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

[eccentrific.livejournal.com]

Huh? Who's equating two unrelated things anywhere?

I'm just saying (potential) customers can and do choose to patronize, boycott or protest a company based on the business practices of that company, and those business practices include how that company publicly represents itself. Presumably the same set of people who are inclined to boycott Hobby Lobby are also inclined to protest Eich.

There's a separate question for Hobby Lobby about whether the business (not the users) have the right to claim a religious exemption in their business practices while not otherwise qualifying as a religious institution. That's a question for the courts. How it is decided will probably not affect the people choosing to protest/boycott HL.

While individuals have a right to espouse their religion and the ability to discriminate against companies because of the religious beliefs of their employees, companies do not generally have the right to discriminate against individuals because of their religious beliefs. And that's because companies are not people and don't have the same protections. Usually. We'll see what the supreme court says.

So... are you arguing companies *should* be treated as people and that if it's okay for people to discriminate than it should be okay for companies to? (or conversely, arguing that it should not be okay for either?)

[drwex]

The whole point of my post was that I see the positions I enumerated in my comment above to woodwardiocom as mutually contradictory. That's unrelated to the issue of individual boycotts.

are you arguing companies *should* be treated as people and that if it's okay for people to discriminate than it should be okay for companies to? (or conversely, arguing that it should not be okay for either?)

I'm arguing that it makes no sense to assert that Hobby Lobby is not its leaders (and therefore cannot meddle with its employees' health insurance) but Mozilla is its leaders (and therefore should not have a leader with a view contrary to the company's general ethic).

This has nothing to do with boycotts, discrimination, or the pseudo-personhood of corporations.

[eccentrific.livejournal.com]

People are not corporations, nor are corporations people. Hobby Lobby is not its leaders, nor is Mozilla. I have not seen anyone arguing this.

Mozilla is totally free to have a leader with a view contrary to the company's general ethic. They hired one. There was no lawsuit, no supreme court case, no prosecution.

Having a leader who publicly espoused views contrary to its customers' general ethic turned out to be a bad business decision though, so the board decided to change it.

[drwex]

People are not corporations, nor are corporations people. Hobby Lobby is not its leaders, nor is Mozilla. I have not seen anyone arguing this.

As to the first one, corporations have had some personhood for some time. Citizens United reinforced and expanded that notion. If you haven't seen people arguing around this I'm sorry, but it's been part of the zeitgeist for some time.

The question of whether the corporation Hobby Lobby is its leaders is precisely the question that is implicated by the case that was just argued at SCOTUS. Hobby Lobby's lawyers are arguing that requiring their corporation to pay for plans that cover specific kinds of birth control implicates the corporation's leaders' religious beliefs. That is what people are arguing.

Finally, the argument about Eich is that Mozilla is (at least on its public face) its leader. You, among other people, are arguing this.

Mozilla is totally free to have a leader with a view contrary to the company's general ethic. They hired one. There was no lawsuit, no supreme court case, no prosecution.

That's true, but wholly beside the point. The point (of my post) is that people are evincing contradictory responses to Eich and to Hobby Lobby.

Having a leader who publicly espoused views contrary to its customers' general ethic turned out to be a bad business decision though, so the board decided to change it.

The board's decision was in response to public pressure. People raising that pressure demonstrated the contradiction I've been writing about.

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

Hobby Lobby's lawyers are arguing that requiring their corporation to pay for plans that cover specific kinds of birth control implicates the corporation's leaders' religious beliefs.

I doubt you're arguing this, but their lawyers are definitely arguing with two faces (actually, it appears the clients are):

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/hobby-lobby-retirement-plan-invested-emergency-contraception-and-abortion-drug-makers

[drwex]

Yes, I'm aware that HL is acting in what seems at least on the face of it to be hypocritical. This doesn't affect the arguments they made, though.

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

I think it does - when it costs them money, it's important to adhere to their religious beliefs - when it gains them money, it's not important.

I do hope the court takes notice of this.

[drwex]

I'm not certain (IANAL). I believe the Court is restricted to considering arguments of law as presented to it by the briefs and amici. Generally, findings of fact are left to trial courts (though the CAFC is making an utter hash of this with awful de novo reviews in patent cases. But I digress).

SCOTUS will rule on the principle involved. It will then be remanded back down to be adjudicated. At that point, HL's hypocrisy could theoretically disqualify it from taking advantage of the ruling it might win. But the behavior of one appelate doesn't change the underlying Constitutional question on which the Court will rule.

[ckd]

Here's my take on it.

Eich, through his actions (plural: look up Tom McClintock's record and how much Eich gave his campaign) caused pain to people who worked for or with Mozilla, and this meant that some of those people no longer felt comfortable doing so with him as Mozilla's leader.[1]

At that point, his presence in that role was hurting Mozilla's mission just as it would have if he'd announced that he and Steve Ballmer were going on a "Sweaty Monkey Dance" tour to encourage developers to use ActiveX.

If your CEO is working against the specific goals of your organization (even without intending to), that's generally a good reason to get a new CEO. Since, unlike Hobby Lobby, the Mozilla Foundation is a nonprofit with an explicit mission statement in its articles of incorporation, this is directly relevant: "The specific purpose of the [Foundation] is to promote the development of, public access to and adoption of the open source Mozilla web browsing and Internet application software." The for-profit Mozilla Corporation's bylaws start with "The primary purpose of M.F. Technologies (the “Corporation”) is to advance the Mozilla Foundation’s objectives of promoting choice and innovation on the Internet."

[1] I'm more personally affected/offended by the existence of JavaScript, since I don't live in California.