"By using Arabic numerals you are helping terrorists."
As long as Mozilla products do not feature a "Not to be used by gays" warning, whatever Eich does in his time is irrelevant. He's free to spend his money in any way he likes. What prevented the authors of this article to spend $1000 to counterbalance Eich's contribution if they are so concerned?
If he was backdooring JS crypto libraries for the NSA, or shooting orphans, or selling crack, that would be seriously inappropriate behaviour and he would lose his job for it.
Many people might consider it inappropriate to be fighting against gay marriage - it's not just a political issue, it's a moral one.
No one is being forced to take a stand. Eich chose to take his own stand by donating $1000 in support of Prop 8. It is completely fair to judge him for that action.
Here is how I interpret it. If today Brendan says he will pick No Opinion to "Should Bills of Rights be included in the Constitution of the United States", then should he be held accountable for his decision?
He can either support Bills of Rights, against Bills of Rights, or he can do nothing about it, in which case is pretty much in the same camp as the opposition. The only difference is he chose to not care and yet he will probably be judged for not helping human rights. And human rights, to many is a worthwhile ethic cause. Not an individual morality debate; just as gay advocates would think gay rights is a basic right of human. If Brendan chose to say "I have no opinion" he is neither against nor supporting gay rights but his decision will disappoint the gay advocates in which case the advocates will not be happy with Mozilla. Therefore, everyone has to take a stand even if it were "I don't have any opinion."
Backdooring his employer's code would be directly related to his work, and illegal actions on his own time would make him unemployable if caught and convicted, because he'd go to prison. False equivalances, all.
It depends entirely on his contract - I'd expect most CEOs to have a clause about their conduct causing harm to the organisation. Even if not, it's legal to convince someone to leave, which is what usually happens in public embarrassment cases.
I don't know where you're getting this idea from, but you really should check your sources.
There is a limited prohibition against screening for political affiliations enforced by the Federal government when filling certain civil service positions, but that's about it.
For a good summary of what types of discrimination can and cannot trigger legal liability, see here:
No it's not. Indeed, you run a legal risk in NOT firing such a person given that keeping them around (especially in a senior position) creates a demonstrably hostile work environment.
That's a terrible semantic argument. Of course it's not the actual Nazi Party, but if the Mozilla CEO donated $1000 to the ANP people would be pretty angry.
Irrespective of the proposition in question, Mr Eich debited $1000 to the influence of politics. His financial position gives him more political leverage than myself.
Because it's not about the $1000 (and you didn't honestly think it was.)
With your prescription of discriminated against minorities offsetting the donations of bigots to parties who would fortify or extend that discrimination, gay people would also have to worry about bankruptcy. There's at least 5 bigots for each gay person.
It's only a matter of time. Maybe universal gay marriage will not be achieved in my lifetime but it will be achieved. If people have power to bring it closer with their efforts or monetary contributions - they are welcome to do so, but it is still quite inevitable. This topic might hold relevance and controversy for now, but ultimately - it is not. Just another footnote in history.
As long as Mozilla products do not feature a "Not to be used by gays" warning, whatever Eich does in his time is irrelevant. He's free to spend his money in any way he likes. What prevented the authors of this article to spend $1000 to counterbalance Eich's contribution if they are so concerned?