> The reaction is disproportionate to his contribution, though. His donation was quite small, and at no point did he use his status as a public figure to speak out in favor of Prop 8.
What difference does donating 10cents vs $10,000 to a cause make? By donating you are supporting the bill/policy/action.
> What he did was wrong, but it was not enough for us to prop him up as a sacrificial lamb in the name of equality. It would serve no common good, bringing us no closer to repealing the law, but could lead to consequences for Brendan far worse than any well-meaning blogger could conceivably intend.
The law was already struck down as unconstitutional. But it took 5 years to do so.
> Let us instead work to change his moral stance, whether by argument or by example. If tomorrow Brendan Eich were to say - and genuinely believe - that marriage is just as much a right for gays as it is for heterosexuals, then that would be a victory far sweeter than punishing him for having once believed wrongly.
I think there is some anger over how Brendan Eich responded; which is not directly admitting to anything.
I don't know if I would ask for his resignation, but he still hasn't addressed this very well. The problem seems to be that he refuses to address his stance on it. So you can't very well work with him when he doesn't even admit to donating the money, nor admit to believing that gays should not marry.
I am very confused by the different signals the javascript community continues to send about this situation compared to others. On the one hand, people continually get shouted down for saying or doing things that are offensive or insensitive to minority groups (and rightly so), however a lot of the same people seem to give Eich a lot of slack and choose to consider this situation as not a big deal.
I do not know the Eich, and I am not gay, so the only thing I can compare it to is as someone who is Asian.
If I found out that the CEO of the company I work at was known to have donated to a proposition that didn't want Asians to have equal rights, or even simply, not be able to marry, I am not sure I could continue working there. Mozilla itself as an organization seems to be very supportive of everyone regardless of sexual orientation, race, or other preferences, so does that mean individually I am free to support legislation that will legalize inequality?
I understand that some LGBT employees at Mozilla have written in support of Eich, but is that fair to only take in the opinion of one person as the opinion of the rest of the group? If someone said, "Look Jackie is Asian, and when I do my ching-chong squinty-eye impression while wearing a conical hat, they laugh and are OK with it" that would still not make the situation okay despite how Jackie feels about it.
I guess I am confused, and would like to understand this situation. I'm not really looking for blood and seeking his resignation. It seems like in this post he is going to do what is right for the company and continue supporting their current policies. That part is great but why was he given a free pass before this post?
Not that I'm going to feel sorry for the retailers who are complaining because they may possibly not get that sweet sweet resale of a used game but I feel like this just leads us down a slope where in the future more and more games will have parts cut out of it unless you buy it new and paid your $10. What's going to happen when there are _no_ more new copies? Are they going to release the extra content for free at that point?
And what's to say that for Mass Effect 3 EA won't limit the number of endings you can achieve unless you buy it new?
Not to hate on Daring Fireball but why is it that a link from his site about this topic gets more comments and points than an original HN that pointed it out in the first place?
it seems like what is happening is they are typing, "facebook login" into google, then they click the first link, which is "news results for facebook login", the first link on that page is the RWW article.
What difference does donating 10cents vs $10,000 to a cause make? By donating you are supporting the bill/policy/action.
> What he did was wrong, but it was not enough for us to prop him up as a sacrificial lamb in the name of equality. It would serve no common good, bringing us no closer to repealing the law, but could lead to consequences for Brendan far worse than any well-meaning blogger could conceivably intend.
The law was already struck down as unconstitutional. But it took 5 years to do so.
> Let us instead work to change his moral stance, whether by argument or by example. If tomorrow Brendan Eich were to say - and genuinely believe - that marriage is just as much a right for gays as it is for heterosexuals, then that would be a victory far sweeter than punishing him for having once believed wrongly.
I think there is some anger over how Brendan Eich responded; which is not directly admitting to anything.
I don't know if I would ask for his resignation, but he still hasn't addressed this very well. The problem seems to be that he refuses to address his stance on it. So you can't very well work with him when he doesn't even admit to donating the money, nor admit to believing that gays should not marry.