Since Mozilla fired their CEO, because of a donation he made over 5 years ago to the support of Prop 8, can company XYZ also fire their respective CEO's for supporting same sex marriage?
Mozilla did not fire the CEO, he resigned because he thought that with the controversy around he could not be an effective CEO.FAQ on CEO Resignation
What can we learn from Brendan Eich's resignation from Mozilla amid controversy surrounding his support of an anti-gay marriage bill? Should CEOs in tech interpret this as a mandate to support popular political ideologies in Silicon Valley?
What have we learned:Diversity, tolerance, and bigotry are clearly a one way street. Gone are the days when people accepted that others had opposing beliefs. Now, you risk social and financial crucifixion if your views don't fit with a small, but loud, portion of society. There is an absolute danger to anyone who disagrees with this minority. Eich is a great case & point that there is no statute of limitations on this. He stepped down because of pressure against the company itself. Activists, knowing that they can put this pressure on companies, can use that to effectively target anyone in a company. This isn't limited to just a CEO.You cannot have "Diversity" if you destroy those with differing opinions. Is this precedent setting? Sadly, yes. Speaking out can cost you virtually everything. Should CEO's reveal their political beliefs? No. If the view differs from those same people that got Eich to step down then a CEO (or anyone for that matter) is in danger of suffering the same fate. My personal feelings (I've said this a billion times):It is so easy for people to readily destroy this man for his PERSONAL contribution to something he believed in. However, the same individuals crucifying this guy are using products made from oil imported from countries where homosexuals are actively killed. Does that not make these individuals the biggest hypocrites of all? Destroy a man for his belief, but financially support a country that murders homosexuals? How many activist will take up that cause? I'm betting none. Why? It is easy to "stand up" for something when you don't have to sacrifice anything.
Should an employer be able to blacklist (terminate) high-profile employees because they contributed money to a voter initiative that either did or did not support same-sex marriage?
A2A.First, to address the "counter-boycotting" issue. Sure, boycotting is always acceptable. You can't make me purchase or use something, regardless of why I may or may not like it. If I want to boycott every product using a "q" in its name because I really don't like the letter "q", then that's how I choose to spend (or not spend) my money.For other views, it depends. If the employee is accepting a position as the "face" of the organization, which many high-profile positions are, it may turn out that the employee's prior actions bring disrepute on the company and so the employee is not appropriate for that position. Replace the anti gay marriage organization with an organization opposing racial equality, and you'll see why this individual, with that past, is probably not the best for such a role. Mozilla would not be helped by someone in a leadership role who has, by their actions, acted contrary to the values of openness and tolerance that are a core part of what Mozilla means.It should not be a routine practice and probably should not be one applicable to rank and file employees. But to very high-profile, public spotlight ones, it may be necessary.Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences for that speech other than prosecution. If you support hate, a lot of people may refuse to associate with you.
Do you consider the treatment of gay people by Mormons friendly, whether you're Mormon or not?
I’m not sure what is meant by “friendly” in this context. It is not the mission of the Church to be “friendly”, but to proclaim the Gospel, which sometimes hurts the feelings of people who fall short of those ideals.What I can say is that gay people are treated equally.Homosexuals have no special status in the church and are subject to standards as any other member. Latter-day Saints covenant not to engage in sex outside of marriage and the breaking of covenants has consequences.That presents a special challenge for Mormon homosexuals since the Church does not provide a doctrinal context for same-sex relationships. Families are enshrined as eternal institutions, but family is not a concept subject to interpretation designed for societal and cultural convenience. A family is mother, father and children and that arrangement has profound implications for Mormon soteriology. Without the creative aspect, there is in fact no concept of “marriage” at all, no possibility of eternal lives.Incidentally, the same limits exist for heterosexuals who fail to abide the constraints of family life as revealed by the Lord.Criticism of the Latter-day Saints is more than a little ironic.The Inquisition was a collection of institutions designed to combat heresy, defined as anything that contradicted Catholic dogma. It was not simply a standard of belief for inclusion in the Roman Catholic communion, but an assertion of universal truth to which no one could object or contradict for any reason. Having forced Jews and Muslims to convert under penalty of expulsion or death, they now tortured their victims to insure that the coerced conversion was “genuine.”The gay inquisition is somewhat milder, but operates on the same principle. Brendan Eich, CEO of Mozilla (the makers of the Firefox browser) was fired for making a donation to Proposition 8 in California. He had run afoul of the orthodoxy and paid the price.Not very friendly.
Can You Be Fired For Church Tithings?
Suppose I work for XYZ Company, and suppose I were to donate $10 every other Sunday to the church. Considering the following, out of fear of my actions could possibly amount to back-door endorsement of religion by the Company, can the Company fire me solely due to the tithings. 1. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of religion." XYZ Company is not Congress. 2. There is a chance that the tithings could subject the Company to public outcry, protests, scandals, and negative perceptions in the eyes of other employees, the general public, the media, and the geopolitical authorities, including but not limited to county government officials, state officials, Congress, President Obama, the Obama administration, the courts, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, and the heads of state of other countries or geopolitical units. 3. The day may come when employees can no longer expect any privacy in terms of how paycheck monies are spent as company officials may acquire the right to know absolutely everything about employees and what they do with the money paid to them. Company executives may view church tithings outright undermining of the Company's reputation and collective integrity. 4. Company officials and other employees could claim that "the fact you do the tithings is offensive enough to me." Based on all that and more, is there a way the Company can fire me for the tithings, or take other corrective action to force me to stop?
For or against six Californias and why?
No of course not. Every few years someone proposes this. First off, no one would allow some business group to name each state, particularly a state name like "Jefferson". The name historically must be Spanish or Indian. The voters would never approve chopping up the state the way someone else wants because there must be discussion as to where boundaries must be. Then it would be a fight for resources especially water and oil. That cannot be worked out. There is also the division over agricultural resources which are in several regions. How would the southern part of the state get water? They have to buy it from the state that has it. If anyone says they favor this idea, they dont live here. I think BAD GIRL and KEVIN make valid points.