Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Brendan Eich of Mozilla gave $1000 to support gay marriage ban

projects.latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 40 posts

Re: Brendan Eich of Mozilla gave $1000 to support gay marriage ban

#21

Post by tommorris »

jjdsampson wrote: post #6
daeken wrote: post #2

As a Mozilla employee that strongly supports the right of all persons to marry, let me be the first to say: who the hell cares? At the end of the day, what he believes doesn't matter to me or anyone else.

I sincerely don't see the problem. I think those opposed to Prop 8 should demonstrate a bit more tolerance to everybody who may not agree with them. Now if the $1,000 went towards Westboro Baptist Church, so that they could lash out and call people "faggots", then I would be a bit upset.

I need to be more tolerant towards people who think I don't deserve legal equality because of who I'm sexually and romantically attracted to? Sorry, that's a hard sell.

Re: Brendan Eich of Mozilla gave $1000 to support gay marriage ban

#22

Post by ubernostrum »

EvilTrout wrote: post #14
underscor wrote: post #11

This isn't really an HN topic, is it? Also, anyone can fucking donate to whoever they want. Notice in the "name" column it says "Brendan Elch", not "Mozilla, Inc." What he does with his money is his business.

It says "Mozilla" right beside his name. I think most people would have less of an issue of he donated without stating his employer.

In the US, currently, if an individual donates more than $200 to certain types of political campaigns, that individual's name, address, occupation and employer must be included in campaign finance disclosures. $1000 > $200, so that's why the information is there.

As an aside: my previous job was in journalism, and generally in that field there's a (self-enforced) ethical code against making such donations largely because the employer's name is disclosed and could lead people to assume endorsement by a news outlet.

Re: Brendan Eich of Mozilla gave $1000 to support gay marriage ban

#24

Post by _pghu »

petercooper wrote: post #10
hcatlin wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You and I might disagree on tax policy... that's fine! We might disagree on flavors of ice cream too! We're still fine. But, when you say that I have no right to call my husband my husband. And the very idea that I have a loving relationship with him that the government might recognize and treat equally with a same-sex couple. That very idea prompts you to go google for "nom", then find the donation page, you then ha…

Maybe this is being overprecise and I share your viewpoint here, but singling out Brendan is perhaps best left until he shares his side of the story. This could be a mistake/error in accounting. I don't know how the US donation system works and if that's likely at all, but.. Of course, if it isn't a mistake, I totally agree. I just find something published by the LA Times to be.. well.. not a real guarantee of authen…

Maybe he accidentally gave them money twice:

http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx...

http://puu.sh/nOlT

Re: Brendan Eich of Mozilla gave $1000 to support gay marriage ban

#25

Post by prodigal_erik »

gergles wrote: post #23
wglb wrote: post #20

This would fall under the heading of "political discussion".

Yet amazingly the 40,000 "OH HAI SEXISM" posts that blanketed HN for the last week don't?

That's at least arguing about whether or not the tech industry has a widespread issue. This is singling out one guy (whose best-known work already had a mixed reputation among nerds). Even if it turns out Mozilla really is being run by a reactionary religious zealot, it doesn't seem to affect their technical direction nor the use of their donated funds.

Re: Brendan Eich of Mozilla gave $1000 to support gay marriage ban

#26

Post by wglb »

gergles wrote: post #23
wglb wrote: post #20

This would fall under the heading of "political discussion".

Yet amazingly the 40,000 "OH HAI SEXISM" posts that blanketed HN for the last week don't?

The guidelines http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html specifically call out politics as being off-topic.

Re: Brendan Eich of Mozilla gave $1000 to support gay marriage ban

#28

Post by tzs »

malrase wrote: post #17
malrase wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand where you're coming from with point 2. It can be very damaging for a company. Firing people because they're a Democrat or a Republican (or forcing all your employees to vote for Romney or Santorum) is going to get you in trouble, and quickly. However, I believe the split here comes whether this is a "political issue" or a "human rights issue". In my opinion, it's human rights. And I believe any company s…

(Obviously, this instance can be taken solely as a political issue - donating to a political campaign. However, I think the underlying human rights issue is still there. This is an assumption. Mr Eich could have donated for purely political reasons... but I find that difficult to comprehend.)

He could have donated for religious reasons. Prop. 8 was supported by the Catholic Church, the Mormons, orthodox Jews, and many evangelical churches.

Re: Brendan Eich of Mozilla gave $1000 to support gay marriage ban

#29

Post by statictype »

nickmain wrote: post #27
wglb wrote: post #20

This would fall under the heading of "political discussion".

No - this would fall under the heading of "human rights discussion".

A single person's donation to support a questionable proposition - I'm not sure that's a human rights discussion. In any case, neither of those are good web forum topics.

Re: Brendan Eich of Mozilla gave $1000 to support gay marriage ban

#30

Post by petercooper »

eldude wrote: post #19

The assumption here is that there's no legitimate reason for supporting a gay marriage ban. Obviously A LOT of people disagree with that fundamental assumption, otherwise the potential ban wouldn't exist. Personally, you have to address why the government is involved in marriage at all. From my understanding, it is for the purpose of encouraging the family unit and the perpetuation of society through offspring. Gay p…

By that logic, people who are infertile, have certain disabilities, or who don't plan to have children shouldn't be allowed to get married either. I'm not convinced those are similarly good reasons to restrict marriage.
Post reply on HN