People are weirdly inconsistent

[drwex]

(nu? this is news?)

So, Brendan Eich is now out as CEO of Mozilla. The proximate cause is that he supported attempts to keep same-sex couples from having equal marriage rights. I happen to think that's severely wrong-headed, but I also think that people who called for his ouster are being weirdly inconsistent, and I refused to sign the petitions calling for him to resign.

You may recall that the case known as Hobby Lobby was just argued before the Supreme Court. And we generally take as given that people like me who are left/liberal oppose Hobby Lobby's attempt to force its founders' religious views onto the employees. One very important legal concept in this case is that the corporation is not its founders, nor the people who run it. The people who run Hobby Lobby can oppose abortion all they want, but that's a personal matter and should not (we argue) grant them a religious exemption to healthcare coverage rules.

Perhaps you see where I'm going with this: how can people argue that Hobby Lobby is not its founders and leaders, but somehow Mozilla is? Had there been a petition calling on the board of Mozilla to stop picking candidates who are a bad fit for the CEO spot, I'd've signed that. But I can't see how someone can consistently hold the view that Hobby Lobby is separate from its senior executives' beliefs and Mozilla is not.

I don't like Eich's view, but his qualification to run Mozilla is his experience and other factors related to the organization. If the board found him to be qualified, then his individual political views ought not to enter into it. And if they do enter into it, then it's the Board's fault for not doing their jobs in selecting the right CEO candidate. I heard that three board members resigned over this, but they were among those who opposed Eich; personally, I think it's the other ones who ought to resign.

Comments

[woodwardiocom.livejournal.com]

Trying to answer this forced me to bump into the question, "In what way did they not fire him for his religious beliefs?" which has left me very thoughtful...

(Certainly there must be laws out there about companies not having to hire people whose religions are directly opposed to the mission of the company, but I don't know them...)

[drwex]

Watch me wave my giant "I Am Not A Lawyer" sign. First, I don't think he was fired. I think he was pressured to resign and did. He could have stayed and ridden out the storm - certainly CEOs have done that in other companies.

Generally, a person's religious views are protected in the sense that one cannot fire someone for holding a view unrelated to their work. There have always been some exemptions to that employment non-discrimination principle for religious organizations and SCOTUS recently waded into this mess in a case known colloquially as Hosanna-Tabor. In this case, the Court found (I would argue "created") a ministerial exemption for employees of religious organizations. Prior to H-T, organizations could not apply religious tests to employees not involved in things related to the organization's religious purpose. After H-T, religious organizations are permitted to decide that (some) employees must adhere to religions or beliefs that correspond to the employer's. The scope of this exemption is still debated - despite the Court crafting a unanimous opinion in H-T - and I expect we'll see tests in the coming years.

Now it gets further complicated because it's possible to argue that opposition to equal marriage is not, per se, religiously motivated. People who tried to defend Prop 8 argued this and although they lost, they only lost 5-4 at the Supreme Court and there's no reason to assume anyone who made such an argument would automatically get "religious animus" treatment. I don't know what Eich's religion is, or whether he has religious motivations to oppose equal marriage.

The final complication (which is also implicated in Hobby Lobby) is that the purpose of Mozilla is making software; its chosen methods and corporate culture encourage openness and egalitarian approaches. To oppose someone because one of their beliefs is contrary to the organization's chosen culture is not the same as saying they're opposed to the mission of the company.

[woodwardiocom.livejournal.com]

The final complication is that the purpose of Mozilla is making software; its chosen methods and corporate culture encourage openness and egalitarian approaches. To oppose someone because one of their beliefs is contrary to the organization's chosen culture is not the same as saying they're opposed to the mission of the company.

Given the huge cultural import of browsers (You're soaking in one!), I could lawyer up a good argument that they're not just "making software", in the same way a gun manufacturer is not just making precision machinery.

(I could also argue the other way.)

[drwex]

This is one of the reasons why incorporation paperwork is maddenly vague. If you ever read those things, they say (in a lot of complicated words) that the purpose of the corporation is doing what the corporation should do.

In the case of a foundation like Mozilla, they no doubt make representations to funders as to what will be done with the funders' money but I'm not sure that they have a purpose qua purpose.

[tikibar]

He was NOT fired, he was not coerced; he left of his own volition.

(wex, ignore the anon post; stupid browser had logged me out)

[drwex]

That was my understanding as well