OkCupid urges boycott of Mozilla over CEOs gay marriage views

“Mozilla’s new CEO, Brendan Eich, is an opponent of equal rights for gay couples,” the message said. “We would therefore prefer that our users not use Mozilla software to access OkCupid.”

  • the_other_stevejobs

    OkCupid does not support equal rights for all people – just couples.

    Just pointing out the hypocrisy because it gets really tiresome to read about these “good” people who are for equal rights…

    except, they really aren’t.

    • explain.

      • Darren

        He (She?) gave that in the very first sentence.

  • asdfasdf

    free publicity

  • John V.

    Piling endlessly on Brendan Eich is the new thing now? Jeez, did we solve wars, poverty, and hunger?

    • your logic is flawed. it is not necessary to solve those problems before trying to solve smaller problems…just as marriage equality.

  • impressed

    cat “ okcupid.com” >>/etc/hosts

  • Adam Simon

    Wow, disappointed that all the comments on The Loop are anti-OkCupid, and, implicitly, pro-Brendan Eich. Free publicity for doing the right thing is well earned. Thanks for posting this here, Jim, seems like some of your readers needed to see it.

    • John V.

      How about you find something else to be disappointed about? I’m not “pro-Brendan Eich”, mister if-you-aint-with-us-you’re-with-the-terrorists. I’m just anti-hysteria.

      This is not about a battle between good and evil.

      Brendan Eich isn’t an authority on marriage. He’s just a nerd who dared have his own (oudated) opinion and threw some money to support it years ago.

      What happened is that Prop 8 was rejected anyway, and now everyone is happy.

      Except those looking for cheap reason to be outraged, or cheap ways to get free publicity, such as OkCupid.

      • Adam Simon

        So I’m not allowed to have an opinion based on Eich’s actions? I don’t always agree with Jim, but in this instance, when all comments were against him, I felt it necessary to voice support.

        Saying it’s not important enough to discuss is the death of all political discussion, and the height of trolldom.

        • John V.

          The irony of complaining you’re not “allowed” to have an opinion about Eich having an opinion?


          Also, what “political discussion”? The discussion already happened. A decision was already made? Have you been living under stone for the last six years?

          Here’s how democracy works, dude:

          1. A problem is recognized.

          2. A debate is had. Popular opinion trends emerge.

          3. A vote is had. The decision of the vote sticks.

          4. Those who win the vote lunch those who lost the vote, for years, and deny them any public position of power.

          Oh wait, my bad. Step 4 is not a part of democracy. It’s just part of bigotry.

          No, here’s the real step 4.

          1. Those who lost the vote accept the public opinion, and we’re all happy.

          In a democracy, we can’t always agree. And “obvious solutions” are not always obvious to all of us. We can have a discussion, but we don’t have to hate each other.

          I don’t agree with Brendan Eich, and I probably wouldn’t vote for him as a politician, but he has calmly accepted the repeat of Prop 8, and his work revolves around browsers, not marriage.

          So, you’re allowed to have your opinion, but you still kinda come off as a bitter asshole, mkay?

          • Adam Simon

            Really? I only commented in the first place because there were zero positive comments, and I wanted Jim to know I agreed with his posting this story. I know that one yes in a sea of no actually affects editorial decisions.

            You’re misrepresenting politics around minorities. Eich’s opinion, if he still holds it, is harmful to an entire class of people, not an individual. It’s therefore inherently political, not personal. And as a CEO, he’s a public figure, and his political actions are relevant to his position.

            To be clear, I don’t think Mozilla should remove him, but I do think they will face the consequences of a politically charged CEO. And that’s what this is about: One company seizing on social unease about another for PR. But that doesn’t negate the social unease. He could fix almost everything by making a bland statement, but the fact that he hasn’t doesn’t speak well of him as a leader.

          • agreed — as CEO of a major internet organization, he is a public figurehead. his opinions, right or wrong, speak for the entire organization.

            imagine if the CEO of IBM spoke out against mixed-racial marriages during the civil rights movement. there would be the same outage and call for his ouster.

    • Mantrax

      You’re right. This issue is pretty black and white.

      Say during my last reunion, my grandma, who is otherwise a very lovely lady, said something racist.

      I knew I had to act. I stood up, dramatically renounced my genetic heritage, and published a press release condemning my grandmother’s statements.

      It wasn’t easy, but I did it for the right reasons. Because if I’m not anti-grandma, I’m pro-racist.

      • Adam Simon

        If your grandma donated money to an anti-Mantrax fund, you’d probably be pretty anti-grandma.

        • Mantrax

          I’ll just say this.

          Hating those who hate, doesn’t count as love. It’s still hate.

          Open your heart a little. Unless there’s a risk Brendan Eich will hop into a time machine and change the outcome of the Prop 8 vote, his views are harmless.

          Name one thing he has done at Mozilla to discriminate LGBT folks. One thing. And then we can have something to talk about.

          Otherwise, it’s just hate. Simple as that.

          • Hating those who hate, doesn’t count as love. It’s still hate.

            actually, no. hating those who hate gays, or blacks, or anything bigoted, and working to undo their policies and publicly shame their opinions is actually working for the greater good; while those who simply hate as bigots are working for the greater harm.

  • Ohyeah

    Shocker. People who demand tolerance aren’t tolerant.

    This company and some of the folks at Mozilla disgust me. They want equal treatment of homosexuals yet don’t allow others to have an opposing view. They throw around words like ‘hate’ and ‘bigot’, when it fact THEY are the ones who hate and THEY are the bigots.

    • your post is so confusing i can’t tell which side of the issue you’re on. but no one should be tolerant of racial or minority intolerance. despite being the same words, the actions are very different….being intolerant of hate is a net positive. being intolerant of gays is simply being an asshole, a net negative.

  • Janus

    1) why does the state need to regulate the business of marriage at all? Who someone decides to marry is his, her, or its business, and is between them and their respective religions or lack thereof. Or, are some more “equal” than others?

    2) why would I care about a ceo’s personal views? On net, Google and Microsoft certainly have found ways to do much more harm and impact than a small organization like Mozilla. Is the software itself somehow anti-gay? I don’t think so.

    • because those in positions of power wield power. who gets to meet the president and try to influence policy? the executive class. not you and me… thus their personal opinions matter.

  • Moeskido

    I imagine there’d be fewer people here urging “tolerance” for Eich’s actions if they’d somehow been directly affected by something like his funding of Prop 8.

    • yar. the neo-libertarian mouth-breathing of some of my techie brethren is quite embarrassing.

      • Moeskido

        It’s an attractive philosophy for selfish middle-schoolers.