And that whistle-blower will never be hired by anybody else again. All future potential employers will "just happen" to find a better-qualified candidate than someone with a history of antagonizing their employers.

You think that, in the web industry, an employee would probably be stigmatized for making public an possible case of homophobia? More likely, he would be treated like a small hero.

Really, there is no need to treat Eich as guilty a priori here.

The ballot is secret for a reason, and small donations should be secret too.

$1000 is more than the average American makes in a week.

I'm not saying the limit for anonymity should be $1000. It could be lower (such as half a minimum wage, or maybe one third). If that was in place, Eich could have chosen to limit his donation and gain anonymity. So it would be win-win: donors would have an option to be anonymous, and _small_ donations would be incentivized, which is good for democracy (we don't want big money to skew the democratic process).

Ethics has nothing whatsoever to do with the personal choice to boycott something that one disagrees with.

So is it ethical to boycott banks controlled by Jews?

Here people boycotted an organization based on the private, past political activism of its CEO; he was eventually forced to resign. The ballot is secret for a reason, and small donations should be secret too.

I am using "ethical" in the sense of "morally correct", not in the sense of the philosophy branch called ethics.

With Mozilla giving benefits to same-sex couples and having outreach programs for homosexuals, it is hard to see how an anti-gay culture could build up. And, it is impossible for such a culture to build invisibly; these days ideological hiccups regarding homosexuality are cast out.

If and when Eich harmed an employee, that employe could be unable to legally prove his case, but could easily make the case public, thus causing Eich's demise. There is no need to preventive strikes.

Besides: would you support this Mccarthyism regarding other controversies about rights? Should we, for example, force pro-life CEOs to resign because "they are unfit to lead women"?

Ideas need to be debated based on their merits, not on punisment and reward. The ballot is secret for a reason, and small donations should be secret too.

I have not seen this Mccarthyism applied to abortion, the death penalty, censorship of pornography, or other controversies in which one (or both) side claims it is about rights. For example, in the abortion controversy, one side claims to be fighting for the recognition of the human right to life (the most important human right) while the other claims to be fighting for the woman's right to her own body (a very important human right indeed). Yet I don't see any figurehead resigning because they donated $1000 to NARAL, 5 years ago. It seems to be accepted that a person's private political activism, done off-work, quietly, not using the company brand, and not against the company core mission, is their own choice. This should apply to the homosexuality controversy too. Ideas need to be debated on their merits, not on reward and punishment.

Political donations below a certain limit (say, half a minimum wage) should be allowed to be anonymous. The ballot is secret for a reason, and small donations should be secret too (except for aggregate statistics).

Eich worked to criminalize what people do privately.

Hyperbole.

It wasn't his marriage that got revoked.

The original post is still hyperbole. He wasn't proposing that the state punish people for having illegal sex, which is what the original post was implying. He was proposing that the state does not institute (with tax benefits, shared guard over adopted kids, etc.) marriage between people of the same sex. He wanted same-sex couples to be in the same situtation as polygamous groups: ignored by the state. You may disagree with that, but if you have good arguments for your disagreement, then you don't need to attack strawmen.

In the current corporate legal environment that leans heavily in their favor, there can be no expectation of separation of the public and the private for management. They simply have too much power over the lives of others to pretend anything else is possible.

It would be understandable to boycott Mozilla if the CEO actually harmed an employee. It is unreasonable to perform a preventive strike, reasoning that "he will never be able to separate his beliefs from his work and therefore he is guilty a priori.

It wasn't just his political activism from 5 years ago that was the problem. If he had disavowed that behaviour, apologized to his employees and make an act on contrition (such as donating a significant amount of money to a pro-gay marriage organization or campaign) they could have buried the hatchet. However, apparently he still does not believe that his gay employees should be fully equal to the heterosexual ones. Effectively, he chose to step down rather than admit he was wrong.

Would you make the same demand of political conformity for the figurehead of an organization who donated $1000, 5 years ago, to the side you disagree with, in a political campaign regarding abortion, the death penalty, censorship of pornography, religious freedom, or other controversies where one (or both) side alleges to be defending human rights? If so, that would be a massive boycott... And if not, why not?

It's all perfectly legal

Legal is different from ethical our correct. I have the legal right do deny the Holocaust. But that would not be right.

Eich worked to criminalize what people do privately.

Hyperbole.

The CEO is the brand.

Not when he's doing a private donation, which is only publicised for legal reasons. Would you be happy if he had to resign after, say, pro-lifers found out that he donated $1000 dollars to NARAL, 5 years ago? Both sides of the abortion issue claim that their position is about human rights.

People should debate ideas based on their merits, not based on reward and punishment.

Each of those employers (in an at-will employment state/country) could fire someone for those beliefs.

You are mixing the concept of "legal right" with the concept of "ethical".

For example, denying the Holocaust may be free speech (and therefore the government should not forbid it) but it is not correct.

Firing, demoting, or forcing someone to resign because of their private political activism 5 years ago may be legal, but it is not ethical.

We don't want a society where every anti-ethical thing is a crime.

You're wrong, actually. We as citizens are just as free to voice our views as Eich was to voice his. We're saying we disagree with his views. Are you trying to suggest that we be disallowed from that basic freedom?

One thing is to have a legal right, another thing is to be correct. You are legally free to boycott a company whose CEO, say, donated $1000 to a political campaign regarding abortion (either pro- or anti-), 5 years ago. That doesn't make it ethical.

Yet many places have explicit rules about political activisim

certainly not draconian enough to demote someone because of a private $1000 donation 5 years ago.

If a principal was "caught" for some minor sex-crime (we can use "indecent exposure for using a gay glory hole" for an example if you like, but the details don't matter much)

I am speaking of political activism. For society to be free, ideas need to be debated on their merits, not on punishment and reward. Thus we need freedom of speech, political activism, conscience and religion. Other kinds of freedom (e.g. freedom to use drugs or to contract a prostitute) can in some situtations be regulated.

So firing a principal which was caught in a sexual orgy is not the same thing as firing a principal who, say, donated $1000 to some side of the abortion issue, 5 years ago.

And stepping down isn't "demoted".

See http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

He wasn't fired, he chose to resign as it was in the best interests of Mozilla. As CEO he was the figurehead of the company, and he simply cannot distinguish his private beliefs from those of the company in the same way as a rank-and-file employee can. No one cared that he worked at Mozilla - they cared that he _led_ Mozilla.

Would you think it OK if the figurehead of a technological organization had to resign after boycots from those who objected to a $1000 donation, 5 years ago, to some side of the abortion issue, or the death penalty issue?

People should be free to engage in politics according to their conviction, without punishment or reward. The ballot is secret for a reason.

Political donations are publicised as a check against a few billionaires distorting the playing field. To see how much money influenced the election. It was not meant to be a tool for personal retribution.

Freedom of political activism doesn't cease to apply when it is about rights. Imagine if this happened in other controversies about rights:
Employer 1: "Oh, you are pro-choice? You want to deny unborn children the right to life. Fired!"
Employer 2: "Oh, you are pro-life? You want to deny women the right to self-determination. Fired!"
Employer 3: "Oh, you support the death penalty? You want to deny felons the right to life. Fired!"

This is wrong. People must never be demoted because of political activism they do privatly, not using the company brand, and not related to the company mission.

Supporting prop 8 (i.e. supporting legislation that would remove equal rights from a particular group of people), is perfectly consistent with the definition of a bigot. It's name calling, but it's accurate name calling.

In a political debate, you may accuse the other side to fit the definition of "bigot" or "immoral" or "rearded" or "dork" or whatever, but that doesnt change a simple fact: rational political debates are about debating ideas, not name-calling people. Name-calling only serves to make the debate irrational. Do you really believe that it is mature to insult just because you think the insult is "accurate"? Most name callers think they're accurate; that doesn't make it OK.

I support the right of free association,[...]

No one if denying the legal right to free association. We are saying that demoting someone based on his personal, private political activity is anti-ethical.

One thing is to have a legal right, another thing is to be correct. You have the legal right to deny the Holocaust, or to claim that a person should be demoted from an technological organization because of his private political views. That doen't make it ethical.