Talking Mozilla Resignation on Right-Wing Florida Radio

Updated : Sep 21, 2019 in Articles

Talking Mozilla Resignation on Right-Wing Florida Radio


people recognize if you’re a young
faculty member and a lot of places appearing on
memorable news department and you have the wrong views meaning conservative you have no career this is just the most
open blatant example the new fashion which says you don’t agree with us 100
percent we have the right to punish you Wireless unless you like Hillary an like
Barack Obama and you we can’t so they both had the
same view in 2008 as he did how often do you hear newt Gingrich and
Andrew Solomon agreeing 738 your news radio 1620 I’m Enrique
intercell a min noted Gaia activist pro gay activist on
controversial figure but he a look at the ouster at Mozilla love
their new CEO Brendan I can he says that it is a terrible terrible thing he he said I will he now be forced to
walk through the streets in shame why not the stocks the whole episode disgusts me addition
discussed anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society this is the
gay rights movement today hounding our opponents for the fanaticism more like
the religious right than anyone else then count me out if
we’re about intimidating the free speech others we are no better than the
anti-gay bullies who came before us and urself getting a lot of heat over
this and I want to do make sure that we got another point of
view on here on this particular topic so I asked David Pakman to come on he is the host to the
internationally syndicated TV and radio program the David Pakman show is also a
contributor for the media too glad the Gay Lesbian Alliance
Against Defamation David welcome to Pensacola morning news
it’s a pleasure to be with you is so I’m the first thing I want to ask
you is um how active if at all was declared in pushing for
the at the ouster UHV I take I were they active in this at all
in that you know sort of what’s your take on this whole affair yet that my understanding glad had no
role at all in calling for or pushing for the resignation you know my point of
view as a progressive as a heterosexuals straight ally who
understands the importance of LGBT equality I think that conservatives
small-government conservatives pro-business conservatives should be applauding what happened in
this particular scent this is a decision that was made completely unaffected by the government
meaning it wasn’t an issue for free speech it was not a decision that was made
because the strong-arm tactics remember nobody has a right could be the CEO
occurring organization so what happened here with that Mozilla evaluated in the same way that free-market advocates want whether the
position at Brandon ike was going to be good or bad for them overall and their business decision
which conservatives like business to be able to make with it better he’s not here so we have
%uh protected status in a lot of places though though not everywhere up for people with certain sexual
orientations I if a company decided that it’s not in
their best market interest to fire a newly hired person who turns
out to be gay or even was known before the fact to be gay you’d also be okay
with that well you can actually already do that in many
states in fact that one of the areas where we have to actually push for a
quality if you want that a hypothetical question
which you can ask me of course but if that’s the case I would ask you
the question out well what if you want to hire fire someone
rather after you find out that their Christian and you don’t want
christians working for you the hypotheticals involving protected
classes are relevant here this is a free market business decision made on a donation
that was made and what that reflected in terms of the
individual use being born blacker been born gay or
or having that the a particular religion that’s
completely different it’s a comparison that some underwriter
trying to make but it’s a faulty comparison if we
really understand the fundamentals as artist apology how
we know things discrimination so i i think it’s a of comparison we I
mean what I’m getting at is simply your point where you said that the difference
in this case is that it was in government pressure was in government
censorship it was in the public situation and it wasn’t an entitlement
nobody’s entitled to be CEO art but he was clearly house did he very
much wanted the job obviously he was qualified for the job
in the sense that he had the technical and background history with Mozilla and so your distinction you’re
saying that because it’s a private company it’s okay that’s why
small-market cancer small government free-market conservatives
should support it I’m just looking for a kind of consistency that you know if your gonna be sorta
libertarian across-the-board fine up but what I’ve heard historically is
no you cannot fire somebody because they’re gay but now it is okay aren’t
you cannot you can’t push for the resignation of
somebody because they’re gay but now it’s okay to push for somebody’s
resignation because they are anti-gay what you but by Andrew I think what
you’re missing here is that the comparison is completely wrong
because in so many states in this country you can fire people for being gay so we
are you you’re opposed to that but I mean you’re but you’re opposed to that right I am and it’s a protected class
and this goes now it goes beyond my opinion rate
that’s the thing we’re now we’re starting to to mix and and model things I am NOT a
libertarian right so my argument was one so you and I can
kinda have a thought experiment and explore this may be in a way you have
insider but imposing the hypothetical I’m not
going out there and saying there’s also a libertarian
idea that we should be able to hire fire people rather not because they are
disabled for example or because at the race doing it that’s the I don’t believe
that but what i’m saying is if you are part the small-government
libertarian right you should have no problem with this at
all one or the other on things you know sort of historically when you look at
the gay rights movement has been the
demanding up the question number one how does this affect you you know what somebody’s behavior is in
the bedroom and number two particular when it came to the military dismissals
under Don’t Ask Don’t Tell them before is I look we need the most qualified
people in these positions I you should be getting rid have capable
people just because %uh some sexual peculiarity couldn’t the same
case be made here that this is a highly qualified capable individual who shouldn’t be gotten rid of are
pushed out because point we want to show tolerance to him
but also how does it affect anybody if he’s not changing policies that Mozilla
and he’s not you know he’s not doing anything as far
as Mozilla matters that would affect kids this is a really
great question so first of all just to be completely clear in the premise of your question you
called homosexuality sexual peculiarity I reject that
definition added say so our answer the question but i just want to make clear
for other people who will eventually hear that but I don’t agree with that brain so the question is a good one
which is are he obviously had other skills why why why didn’t that goes supersede the fact that he made this can
take a donation that’s a question I could personally
speculate on but I was in an insider when I can tell you is this it after a
week %uh his taking over all those great credentials the great ideas he has all the good
things he’s going to do it’s a close haven’t made all the
constituents at Mozilla realize that’s really the
greatest thing about Brandon I and the donation doesn’t matter than
that a free market resolution where in spite of all these great crews
about and that may or may not exist the
anti-gay donation with still the thing that was troubling
people the most and again that’s just the free market right thing i mean i
think thats a its it’s it’s it’s a wonderful I i’m not is it just a I mean I think that’s an
interesting way to look at it but I think you’re giving way too much credit
to the sorta savvy rationality of the average media
consumer what they did is they went to the OK
Cupid website and they saw hey this guy’s anti-gay we need to get rid of
them they weren’t looking into his
credentials and background they were reacting to this one and this is why the kind of mccarthy
estan alla G has been drawn as this one particular thing that has been a flashpoint but the thing
about that Andrew is that that’s could that that’s it you’re basing it
off for this kind of public opinion but there’s every indication that if it
were only public opinion this may not have
blown up so much but those who are directly associated with Mozilla ultimately felt that there was a breach
of trust and that’s really what it came down to very good hit David thank you so much
for joining I would love to have people who disagree with me clearly we do but hey that’s what makes
for good radio II David pac-man is the host at the
David Pakman show internationally syndicated TV and radio annie is the media contributor
for the Gay Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation you can get more information about him
at David Pakman PA que Aman dot-com heyday thanks for joining us up
a heavy on again sometime glad to do it anytime

52 Comments

  • By not answering directly and instead trying to tell libertarians and conservatives what their position should be, David came across as evasive. 

  • It was refreshing to have a conservative host who wasn't interrupting you at every point and trying to bite your head off. This man actually has character.

  • Conservatives are totally biased, and delusional, when it comes to Gay issues, Race issues, and Religious issues. They are ALWAYS on the wrong side of these issues, and they know it but continue to pander to the ignorant amongst them.

  • People shouldn't discriminate against a KKK supporter because it is just as wrong as discriminating against black people. Yeah, right. Same warped logic as yours about homophobia, Andrew.

  • The difference between sacking a homophobe or racist, and sacking a gay person or black person.. is that a bigoted person has antipathy towards other people.

     Gay people are not a hate group.. they are people in love.

    ie, in a military context, a racist who hated black people would be unsuitable for a unit that contained black people.. as the military does.

    A black person is not a member of a hate group or anti-anything.. they are just black.

    Also consider that black people and homosexuals can be racist and homophobic too.. in which case the same sanctions would apply to them also.

    if people have hate problems.. they need to get over it or see a psychologist and learn to get along with others..
    & Homophobic men, going by recent research.. need to get themselves a boy friend.

  • People are born different, race,sex,gender id, ect.

    NOONE is born a Bigot you learn that  No protected status. 

  • He was fired for being anti-gay, just like you could fire a gay guy if he is anti-straight. You can't fire people because they are straight or gay, but you can if they are bigoted and don't do what the Board of Directors want.

  • But the guy was a CEO with those views.  Nobody has a right to discriminate against someone else based on religious beliefs.  That's ridiculous.

  • So the host is saying that firing someone for being gay would be understandable, but firing someone for being homophobic is an outrageous act of persecution? And also that if you're against firing someone for being gay you should also be against firing someone for being homophobic? WTF?

    As the Guardian reported: "Rather than some shadowy coalition, it was a group of Mozilla's employees and associates, gay and straight, who do not want to work with or for someone who has actively worked to hurt them, their friends and their families. The situation was exacerbated by Eich's failure to reassure his community that his anti-gay activism was a thing of the past."

  • He doesn't see the difference between the hiring of upper level management vs. a nameless employee. No employee should be fired for having certain opinions (as long as they don't discriminate against others in action) or for being gay. But the upper management, especially of big companies, are very visible to the public. They are the public face, the image of the company. So a company should be able to hire/fire the entire package meaning that they should be able to fire those with anti-gay views if they don't wish for the company name to be associated with it just as they should be able to fire someone who is gay as not to be publicly associated with it. That way the public can make their own decisions regarding the company based on the image they portray.

  • Excellent interview. McKay wasn't an idiot and posed some good questions.
    Might be good to have him on and pose some questions about the role of right wing radio in scaring the fuck out of stupid people.

  • This video needs to be disseminated to everyone. This is what a political discussion looks like. Never hear this on rush limbaugh, michael savage, glenn beck, sean hannity, mark levin, alex jones, and fux news comedy channel. You're a Class Act Mr. Pakman.

  • That was an interesting discussion. It would be really good for variety to have more interviews on TDPS and with other outlets and dissenting voices.

  • He wasn't fired for being anti-gay. He was fired because the public realized he was anti-gay and were turning away from the company as a result. It's the free market working perfectly and Mozilla absolutely made the right decision.

  • I have worked with Brendan Eich and was living in CA (and picketing against Prop 8) when it was put to a vote.  I think Mozilla's employees are right to be concerned about whether their CEO can compare them based on merit without taking sexual orientation into account, but I don't think his donation by itself calls this into question.  There was a lot of misinformation put out by the pro-8 side that swayed people; so much so that shortly after its passage got nationwide coverage, polling showed a shift in public opinion against it by a majority of Californians.  I got flyers on the same day saying that Obama was both for and against prop-8.  Having worked with Brendan, I respect his technical judgement and commitment to transparency in open standards and am loathe to judge him for a small donation that could have been based on (spurious) church/state separation anxiety or other specters raised by the pro-8 misinformation campaign.

  • Brendan Eich was bad for business because of his hateful stance regarding a minority, and Mozilla recognized that.  It's too bad that this talk show host has no common sense, and cut David off when he could not make a coherent argument against the logic that David was putting out there.  That's how the right wing rolls.

  • A CEO is a figurehead of a company. He or she will ultimately be the face of a company, so it stands to reason that any negative aspects of their personality or background will be reflected in the public's image of that company, even if they don't implement any policies regarding those negativities. If it was found out that Mark Zuckerberg was a KKK member, it stands to reason that Facebook wouldn't want a reputation of being racist; thus they would fire him. The same goes for Mozilla; they want to avoid any bad PR, so they fire their CEO giving them bad PR to clear their name. 

    This has nothing to do with Freedom, the media, or even gay rights. It has to do with a company's right to do what it can to protect itself, and that right was justly practiced by Mozilla. 

  • At the end of the day, Eich himself didn't know why the heck Mozilla made him CEO given he'd already drawn fire in the past for his support of anti-gay initiatives such as Prop 8 and seeing as the organization had interviewed like 25 other people before reluctantly and quite inexplicably appointing him to the post. The activist community of developers (most of whom contribute their time/effort for free) made it clear they didn't want to work with someone whose views on this matter they found to be abhorrent and undermined the "goodwill" on which the non-profit is based. In that regard, David is barking up the wrong tree by sarcastically making the case that it should be regarded as a triumph of the "free market"…

  • What the hell is wrong with conservatives? Aren't THEY the ones who claim that customers should be able to determine where they do business? This reaction to this situation shows they don't understand capitalism very well. Things like this are going to happen when a company does something the public doesn't like. In fact, it has been happening with different issues for YEARS. It isn't really new. Now idiots on the right are calling it fascism because the free market is at work here? Wow. These people wouldn't last in the REAL real market. They'd be constantly whining when whole groups of people decide to stop doing business with them because they're bigots. 

  • The critical flaw in his argument is that he equates being gay with hating gays, as if they are both okay things.

    Hate is never okay.

  • Well, that was a civil conversation.
    I was expecting something like Michael Savage screams at a liberal caller. 

  • How is it that people still don't get that having prejudiced views are not the same as being a target of prejudice?  Being gay is not equal to being homophobic, any more than being black is the same as being racist.  Someone losing their job for being gay (and for no other reason than that the people in charge of the company don't want "them" working here) is not remotely the same as someone losing their job because their attitudes about certain 'types' of other human beings is detrimental to the company (whether it's affecting the workplace environment, causing issues with other employees, or damaging the company's image).

  • it is ok to fire someone for being anti-gay however it is not ok to fire someone for being gay. hypocritical? yes, however that is just the kind of world we live in. just like it is against the law to fire someone for being black, however, if someone is being blatantly racist on the job those are grounds for dismissal.  

  • You can see how well articulated David is when he's a guest ; as in bringing other opinions, not the kiss-ass version for celebrities.

  • David, as talented as ever. Bravo, few could have said it better and fewer still could have done it with such eloquence.

  • It has always been puzzling to me whether or not a person has a right to espouse a political opinion which denies others a right to their opinion. Nazi-ism would seem to be unacceptable because of it's goal of crushing all others. Same with extremely religious politics. If God is on your side then you are absolutely right and may not compromise, may not tolerate others. Where is the line? 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *