Brendan Eich Mozilla

If you haven’t been following Mozilla’s Brendan Eich story, all you need to know is that OkCupid and the thought crime brigade within Mozilla’s software developer community  were successful in getting the co-founder of the company to resign as CEO, all because he apparently believes the definition of marriage has a very specific meaning that isn’t in line with the gay community.

The Washington Times reported:

Brendan Eich, the co-founder of Mozilla, has stepped down as CEO over the controversy that erupted after his $1,000 pledge in support of California’s anti-gay marriage law Proposition 8 became widely known.

“Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn’t live up to it. We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: it’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves,” read a statement from Mozilla. “We didn’t act like you’d expect Mozilla to act. We didn’t move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We’re sorry. We must do better.”

“That was shocking to me, because I never saw any kind of behavior or attitude from him that was not in line with Mozilla’s values of inclusiveness,” [Mozilla executive chairwoman Mitchell Baker] said, Recode reported. “But I overestimated that experience.”

Yes, even though the guy wasn’t on television bashing gay people, Mozilla has been known to be a very gay-friendly company for years, that Mr. Eich kept his politics to himself and didn’t bother anyone, we know he must be a monster because he joined with millions of other religious Californians who believe marriage has a definition that can’t be squared with the gay community’s desires.

OkCupid didn’t take too kindly to that, so they started a campaign against Mozilla (which has since been rescinded with Eich’s resignation) in order to put pressure on Mr. Eich to step down. It succeeded.

Ok Cupid Mozilla

Politics is not normally OkCupid’s thing, in part because if it were its top brass would be forced to talk about how they’re willing to secretly sell your personal information to the highest bidder.

OK Cupid Third Parties

Just for fun I started an account just to see how many third-party sites would show up before I even filled out a profile or perused the site. It looks like I was well on my way to racking up a screen full of nosy little triangles. What’s up with that, OkCupid?

How many devout Christians, Muslims and Jews have used OkCupid? Do you call them your “enemies”? Do you wish them “misery” and “failure,” or do they not count because you’re making tons of money from all the information they provide in their search for a mate?

In OkCupid’s attempts to smear Mr. Eich, its statement read that the dating company knows there is “a lot more wrong in the world than misguided CEOs.” True — and OkCupid is in the “more” category.

Who is more of a threat to the happiness and health of the nation: Mr. Eich and his belief that the union between a man and a woman — with the implied understanding that they will procreate and raise their biological children in a loving home — is essential to any civil society, or OkCupid, which harvests all sorts of personal information about you and sells it to third parties without you knowing who they are or what they’ll do with it?

Do you suffer from depression? Anxiety? Do you watch kinky pornography? Do you have cancer or some other disease? Do you believe in God (like Brendan Eich)? Are you a Socialist? A Communist? A hard-core Conservative? If so, then you need to understand that companies like OkCupid want to know because it’s worth big bucks.

It turns out OkCupid actually does like religious men...provided that it can secretly make money off them by selling that information to third parties.
It turns out OkCupid actually does like religious men…provided that it can secretly make money off them by selling the knowledge of their faith to third parties.

If you really want to see just the size and scope of OkCupid’s hypocrisy, watch the 60 Minutes piece ‘Data Brokers.’ Our self-righteous friends are featured prominently.

How convenient is it that shortly after the 60 Minutes piece aired that OkCupid found a target that would allow its management to stand on a moral pedestal and get good press for it.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have a video of President Obama to watch from 2008. Apparently, he officially held the same view on marriage as Mr. Eich did up until the 2012 election. I wonder how many outraged Mozilla employees voted for him, knowing that he was a “bigot.” I don’t remember OkCupid running any political ads against him in 2008 either. Strange.


Related: OkCupid’s hypocrite CEO Sam Yagan admits he donated to the ‘enemy’ — because it benefited him


  1. Ha, I guess another example of our lefty friends wanting everyone to have a voice… long as it agrees with them. Maybe Mr. Eich believes in civil unions as opposed to marriage; there is no evidence he is trying to “stop love”.

    Besides, he made the donation on his own, not in the name of Mozilla. I had a liberal coworker once ask me how I can eat Chick-fil-a, it being supportive of the “bad” republicans….odd how I never question myself when I get coffee from progressive Starbucks or burritos from progressive Chipoltes. I did ask her if she was aware our company donated to both parties over the years, which ended that quick. I suppose I could have pressed it by asking why she bought that smartphone made under a repressive govt. Either way, I get waffle fries from Chick-fil-a, not political advice/guidance.

    Lastly, I’m not sure any retail or digital company should point fingers as they mostly all sell or rent information they collect. Any rewards card or special email coupons one signs up for contributes to this; I think that’s more alarming than the fact that Chipolte’s founder likes organic farms or Mr. Eich donated to a political cause on his own time with his own money.

    1. Ha, I guess another example of our lefty friends wanting everyone to have a voice… long as it agrees with them. Maybe Mr. Eich believes in civil unions as opposed to marriage; there is no evidence he is trying to “stop love”.

      Exactly. He’s the freakin’ co-founder of the company, for goodness sake — and its had a reputation of treating gay people just fine. No one ever complained about him. He said when he took the CEO slot he would prove by his actions that any fears were unwarranted, but that wasn’t enough. He had to go. Why? Because of a donation he made in favor of Prop 8.

      In some sense I’m a little frustrated that he just stepped down, deleted his Twitter account, and went radio silence. If you’re going to be burned at the stake of political correctness by the thought police, at least give a stirring defense of your position as you down.

      At work I asked a coworker if we were going to start rummaging through the political donations of all our co-workers and bosses to see who we can demand be let go. Where does it stop? If you disagree with these guys on climate change, are you only allowed to be a mid-level manager? If you’re in favor of cutting the budget in ‘x’ program, will you be forced to take a pay cut because you “obviously” hate “the poor”?

    2. I’m against gay “marriage” but for civil unions. I certainly do not wish harm on them nor do I plan on “stopping love.” The problem with progressives is that they conflate any opposition to this issue with “bigotry” and “homophobia” and try to silence those who are against it. One former friend from high school said my view was “comparable” to “separate but equal policies from the Jim Crow era.” Of course, I pointed out that it was ridiculous to say such a thing, but this clown responded by saying, “Yeah, well, the implications are there.” To which I said, “The only implications are in your head, which I suggest getting checked out because you’re seeing things that aren’t there.”

      I would’ve fought these PC moonbats tooth and nail. I think Eich is letting them win by deleting his Twitter account, stepping down and going radio silent. You have to fight these people when they try to destroy you, or otherwise they win.

      I don’t understand why people are obsessed with the political views of CEOs like Eich and Dan Cathy. I use Mozilla and I could care less if he feels the way he does, which is line with most Americans. When I go to a restaurant, I go there to eat and not get into a discussion about gay “marriage.” It’s bad when they speak out, but it’s OK for liberal celebrities to make disparaging comments about conservatives. Quite a double standard there.

  2. It’s disgusting how progressives continually find ways to destroy people who deviate from their group-think. They did this to Phil Robertson and Dan Cathy as well. OKCupid is trying to toe the progressive line and demonize anyone who disagrees with them, in addition to destroying their careers. I will never use OKCupid at all to find my future wife, although I don’t and have not used any dating sites because I value face-to-face interaction and because I’m aware of these sites selling information to third parties.

    And it’s amazing how the fact that Obama was against gay “marriage” up until 2012 has been swept down the memory hole. Bring it up to progressives and they’ll claim you’re “making shit up because you’re bigoted” (to quote that my “wonderful” sister) even though footage of him saying so is readily available on the Internet.

    1. And it’s amazing how the fact that Obama was against gay “marriage” up until 2012 has been swept down the memory hole. Bring it up to progressives and they’ll claim you’re “making shit up because you’re bigoted” (to quote that my “wonderful” sister) even though footage of him saying so is readily available on the Internet.

      The next time your sister is around you should blast the video and say, “Obama says he’s now against gay marriage. Listen to this! And when she comes in the room say ‘Oh, never mind. This is him in 2008.’ Does she not remember that Obama made a big deal of “evolving” on this issue in the lead up to the 2012 election when Joe Biden let the cat out of the bag? Your sister is a piece of work…

    2. She IS a piece of work. I don’t know how you can deny something like this when it’s readily available on the Internet for all to see. She doesn’t understand that free speech means having to tolerate views you do not necessarily agree with and thinks that any non-progressive views should be extinguished because they’re “bigoted” and “racist” and “Nazi-like.” Then again, I have to remember that this is the same morally depraved person who thinks the knockout game is “fiction made up by racists” (again, footage is readily available on the Internet) and who has joined my aunts and other relatives in creating a nasty smear campaign (for lack of a better term) against my dad.

      It just seems to me that with progressives, there are certain issues that you are not allowed to have a dissenting opinion on. Gay “marriage” is one of them, followed by climate change and abortion to name two others. And if you do express dissenting opinions, they try to completely destroy you. Everything from your career to your persona life. It’s disgusting.

  3. Welcome to the Orwellian present:

    •”The thought police would get him just the same. He had committed–would have committed, even if he had never set pen to paper–the essential crime that contained all others in itself. Thoughtcrime, they called it. Thoughtcrime was not a thing that could be concealed forever. You might dodge successfully for a while, even for years, but sooner or later they were bound to get you.”
    – George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 1

    War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength

    1. Good post, Hube. It IS McCarthyism when you get right down to it. And there was some moonbat who wrote an article on (what a surprise, eh?) calling for a Stalin-like purge of people who hold similar views to Eich’s. I kid you not.

    2. It was actually, not But the two sites are interchangeable, really. Both are bastions of progressive moonbattery.

  4. This is getting pretty scary. I’m old enough to remember when the gay rights movement seemed to consist of no more than a plea for tolerance. It now seems they only wished to be tolerated in order to grow strong enough to become intolerant themselves. The tolerated will no longer tolerate tolerance! Tolerance is intolerable to the tolerated. Anyway. Can someone out there help me to wrap my mind around the whole idea of how not allowing people of the same sex to marry is discrimination? No one is stopping any one of them from getting married right? They just don’t like the rules. Suppose the issue was driving. If we refused to allow Asian Americans to drive, that would certainly be discrimination. But what if a group of people got together and said, “We are Speeders! And like Sammy Hagar, we can’t drive fifty-five! We were born this way.” One might reply to such a person, “You are welcome to drive if you want to, but you must follow the rules. You must obey the speed limit.” To which the speeders might reply, “We only want to drive fast! We can’t stand to drive slow. It is odious to us. Why do you hate us. You are discriminating against us.”

    I’m sure there is a better analogy out there, but this is the best I could come up with. Is anyone out there having an intelligent conversation about what marriage is for? Why our forefathers set it up as they did? It seems to me it isn’t really a right at all. By that I mean, it was meant to benefit society as a whole, not just the couple who marry. Perhaps it has changed so much since the founding of this country that nobody really knows what the purpose of it is anymore. I wonder how many of us would want to marry if the laws regulating marriage were the same as they were in 1800. Now it’s just something that people who have sex get to do? Its just a tax credit for sexy people? What about people who don’t have sex, or don’t have any prospects of finding someone who wants to have sex with them? What if two sisters are both widowed and still have children from their previous relationships? Perhaps they might want to stick together because they love each other and enjoy being together. Do they get to get married too? If not why not? Because they’re not having sex? What a mess.

    1. In a recent post I talked about language, and how the left likes to muddle it until no one knows what the heck is going on. “Taxes” becomes “revenue generation” or some such ridiculousness, for example. The same thing applies to marriage. When you start trying to really talk about what marriage means and how that applies to the culture at large, they balk. They turn it into the “bigots” versus the people who just want “equal rights.” Well yes, I hate to inform my leftist friends, but I’m for equal rights too — but we can’t really talk about equal rights until we both define marriage.

      The liberal litmus test for marriage seems to be “Do the people who want to get married love each other? If yes, then the union they want to form should be called a marriage.”

      My personal opinion is more along the lines of Carl. In terms of a legally binding contract that can be recognized by the state, I’m not opposed to people entering into such agreements. If I essentially say I am in favor of civil unions while opposing a redefinition of marriage into something that neuters it as a credible force for shaping civil society in ways closer to its highest ideals…how does that make me against “love”?

      The government chose to get into the marriage business, but it has zero claim to change its more religious definition willy-nilly.

      I tolerate all sorts of behaviors that I do not agree with. I treat everyone I interact with on a daily basis with respect and kindness until the give me a reason not to. And even then, I try my best to be patient and understanding. It seems as though on this issue I am asked to not only be tolerant of a particular behavior, but to be an advocate for it as well. I’m supposed to celebrate it. And if I don’t, I’m somehow a bad person.

      We are going down a very scary road when a man can be forced from his job because his public policy preferences are not in line with the politically correct pervading “wisdom” of the day.

    2. Talking of taxes, in the UK our tax authority calls taxpayers “customers”

      Surely Customers should be able to take their custom wherever they want?

    3. It’s a very scary road indeed. I don’t it’s right that someone should be forced from their job and ostracized from society forever because their viewpoints on this or any other issue are different from PC group-think. They like to complain about “bullies…” well, the only people I see being actual bullies are the gay rights lobby.

      They like to change words to suit their own agendas and even then, when you press them for a definition, they don’t have one. If you don’t agree in lockstep with them on this or many other issues, you’re labelled a “bigot” and try to destroy you.

  5. “It seems as though on this issue I am asked to not only be tolerant of a particular behavior, but to be an advocate for it as well. I’m supposed to celebrate it. And if I don’t, I’m somehow a bad person.”

    Yup…you nailed it. The word tolerance implies dislike or disagreement. I don’t tolerate my wife, since I enjoy having her around. However, I merely tolerate her cat. It seems tolerance isn’t good enough anymore. Only celebrations and pats on the back will do. And I think that this (hatred of mere tolerance) is what is driving the whole marriage thing. I really don’t think it’s about gaining the rights and privileges that come with marriage; but the respectability that comes with marriage. This is an attempt at social engineering (or perhaps social vandalism?) and the whole movement seems to be powered by fear and shame. Who needs to use logic when people will cringe before outrage? If I am unenlightened then enlighten me. Sneering and scoffing and calling names are not characteristics of truth and enlightenment.

    The article you suggested was right on. I hope he is right.

  6. How come it is only okay to have an opinion if the left agrees with it? I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman but I still love gay people. I do not hate people that are different and I am fine with them having a union and getting the same benefits as anyone else, I just do not believe it should be called a marriage. Why do we have to change the definition of something to get people to fit into it?
    I find the left to be very hypocritical, for the group that preaches tolerance they sure seem to accuses everyone else and they seem to forget to take a look at themselves.

  7. Would you argue this is similar to what happened with Paula Deen? Both were reasonably famous people who did inconsequential things a long time ago and were highly castigated when found out.

    I agree with what everyone else is saying; it’s ridiculous that deviating even slightly from the norm is discouraged. How are we going to function as a society in the future when those in developing countries, who (for the most part) do not share the left’s opinions about immigration rights, the cisheteropatriarchy, and what have you, will become a potentially major global force?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: