Managing corporate image is, after all, part of the CEO's responsibility.
I simply used "fired" as shorthand for "pressured to resign." And I think it was because of his inadequate response, not the initial donation. If he had fully repented, apologized, admitted he was wrong, I think he might have been forgiven. But that's not what he did. But my point is simply that however you reckon it, his ouster was justified.
"He was fired because the particular political donation he made is evidence that he is a bigot, that he has a broken moral code."
Just because a person is a bigot doesn't necessarily mean that s/he is a bad person.
I've met racist people and even I am able to maintain some level of respect for them. This is what being open-minded is.
Hurting people just because they have a different philosophical belief than yours is the same kind of narrow-mindedness that leads to racism and religious fanaticism in the first place. Back in the past, if you said the world was round, people would classify you as crazy by virtue of you having an opinion that the majority did not believe. This kind of narrow-mindedness holds back open dialogue and progress.
As 'bad' as it is to be your definition of a bigot, to denote all bigots as having a broken moral code is as negative as bigotry itself.
I hate how people have this misconception that you have to hurt people to make them change.
I didn't say he was a "bad person", I said he had a "broken moral code." Those aren't the same thing. Maybe his moral code is only a little bit broken and he's otherwise a fine person (I have no idea). But this little bit matters a lot if you're the CEO of a company.
BTW, I am not taking a position about whether removing Brendon was the correct decision (I don't have enough information to have an opinion about that), only that is was justifiable.
No, it's not convenient, it's simply a fact. The discrimination against Brendan was based on something that he did. Discrimination against gays is based on something that they are. The former is morally justifiable, the latter is not. It really is that simple.
I understand you are passionate about this topic but please consider this line of thinking:
Here is what I am seeing:
"The discrimination against Brendan was based on something that he did." [therefore the discrimination is morally justifiable]
He did what he thought was right by his own standards.
I don't suppose you are for punishing people who do things based on what they believe is right.
Rather, you want to punish Brendan, in part, because of the nature of his belief.
If Brendan had NOT donated, would you have wanted him to resign?
Perhaps not, because, then you would argue, it is okay for him to have bad ideas, so long as he doesn't act on them.
It is because Brendan had donated to a cause which you disagree with, that you want him to be punished. Because a donation to a cause, in itself, is not "morally" reprehensible. You wouldn't punish people for donating for a cause.
Rather, your problem is with the cause he donated.
Your problem is not with Brendan, it is with the anti-movement against taking gender out of the equation in legal marriage.
Brendan has a different standard than you do.
It is clear that you believe Brendan has a bad standard.
But who is to say Brendan's standard is better or worst than yours?
It is with this line of thinking that you might reconsider whether it is, in fact, "morally justifiable" to discriminate against Brendan.
> He did what he thought was right by his own standards.
I understand that. What I am saying is: his standards are broken.
> Rather, you want to punish Brendan, in part, because of the nature of his belief.
No. You can be a bigot in private if you want to, that is your right. But that's not what Brendon did. He 1) took action to try to get his (and other's) bigotry enshrined into law (successfully, I might add) and 2) when called out years later, he stood by his bigotry. That is why I believe his ouster was justified.
> It is because Brendan had donated to a cause which you disagree with, that you want him to be punished.
No. There are a lot of people who donate to a lot of causes with which I vehemently disagree. If everyone who donated to a cause that I disagree with were fired no one would have a job.
The reason this issue is different is that reasonable people can no longer disagree about it. We've done the experiment. We have gay married people now, and none of the horrible things that were supposed to happen when gays got married have come to pass. There is no argument against gay marriage that has not been utterly and completely debunked, except religious ones, and in the United States making laws based on your religion is out of bounds. Opposing gay marriage is completely indefensible on any grounds other than personal bigotry (or, if you prefer, personal belief, but I believe in calling a spade a spade).
> But who is to say Brendan's standard is better or worst than yours?
My standard is the Constitution of the United States of America, specifically, the fourteenth amendment. You can be a bigot here, but you may not seek to enshrine your bigotry into law. If you don't like it, move to Russia. State-sponsored anti-gay bigotry is alive and well there.
you may not seek to enshrine your bigotry into law
There are no such rules. You may feel that way, but People get to seek to enshrine any damn thing into law, if they like. If it is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court will strike it down. That's how the system works.
P.S. Using more words doesn't make your argument better or your source more authoritative. You can just call it "the Constitution", without fear of miscommunication.
OK, let me be more precise: he was fired because he donated to a cause that cannot be justified on any grounds other than bigotry, and when called on it, failed to repent. So I don't know whether he is a bigot or not, but he definitely acted like one, and when given the opportunity to repent, he chose not to. That's enough to justify his removal from the grown-up table.
Of course it is. It may not be proof but it is definitely evidence. He wants to deny gay people equal protection under the law. One of the reasons one might want this is anti-gay bigotry.
In fact, in light of the fact that all of the objective arguments against gay marriage have at this point been completely debunked, I don't see too many other possibilities.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7533055
Probably because there are 22 comments for 26 points, which is triggering something (or people are flagging it). Everyone clearly wants to talk about this -- it's getting really annoying that it has to keep jumping threads because of whatever HN's algorithms are doing.
Edit: And, now THIS thread has been censored too, currently with 50 points and suddenly banished from front-page to #94. C'mon guys... the anti-Eich articles were upvoted all over the place, but now articles critical of it shouldn't be seen? I'm sorry, but that's just wrong.