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

[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.