I followed the coverage of this whole story when he was appointed and was not happy about his political views on gay marriage and saw no problem with some groups calling for a boycott etc, but really didn’t think much would come of that. I was very surprised that he decided to leave instead of staying. He refused to address the issue directly, which I though was a huge PR mistake. And I really don’t believe the so called gay macharthyists have the actual power to force a company to fire its CEO. I doubt Mozilla was really suffering financially enough because of a boycott to take that step. I think the real reason he left was because of the reactions of employees at Mozilla that were unhappy about his appointment and some of them left the company because of it. Mozilla had much internal strife about his appointment, and how that did not jive with its corporate image of open and progressive inclusiveness yada yada yada. The real power struggle here took place with in Mozilla, not from outside.
I don’t think he should have quit or accepted being fired. I think he should have addressed the issue head on reguardless of what his stance now is on the issue of marriage equality, instead of avoiding any dialogue on the issue and what his views are or were. I think the gay mafia is being blamed by the anti gay lobby for his not standing up for himself.
The problem here for me is that the whole thing unfolded in a way that killed an opportunity for a kind of public dialogue that I would love to see happen. But, he gave up so easily. He plays the victim, so I guess it follows that there must be a bully out there to be blamed.
I am gay and very pro marriage equality, but I don’t believe anyone should be fired for their politics, beliefs, or sexual orientation. This whole circus was hyped by both sides of the issue for their own political ends and I think that both camps deserve to be shamed equally.