Posted on

NY Times: Mozilla CEO’s ‘Anti-Gay’ Stance ‘By Definition Disqualifying,’ He Needed ‘Rehabilitation’

belbaltlag_detail

The Soviet Gulag was a massive system of forced labor camps

NY Times: Mozilla CEO’s ‘Anti-Gay’ Stance ‘By Definition Disqualifying,’ He Needed ‘Rehabilitation’
By Tim Graham | April 5, 2014 | 18:59

Our web guru Steve Edwards passed along a tweet from Moe Lane that said  “New York Times confirms: Open Source advocacy is for liberals/progressives only. ”

Lane linked to an obnoxious blog post by Farhad Manjoo in The New York Times titled “Why Mozilla’s Chief Had to Resign.” You see, “Mozilla is not a normal company. It is an activist organization.” And activists apparently find it very distasteful to be less than “militantly tolerant,” as Manjoo put it:

Is this an instance of political correctness run amok? Is it a sign that Silicon Valley has become militantly tolerant, unwilling to let executives express their personal viewpoints on issues unrelated to their jobs? I’ve seen many such worries expressed online; even supporters of same-sex marriage have been characterizing Mr. Eich’s ouster as an awful precedent for giving in to moralistic mob rule.

But it’s a mistake to draw any such conclusions in this case, for one simple reason: Mozilla is not a normal company. It is an activist organization. Mozilla’s primary mission isn’t to make money but to spread open-source code across the globe in the eventual hope of promoting “the development of the Internet as a public resource.”

As such, Mozilla operates according to a different calculus from most of the rest of corporate America.

Read more: https://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2014/04/05/ny-times-mozilla-ceos-anti-gay-stance-definition-disqualifying-he-needed#ixzz2yBkFR1gD

4 thoughts on “NY Times: Mozilla CEO’s ‘Anti-Gay’ Stance ‘By Definition Disqualifying,’ He Needed ‘Rehabilitation’

  1. He is entitled to his personal opinion.

    The whole country is not on board with gay marriage. It is no one’s job to force their opinion on him. Most people would not use their right to free speech to express their opinion because the supporters of gay marriage freak out.

    He is not wrong, he just has an unpopular opinion.

  2. He is entitled to his personal opinion. This is America not China. No need for reeducation.

  3. The man did no wrong this is pc run amok.

  4. When we live in a country where you can lose your job for taking a position on a political issue (and notably one that that 52% of the state supported), we no longer live in a free country. Can we truly have free public debate if the consequences of such discussion may be the loss of your job? Sounds more like the old Soviet Union than the U.S.A. I believed in. R.I.P. “Home of the Free”.

    By the way, why is it that President Obama is still our President? When he ran for President he said it was his position that marriage should be 1 man 1 woman.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.