What if your reason is that he supports the elimination of benefits for a commonly discriminated against minority class, and he's being put into a position to at least indirectly make decisions about those benefits at a company that has historically supported them?
What the record actually shows is that the policies of Mozilla, in the time he was CEO, treated well those who had cause to oppose him in his private political life.
You mean during that week that everybody hammered him about his anti-gay donations and then he quit? I have doubts about his ability to push substantial policy during that period, to say the least.
Comments
What if your reason is that he supports the elimination of benefits for a commonly discriminated against minority class, and he's being put into a position to at least indirectly make decisions about those benefits at a company that has historically supported them?
What the record actually shows is that the policies of Mozilla, in the time he was CEO, treated well those who had cause to oppose him in his private political life.
You mean during that week that everybody hammered him about his anti-gay donations and then he quit? I have doubts about his ability to push substantial policy during that period, to say the least.
So, basically people were just against what he might do. (Which also has clear parallels with past justifications for firing a gay CEO.)