Mozilla's Gay-Marriage Litmus Test Violates Liberal Values

On what basis is the claim justified that "he was fired" at all?

And, if he was fired (or, at least, given the choice to resign or be fired), what evidence is that that it was because of the donation (whatever it might provide "evidence" of), and not because of Mozilla board's concerns about the way he responded to the controversy over the donation? Managing corporate image is, after all, part of the CEO's responsibility.

I wonder how you'd feel if your company hired a CEO who would want to take away your spouse's benefits because [insert arbitrary reason here]. There is a reason why people are vocal: they get hurt otherwise.

You have never seen–and won’t see–“heterosexual only” and “gay only” water fountains, diners, buses, schools, in light of 75 years of oppressive Jim Crow laws.

You have not–and won’t–see homosexuals snatched away from their families at birth for the purpose of division and dehumanization.

Homosexual men/women have never endured a slave trade for generations and witnessed their ancestors dying by the numbers during a “Middle Passage” and being sold for raw goods.

Homosexuals have never been–or will be considered–non-citizens by laws of the United States that rob them of inalienable rights.

Homosexuals will never face a societal norm that allows–and even promotes–them to be beaten because they are seen as property and treated like cattle.

All of this is why I've always considered the "gay = racial minority" argument weak sauce.

I understand that. What I am saying is: his standards are broken.

> Rather, you want to punish Brendan, in part, because of the nature of his belief.

No. You can be a bigot in private if you want to, that is your right. But that's not what Brendon did. He 1) took action to try to get his (and other's) bigotry enshrined into law (successfully, I might add) and 2) when called out years later, he stood by his bigotry. That is why I believe his ouster was justified.

> It is because Brendan had donated to a cause which you disagree with, that you want him to be punished.

No. There are a lot of people who donate to a lot of causes with which I vehemently disagree. If everyone who donated to a cause that I disagree with were fired no one would have a job.

The reason this issue is different is that reasonable people can no longer disagree about it. We've done the experiment. We have gay married people now, and none of the horrible things that were supposed to happen when gays got married have come to pass. There is no argument against gay marriage that has not been utterly and completely debunked, except religious ones, and in the United States making laws based on your religion is out of bounds. Opposing gay marriage is completely indefensible on any grounds other than personal bigotry (or, if you prefer, personal belief, but I believe in calling a spade a spade).

> But who is to say Brendan's standard is better or worst than yours?

My standard is the Constitution of the United States of America, specifically, the fourteenth amendment. You can be a bigot here, but you may not seek to enshrine your bigotry into law. If you don't like it, move to Russia. State-sponsored anti-gay bigotry is alive and well there.