Skip to comments.The New Torquemadas: CEO Brendan Eich Would not recant his heresy, The New Torquemadas
Posted on 04/05/2014 8:52:45 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
One could be forgiven for throwing ones hands up in despair at the sheer audacity of it all. A fortnight ago, as the federal government took to the courts to defend a rule that deliberately burdens the consciences of Americas more religiously devout entrepreneurs, the professional Left adopted the position that companies do not have consciences, griped that a harsh separation of the public and the private spheres was a recipe for the suffering of unpopular or put-upon individuals, and insisted that any links between the activities of an employee and the deeply held beliefs of his boss should be thoroughly shattered. Today, the opposite case is regnant. Defending the appalling hounding of Brendan Eich, progressives seem to have suddenly got the message: reminding critics that there exists no legal right to be the CEO of a non-profit; insisting correctly that this sordid and alarming little affair does not in any way implicate the First Amendment; and acknowledging that, the doctrine of at-will employment being what it is, a man may resign from his job for whatever reason up to and including harassment.
Well, comrades which is it to be?
The answer to this question, one suspects, is whichever suits the moment. Which is to say that the Eich affair is ultimately about power, not principle the latest in a series of plays contrived to show who is in charge. Convenient as it might be to pretend otherwise, the Left does not truly believe that private companies may behave as they wish to, but that private companies may behave as the Left wishes them to whether instructed by government or not.
Adroitly obfuscating the nature of his departure, Mozilla insisted that Eich chose to resign, which may be technically accurate but is a reasonable description of what happened here only in the sense that it is reasonable to contend that pirates who are asked to walk the plank ultimately chose to jump. As being faced with 200 sailors carrying scimitars provides quite the incentive to plunge into the icy Atlantic, so being the target of a cyclonic witch-hunt helps along the hand that signs the resignation papers. It is all allowed under the law, certainly and should be. But that is not really the material question here. What is legal, as William F. Buckley famously noted, is not always reputable. And this has been a greatly disreputable affair.
Mozillas chairwoman, Mitchell Baker, explained oleaginously to the excited press corps yesterday that by hiring Eich in the first place, her outfit didnt act like youd expect Mozilla to act. Im not so sure. My support for gay marriage has long been tempered by the suspicion that the admirable calls for freedom and for toleration would swiftly be subordinated to the enforcement of orthodoxies and to the punishment of heretics. Anybody who has observed in action the maxim that what was yesterday prohibited will tomorrow be mandatory would have expected Mozilla to act precisely in this way to make a good decision initially but then pithlessly to become the latest petri dish in which the never-sated advocates of respect might successfully try their luck. Later, Baker continued her abject apology by suggesting, inexplicably, that the company didnt move fast enough. Short of his being thrown screaming from a window at the inaugural board meeting, it is difficult to see how Mozilla could have moved more quickly. Eich was pushed out after only ten days in charge a remarkably quick scalp, even in our breathless age. The consequence of reflection and debate this decision was not. It was a victory for the mob, and nothing less.
How quickly has liberty been transmuted into orthodoxy. For the entirety of human history, gay marriage was a veritable non-issue a thought that had occurred seriously to nobody and for which there was neither a meaningful constituency nor measurable pressure. In the space of a decade it has moved from a fringe and novel proposition to a moral imperative and, now, to fodder for the new inquisitors. That the issue has now achieved the approval of a narrow majority is to my mind no bad thing. That the movements more vocal champions have started bludgeoning their enemies one and a half minutes into their still-fragile victory speaks tremendously ill of them, and does not portend well for the republic.
Eichs crime is to have contributed $1,000 to support Proposition 8, a successful 2008 California ballot initiative that amended the state constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. Unlike the incumbent president of the United States, who not only affirmed in that year that he believed marriage to be between one man and one woman but contended that his religion required him to protect this definition, Eich has been relatively silent on the question of homosexuality. Still, we can presume rather reasonably that his contribution implied his support in that year, which puts him neatly in line with 52 percent of the California electorate, with Bill and Hillary Clinton, with the president and vice president, with the majority of the United States Congress, and with the American public all of which, half a decade ago at least, were content to defend the status quo. One can only wonder at what manner of firings we would have to expect were we to rifle through the campaign contributions of other American leaders and chief executives. As is the proclivity of the technology industry, Mozilla evidently regards itself as especially open and unprejudiced a beacon that burns bright in the night. But rare is the corporation that does not pay lip service to the very principles on which Mozilla appears so erroneously to pride itself. If we are to make long-term fealty to progressive doctrine the prerequisite to corporate management, Americas economy will fold overnight. Who is next, Torquemada?
Nervous that his appointment had provoked some doubt as to his commitment to fostering equality and welcome for LGBT individuals at Mozilla, Eich immediately set about issuing promises. As CEO, he would strive to keep a place of equality and welcome for all, work with LGBT communities and allies, to listen and learn what does and doesnt make Mozilla supportive and welcoming, and demonstrate an active commitment to equality in everything we do, from employment to events to community-building. In response to this assurance, Eich was shown precisely how supportive and welcoming Mozilla was: He was urged to leave.
The entreaties ranged from the contradictory to the sinister. Wrapping her intolerance and hysteria in the vapid, saccharine, and malleable language of the graduate-school prospectus, an employee named Sydney Moyer explained on Twitter that because the company offered a big, open, and messy culture of openness and inclusion, her new CEO should be forced to go away. Once upon a time, individuals who could not square their consciences with their circumstances saw fit to remove themselves. But, safely ensconced under the new cultural carapace, Moyers evidently recognized that she had all the power. I cannot reconcile having Brendan Eich as CEO with our companys culture and mission, Moyers wrote. Brendan, please step down. Thus, once again, was the English language the language of Mill, Shakespeare, Milton, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Churchill not impressed into the service of individual liberty and defense of conscience but inverted and twisted in the hope of silencing the different. It seems that one can get away with the most extraordinary non sequiturs if one wraps them in enough nonsense. Two spoons of sugar, one of vinegar; lets hope that nobody notices the taste.
All in all, it is tempting to see Moyers and her ilk as little more than sad victims of their generation lost souls who have a poor grasp of the meaning of words and an unfortunate tendency to swallow zeitgeists whole and to cheer on their enforcers. So often now, platitudes are offered as replacements for thought reason being held in lower esteem than the unholy mixture of corporatespeak and progressive silliness that has infected our national conversation. Contemptible as her behavior was, Moyers and the thousands who think like her are not the cause of the problem, but a symptom useful idiots, not evil schemers. Alas, the same cannot be said of the ringleaders of men such as Owen Thomas, a tech gossip columnist and amateur tyrant who was so vexed by Eichs employment that he saw fit to issue what can only be described as a catechism. Among the commandments that Thomas etched onto his website were: Stop saying that this was merely a private matter that wont affect your work as Mozillas CEO; Say that whatever chain of logic led you to conclude that your personal views required you to support Proposition 8 was flawed, erroneous, incorrect; Say that you support the rights of people to enter into same-sex marriages everywhere; and Make a donation equal in amount to the money you gave to Proposition 8 and candidates who supported it to the Human Rights Campaign or another organization that fights for the civil rights of LGBT people. Elsewhere, a Credoaction petition accrued 75,000 signatures behind the demand that CEO Brendan Eich should make an unequivocal statement of support for marriage equality. If he cannot, he should resign. And if he will not, the board should fire him immediately.
In other words, Eich must repent: Specifically, he must prostrate himself before his betters and announce publicly that he has sinned; he must thank his inquisitors for their forbearance and beg for their forgiveness and charity; and, perhaps most sinister of all, he must start tithing to a church of their choice lest he be refused redemption and ostracized like a common leper. And if he should refuse this call to betterment? Hie thee to a monastery, man! or, better perhaps, to the public stocks at the bottom of the valley.
Notably missing from the hysteria was any explanation of precisely what Eichs critics expected to happen were he left in charge. Instead, Mozillas press office merely asserted that the company was such a diverse, tolerant, and live-and-let-live sort of place that it was all but obliged to hound a man out of office because he possessed slightly different political views from the majority of its staff. Nowhere was it suggested that Eich would damage the company. Nowhere was it argued that he was personally hostile or unpleasant toward its employees. Nowhere was it implied that he would seek to discriminate against those about whom he might have personal qualms. Instead, we were left with the uncomfortable impression that the assembled denizens of the open-source browser industry are so pathetic and so delicate in their sensibilities that they cannot work alongside anybody who displays the temerity to disagree with them. Is that who we want to be?
Announcing its nasty little victory, Mozilla informed the public that the resignation had struck a blow for free speech and equality. Gay conformity agency GLAAD went one further, praising corporate America for demonstrating its commitment to providing an environment that is inclusive, safe, and welcoming to all. The most comprehensive commitment to toleration, however, came from a different source from a man who assured spectators before he left office that he wished only to ensure that Mozilla is, and will remain, a place that includes and supports everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, age, race, ethnicity, economic status, or religion. That affirmation was penned by Brendan Eich, but it cant be held to count for much, because he has the wrong sort of heart.
Charles C. W. Cooke is a staff writer at National Review.
I LOVED how they described their love of”Diversity”and”FVreedom Of Speech”?It’s Like Nazi Germany or The Soviet Union “Re-Set”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
I do not consider him a hero by the way. He apologized to his tormentors for his views. That was his first and last mistake.
No wonder Eich was run out of town on a rail. The understated message to conservatives here is concessions to liberals do not buy you their goodwill. They only buy you their contempt.
I would have liked him better had he stood his ground. I don’t work at Mozilla and its no secret about my views. But unlike Brendan Eich - I will never change them.
no executive in his right mind will donate money to a conservative cause after this.
no executive in his right mind will donate money to a conservative cause after this.
That’s pretty much the point of terrorist tactics. They work thru intimidation.
This is just sick. What kind of twisted minds thinks it’s OK to do this.
He DID recant his “heresies” - and he still got canned.
Apologize if you think you are wrong and your enemies are right. If that is the truth, as you see it, then state the truth: "I was a fool, but now I've been re-educated."
Hold your original position if you think you were right. If that is the truth, as you see it, then state the truth: "My enemies are a destructive force, and people ought to say so. I'm saying so."
But you cannot grovel and hope to come out ahead. Abject apology means you lose twice. Standing up for yourself means you lose only once.
The only question: How big of a loser do you want to be?
I have studied history. Without a doubt, if many of these leftist fanatics had the power of Stalin of Hitler, they would not hesitate to exterminate millions of Conservatives.
They have true evil in their heart. They are one with Satan.
Many yes, but there will be many more emboldened to fine ways to fight back with more vigor.
The fascists on the left are determined to push us to destruction and humiliation. They will lose.
This is what less than 2% of the population can do on behalf of 2% when they lobby big business directly. Threats of bad press, boycotts and lawsuits work. Hopefully, we won’t have to be as nasty as liberals. It is big business lobbying our legislators to sideline conservatives and the tea parties. Are we going to stay silent or are we going to follow the money?
Add a comment on my web page with your email address, requesting it not be published (I’m very careful about not publishing email addresses in comments) and I can email you a spreadsheet of the Fortune 500 Companies including contact information to use and share so that we can start lobbying Big Business directly.
Other than switching to a browser other than Mozilla Fire Fox, how does one make it clear to Mozilla and the homosexual activists that they have crossed the line?
Does Mozilla have a home page where I can object?
How long until re-education camps are opened?
The left rails about the church’s inquisition but hypocritically gives full support to the gay inquisition.
Do not comply! Resist!
The guy needs to find the best labor lawyer in the Bay Area and burn down Mozilla.
Be happy to recommend one.
Eich should have never apologized. That implicated he was wrong.
Oh, little things like that don’t matter in court.
Good attorney could turn that into part of the complaint.
there is no “gay” “marriage” in ANY sense of either word
In this current fascist faggot fiasco, as in every other national deviance of the past few decades, there is ONE enabler without which none of it would have been possible:
Screw worrying about the media. Take on their owners, among whom is the number one enabler, the funder of homosexual sadomasochistic pedophile, Alfred Kinsey: The Rockefeller Foundation.
Where do us Mozilla users go from here?
A silver lining? That this could be a watershed event and people see what has been going on but this really highlights it??
I think there is a potential too, for those who are unsure of the “same sex” union question (yes, no marriage can be same sex), might see it should not be a social experiment, see other states and come to that conclusion. I think that website MassResistance pretty well has already proven that as well.
Is that not like saying that Communism is great except for the people running it?
You can NOT separate the former attempts by the Homosexual community to force glorification and approval of their chosen perversions and their current attempts for to force the same thing now that they have the stage and eager sycophants, of which you are one Cooke, to ruin lives of those who don't bow down and worship the glory of their sticking their p**** in another man's a**.
Wring your hands and pee your lacy panties as you will Cooke, you asked for and supported this. You wanted it. You promoted it. I do not know if you are evil or stupid and I do not care.
You are as responsible for what happened to Brendan Eich as any one.
Well, he, like many has adopted the asinine mindset that he would accept the ‘lesser evil’. And his lesser evil has, as they always do, morphed into a greater evil with wholly unforeseen consequences.
People who willingly say to themselves “I will accept this” are themselves promoting evil. They do not like hearing it but it does not change the fact that they are helping the problem, not working toward a solution to it.
One cannot serve two masters. People can either accept the truth of it or learn to live with the evil they themselves helped empower.
That's what the mothers of the Ammonites and Moabites asked their father...
20. Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous
21. that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."
4. Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house.
5. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
6. Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him
7. and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing.
Isaiah 3:9 The look on their faces testifies against them; they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Woe to them! They have brought disaster upon themselves.
2 Peter 2:13b Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.
49. "`Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
50. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.
1. But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves.
2. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.
3. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
4. For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment;
5. if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others;
6. if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;
7. and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men
8. (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)--
9. if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment.
10. This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority. Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings;
11. yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord.
12. But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish.
13. They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.
But there IS hope!!!
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
9. Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived:
Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
10. nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
11. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
If you could NOT change, you would be in most pitiful shape...
I’m of the belief that mental illness is also big component of homosexual behavior. That was shared by the APA until the gays infiltrated it and changed it to suit their dysfunction. And yes, I believe it is also a sin.
But whether sin, mental illness or both, The bigger issue IMO is all the non homos who help empower them. It is those people who are the greatest evil.
If one believes gay is a mental issue, then those who empower it are guilty of abusing the mentally disabled. Which is an act of pure evil.
If one believes it is a sin, then they are guilty of directly assisting the evil of the sin.
In either case it empowering evil. Who can say with a straight face that when in today’s world, where every man woman child and dog knows that AIDS kills people, that it is not an act of pure evil to clear the decks to allow it to spread freely?
Thats the result of removing the stigma of ‘gay’. Dead people. Do when people say “I support gay...insert whatever” the end result is because of that support, someone dying became a whole lot easier. And it rests squarely on the shoulders of every atheist, Christian or whatever that helps make gay OK.
Good luck to anyone out there trying to factually refute that.
God it’s late...
“Thats the result of removing the stigma of gay. Dead people. When people say I support gay...insert whatever the end result is... because of that support, someone dying becomes a whole lot easier. And it rests squarely on the shoulders of every atheist, Christian or whatever that helps make gay OK.
That is pretty hard to deny.
DO IT NOW!
He should sue for religious discrimination and harassment in the workplace.
Put these freaks on notice.
And migrate to what? Google, Microsoft, and Apple are all in bed with the queer lobby. Every small-time browser I’ve seen lacks basic features.
The closest I’ve come to a real alternative is Konqueror on Linux, but it doesn’t support bookmark/history sync, a feature I consider essential.
But his position mirrored that of President Obama at the time that he made his $1,000.00 contribution. The man is being punished for failing to evolve.
Obama’s own conversion seemed motivated solely by a desire to start tapping gays for campaign funds.
Then he won’t be “conservative”will he? No room in my checkbook to support spineless weasels anyway.
tort law: an overview
Torts are civil wrongs recognized by law as grounds for a lawsuit. These wrongs result in an injury or harm constituting the basis for a claim by the injured party. While some torts are also crimes punishable with imprisonment, the primary aim of tort law is to provide relief for the damages incurred and deter others from committing the same harms. The injured person may sue for an injunction to prevent the continuation of the tortious conduct or for monetary damages.(See Damages)
Among the types of damages the injured party may recover are: loss of earnings capacity, pain and suffering, and reasonable medical expenses. They include both present and future expected losses.
You'd think that seminar spammers would at least have enough sense to vary their phrasing and style enough to disguise the fact that the same handful of losers are behind it.
But then, how smart can someone be who pulled
their pud the lever for that halfrican traitør.
Lord, I despise the left, viscerally, and more so by the day . . .
He apologized for those who were hurt, he did not apologize for his donation. If he had changed his position and groveled with the right code words he would still be CEO and all the liberals would be hunky dory with it.
> If he had changed his position and groveled with the right
> code words he would still be CEO and all the liberals would
> be hunky dory with it.
I cannot remember when this has ever been the case.
All I can remember is that every time, EVERY TIME, a target of the Left grovels, they destroy him anyway.
Better to go down fighting, than to go down after having been broken.
I.e. "I knew I was getting in bed with the devil."
This is worse than just a people problem, Kat. The devil is in it.
Ultimately this is going to meet a nemesis.