Mozilla's employment policy

[1over137]

Sad reading http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstt ... illa-means

[B. W.]

Sad reading http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstt ... illa-means

In Genesis 19, the issues wasn't so much about homosexual acts but rather an attitude it has - one of utter and complete dominance is uttered in Gen 19:5 - GIVE US!!!

That simple fact, many overlook and now we see it playing out here, nowadays. Jesus was correct when he said in Luke 17:26 as it was in the Days of Noah the same cry - GIVE US is heard as not the rule of a few cities but a world wide phenomenon.

Best thing to do folks, is decide if it is worth using Mozilla/firefox or not.
-
-
-

[Philip]

Best thing to do folks, is decide if it is worth using Mozilla/firefox or not.

While I don't appreciate Mozilla's corporate stance, I'm not so sure boycotting is the answer. It sure isn't SPIRITUALLY going to impact or change them. And the thing about boycott thinking is that, to be consistent, there is an enormous host of things that could lead us to boycott. Look at sites like Amazon.com - they sell many items (porn videos, anti-Christian books, etc) - but do we boycott THEM? Do you boycott record companies that happen to have artists spewing sinful stuff? We as Christians often patronize many businesses that don't have Christian beliefs or have ones we don't like. The roads and bridges we daily drive across are often built by people that have all types of terrible beliefs - do we quite using their roads and bridges? And do you really think Mozilla is the only browser company that has such policies - others probably just aren't blatant about it. Wikipedia is a great source for info - but it has long had smutty linkages and content - do I quit using it for that other content?

Perhaps a good case for overreach and discrimination against one's right to hold personal views could be made?

[Gman]

Sad reading http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstt ... illa-means

They make crappy browsers anyway.. I'm switching to Chrome.

[PeteSinCA]

From the article linked in the OP:

WHAT MOZILLA MEANS: ON BRENDAN EICH’S DEFENESTRATION
by Robert P. George
FirstThings.com/blogs
4/3/14

Mozilla has now made its employment policy clear.

No Catholics need apply.

Or Evangelical Christians.

Or Eastern Orthodox.

Or Orthodox Jews.

Or Mormons.

Or Muslims.

Unless, that is, you are the “right kind” of Catholic, Evangelical, Eastern Orthodox Christian, observant Jew, Mormon, or Muslim, namely, the kind who believes your religious or philosophical tradition is wrong about the nature of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife, and the view now dominant among secular elites is correct. In that case, Mozilla will consider you morally worthy to work for them. Or maybe you can work for them even if you do happen to believe (or should I say “believe”) your faith’s teaching—so long as you keep your mouth shut about it: “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”

You are disqualified from employment, however, if you reveal your alleged “bigotry” and “cause pain” by stating your convictions. And you are certainly disqualified if you do anything to advance the historic understanding of marriage as a conjugal union in the public square.

Mozilla is a private company, and AFAIK acted within its legal rights. Whether this move proves to be to Mozilla's benefit or hurt remains to be seen ... maybe. Obviously, if Mozilla does benefit, they're likely to crow about it publicly. OTOH (and equally obviously) if they are hurt by this move, they aren't likely to say a peep about it publicly. So, those who are interested in this long-term should listen for crowings and watch for deterioration in Mozilla's operations (e.g. late deliveries of new versions, SW that is buggier than their norm). For my part ...

... I've used Firefox since version 1.1 (I don't even know, or much care, what version is current). I switched after using IE for years, after MS neglecting IE6 for several years (it seemed that long, at least). By the time IE7 was released I was comfortable enough with Firefox that IE7 would have had to have compelling reasons for switching back. It didn't, I didn't. If Mozilla was within their legal rights, I have the legal right to choose responsive actions (legal ones, of course). I could cease donating to Mozilla, were I a donor. But I'm not. Firefox is the only Mozilla product I use, and now I'm making it "formerly used". The neglect of IE6 and its openness to spyware left me with a sour taste that is still there; I could switch to Chrome, but IMO, Google has Chinese blood, lots of it, on their hands through their collaboration with China's repression of its people. So I'm switching to Opera: I've downloaded it; I'm posting from it; I'm getting FF bookmarks into Opera's "Speed Dials"; there are things I'll miss (or have not yet found). But I'm putting my computer where my mouth is. My next move will be to inform Mozilla of my change and why. I don't need to be threatening or blustery, and won't. If they hear from enough users' and new-former-users' protests, they'll get the message that maybe this move was not a good one.