Uninstall Firefox

In 31 years of broadcasting, and 40 years of writing, I have never advocated a boycott of a product.

Quite the opposite, in fact.

During the 2012 presidential campaign, when the left attempted to destroy Chick-Fil-A for its owner’s views on same-sex marriage, I suggested on my radio show that the Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, stand in front of a Chick-Fil-A restaurant while enjoying some Ben and Jerry’s ice cream. In that way, I argued, he could show one of the great moral differences between the right and the left. Though Ben and Jerry are leftists, we conservatives do not believe that company owners’ views should matter to consumers. We believe that products should speak for themselves. If the ice cream is good, despite whatever repugnance we might feel regarding the views of the makers of that ice cream, we will still purchase it.

The left does not see things that way. The left is out to crush individuals and companies with whom it differs. This is especially so today on the issue of same-sex marriage.

Perhaps the most dramatic example of this took place last week. The governing board of the widely used browser, Firefox, forced the company’s CEO, Brendan Eich, to resign. The Firefox board had learned that in 2008, Eich donated $1,000 to the Proposition 8 campaign in California. Proposition 8 amended the California Constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. In classic Communist fashion, gay rights organizations demanded that Eich publicly recant. When Eich did not, gay rights and other leftist organizations called for a boycott of Firefox. Firefox immediately forced Eich out.

All these years, the left, after coining the term “McCarthyism” in order to disparage the right, had fooled most people into believing that it is the right that suppresses liberty. The truth, of course, has been the opposite. Worldwide, with the exception of Nazi Germany (which was a uniquely race-based totalitarianism, neither left nor right — while it rejected Marxist class-based struggle, it supported socialism (“Nazism” was short for National Socialism), every genocidal totalitarian regime of the 20th century was leftist. And domestically, too, the left has much less interest in liberty than in forcing people to act in accord with its values. A totalitarian streak is part of the left’s DNA. How you think matters and what you do away outside of work matters: More than 20 states prohibit judges from being leaders in the Boy Scouts — because the left deems the Boy Scouts homophobic.

During the McCarthy era, the left (and not only the left) screamed when people were falsely charged with supporting Stalin and Communism, one of the greatest evils in human history. But the left also screamed when people who really did aid and abet Stalin were dismissed from their jobs. In other words, for those on the left who celebrate Eich’s ouster, it was evil to deprive a man who supported Stalin of a job, but it is right to fire a man who supports the man-woman definition of marriage. Such is the left’s moral compass.

It is important to further note that gay employees at Firefox acknowledge that Eich never discriminated against gays, whether in employment, benefits or any other way. But that doesn’t matter to the left because a totalitarian streak is part of the left’s DNA.

As Princeton Professor of Jurisprudence Robert George warned on my radio show, today the left fires employees for opposition to same-sex marriage. Tomorrow it will fire employees who are pro-life (“anti-woman”). And next it will be employees who support Israel (an “apartheid state”).

The reason to boycott Firefox is not that it is run by leftists. Nor is the reason to support the man-woman definition of marriage. It is solely in order to preserve liberty in the land of liberty. If Firefox doesn’t recant and rehire Eich as CEO, McCarthyism will have returned far more pervasively and perniciously than in its first incarnation. The message the gay left (such as the Orwellian-named Human Rights Campaign) and the left in general wish to send is that Americans who are in positions of power at any company should be forced to resign if they hold a position that the left strongly opposes.

And right now that position is opposition to same-sex marriage.

Think about that. In the United States of America today, the belief that marriage should remain defined as the union of a man and woman is portrayed as so vile by the left that anyone who holds it is unfit for employment.

A handful of those on the gay (and straight) left have spoken out against the forced resignation of Eich. If their words are to mean anything, they must join in the call to boycott Firefox. Otherwise, their protestations are meaningless, made solely to preserve their moral credibility.

The battle over Firefox is the most important battle in America at this particular moment. If you use Firefox, uninstall it. Instead use Internet Explorer, Chrome, Opera, Safari, or try Pale Moon for Windows, which is based on the Firefox engine and will import all of your bookmarks. For mobile devices, you can try Puffin.

America can have liberty or it can have Firefox. Right now, it cannot have both.

Dennis Prager’s latest book, “Still the Best Hope: Why the World Needs American Values to Triumph,” was published April 24, 2013 by HarperCollins. He is a nationally syndicated radio show host and creator of PragerUniversity.com.

COPYRIGHT 2014 CREATORS.COM

  • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

    Maybe you could have taken the time to figure out who actually wrote this column before randomly assuming it was me, and accusing me of holding positions that I don’t.

    BTW, Expressing dissent to a syndicated column in which the author isn’t even going to see it is pointless.

    • ARJ127

      I don’t expect to change Prager’s mind. However, that doesn’t mean I can’t debate the issue and maybe, I can provide a counterpoint for some of his readers. I’m an atheist so I’m not going to buy into the religious zeal he has for denying this group of “sinners” their civil rights.

      • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

        That’s perfectly reasonable. I was referring to your insistence that I challenge the author who wouldn’t even see what I wrote.

  • George Williams

    7 million people in California voted for Proposition 8. That’s more than half the voters who participated in the referendum. Can Mozilla afford to offend that many prospective customers and their like-minded citizens in the other 49 states? Sometimes there’s a price to pay in taking a stand. I suspect that it will be hefty, that they will regret their narrow mindedness and that it will be expressed in Mozilla’s bottom line. The next corporate entity will think twice about getting into politics, so it will be a valuable lesson indeed.

    • Wasilla Gorilla

      Great advice!! No doubt you would give that very same great advice to Hobby Lobby and Chickfila as well!!!

      • George Williams

        Absolutely. If the truth be told, and absent the shrill left wing assertion otherwise, 90 percent of all Americans have an aversion to gay marriage. The left, the progressive news people and the radical gay lobby, like radical Muslims have cowed people from expressing their true feelings. Hobby Lobby and Chickfila are far more immune from boycotts by the 10 percent who actually support gay marriage. There’s no evidence that their views have affected their bottom line, after years of making them public. When the ballot is the means of polling the People, it is evident that when the People are asked, gay marriage is a big loser. Only in a few state legislatures and some courts is gay marriage being imposed upon the People. And the courts have only served to diminish their legitimacy and respect for government by writing law where it doesn’t exist. Social change by fiat is divisive and only serves to turn the people against gays.

        • Wasilla Gorilla

          90%? Of who? Duck Dynasty watchers? Only a few courts? They are following the lead of SCOTUS who gutted DOMA, but they also gutted campaign finance laws unleashing your beloved Koch Bros, and also gutted the Obamacare Medicaid mandate, so they can’t be all bad. And let’s not lose sight of the fact that the “gay lobby” includes such right wing luminaries as Proprietor Goldberg, Dick Cheney, even one of your very same beloved Koch Bros. As for you, George Williams, you are a hater, you hate homosexuals, you always have, you always will, and that is all that matters.

          • George Williams

            You hypocritical progressive leader who apparently bases his position on gay marriage on the political polls. I guess that this man was an irredeemable gay hater and then not a gay hater. This from ABC News….. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/obama-comes-out-i-think-same-sex-couples-should-be-able-to-get-married/

            “President Obama’s Evolution on Same-Sex Marriage

            The announcement completes a turnabout for the president, who has opposed gay marriage throughout his career in national politics. In 1996, as a state Senate candidate, he indicated support for gay marriage in a questionnaire, but Obama aides later disavowed it and said it did not reflect the candidate’s position.

            In 2004, as a candidate for the U.S. Senate, he cited his own religion in framing his views: “I’m a Christian. I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”

            He maintained that position through his 2008 presidential campaign, and through his term as president, until today.

            As president in 2010, Obama told ABC News’ Jake Tapper that his feelings about gay marriage were “constantly evolving. I struggle with this.” A year later, the president told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, “I’m still working on it.”

            “I probably won’t make news right now, George,” Obama said in October 2011. “But I think that there’s no doubt that as I see friends, families, children of gay couples who are thriving, you know, that has an impact on how I think about these issues.”

            Obama’s decision has political connotations for the fall. The issue divides elements of the Democratic base, with liberals and gay-rights groups eager to see the president go further, but with gay marriage far less popular among African-American voters.”

            Apparently your party’s position depends how it benefits them polticcally

          • Wasilla Gorilla

            To make your long winded story short then you are positioning Obama as a hater and using that to justify your own hatred. Whatever, if that makes you feel better about yourself. But back to your “great advice” which originally was that corporations should stay out of politics. Apparently you have amended your advice so that now it is only liberal politics that will be detrimental to their bottom line, whereas adopting a right wing stance is no skin off their potatoe at all.

        • ARJ127

          Yup. 90% of Americans wouldn’t want to be in a same sex union. That isn’t the same as 90% of Americans would oppose the rights of gay people to marry. The fact is more than 50% of Americans would agree to allow gay people to marry. It’s a civil rights issue, not an expectation that we all turn gay.

          • George Williams

            Bigots, aren’t they? They’d have other people marry the same sex but would object if their son or daughter would. How about that for a poll? How many parents would want the hopes for the continuation of the family line dashed by the abnormal proclivity of homosexuality? Which civil right might that be? For over two hundred years since the establishment of the COTUS, no one ever argued that there was a right to homosexual marriage. That’s been a contrivance of a militant lobby. Anyway, marriage has always been under state control. Even the SCOTUS said so in their ruling. If homosexual unions were a civil right, then they would have ruled accordingly. The SCOTUS left this to the states to decide, so apparently it’s not a COTUS civil right, which makes you wrong in your assertion that it is. The People of states have been repeatedly overruled by activist state judges that read new lines into state constitutions that, after a hundred to two hundred years magically read differently from what their enactors intended, intention of the state founders be damned.

      • andy_the_bear

        Hobby Lobby did not fire somebody for how they voted or contributed to a campaign. They simply wanted to not be forced to compensate employees with morning after pills as part of their pay. They were persecuted for not funding what they considered abortion with their own money. Why should they be…since the left has argued abortion is so very private a matter that the fourth amendment applies to states not being able to outlaw it? But now Hobby Lobby should be condemned for not forking over money to support this extremely private personal matter? What are you smoking? Chick Fil A was persecuted because their owner decided to give money for a cause that the left did not approve of. They did not black list anybody from employment as Mozilla did. They were black listed themselves by the left wing bigots in Chicago–oh did I say “left wing bigots”–well excuse me, I am sorry, the term has become overly redundant. Leftwing and bigot now mean the same thing, as you are helping to prove by your ridiculous absurd hateful comparison.

        • Wasilla Gorilla

          Implicit in your characterization of persecution is the notion that corporations are people. Apparently Hobby Lobby and Chickfila want to be people when it comes to pontificating and imposing their sanctimonious morals on workers. But not so much when it comes to limiting their liability and keeping their personal assets held harmless in any legal action.

          • andy_the_bear

            Hobby Lobby did not impose any belief on their workers. The workers can go out and buy the morning after pill if they want without fear of being fired or ridiculed–in other words nobody was persecuted nor forced to change their beliefs, nor even pressured to do so. Its safe to be a hard leftist and work at Hobby Lobby. The only downside for the hard core leftist is that compensation may not include morning after pills. Similarly the downside for the hard core hedonist may be that compensation does not include tickets to strip clubs. The hard core christian may complain it does not include crosses and rosaries. By stark contrast, Mozilla pressured, criticized and sanctimoniously morally condemned sombody who they disagreed with and drove them from their deployment to make an example of what leftists do to those who dare challenge their bigotries.

          • Wasilla Gorilla

            Hobby Lobby might very well prevent employees from purchasing birth control if it could feasibly do so. That is not the issue. Rather the issue is whether the owners of a corporation can selectively flow their personal views on morals and religion thru to the corporation while their personal assets are selectively shielded. You are talking nonsense when you speak of compensation including tickets to strip clubs, crosses and/or rosaries. The canards trotted out by right wingers, “sanctity of marriage”, Biblical quotations, etc. all boil down to this: “I Hate Homosexuals”. When you are a hater, people will tend to hate you back, as Brendan Eich found out.

    • legal eagle
      • George Williams

        Polling numbers mean nothing. People do not express their honest feelings for fear of being called bigots. The Left has been intimidating people for years. If you asked people how they feel about Islam, they will not give you an honest answer for fear of being called a bigot.

        • legal eagle

          To you, Mr. Williams, facts are just a diversion…Attitudes change except for old folks like you pining for the good old days…

          • George Williams

            Yes, the good old days, when the Justice Department actually enforced the law of the land and presidents didn’t blatantly lie to the public for political expedience. If that’s the good old days, then give me a time machine and we’ll have a do over and elect an honest president and administration. Did I tell you about the president who said that we could keep our health insurance policy? Or the story about the president who claimed that a terrorist attack was only a reaction to a video? Perhaps I’ll tell you the story of a president who used the IRS to squelch free speech of his political opponents.. Yes, the good old days when the president and his Secretary of State, didn’t go before the United Nations and claim a terrorist attack was due to a video when they knew otherwise. I’ll tell you of the good old days, when the Secretary of State didn’t lie to the families of the victims of terrorist attacks, when the Department of Justice didn’t arm drug cartels with automatic weapons and then stone wall congress by providing thousands of redacted documents that didn’t tell them one iota of the truth, all the while claiming to be the most open administration in the history of this country. I’ll tell you of the good old days when congress use to read legislation before voting on it and the good old days when a leader of congress had more intelligence to say that I guess that we’ll have to pass the bill before we see what’s in it. I’ll tell you of the good old days when congressmen didn’t go onto the floor of the Senate and use for demonizing private individual citizens and conducting class warfare. I’ll take the good old days when we didn’t have the most divisive and corrupt president and administration in the history of the Republic..

  • legal eagle

    “The battle over Firefox is the most important battle in America at this particular moment. If you use Firefox, uninstall it. Instead use Internet Explorer, Chrome, Opera, Safari, or try Pale Moon for Windows, which is based on the Firefox engine and will import all of your bookmarks.”

    Nothing like a little hyperbole from Dennis Prager to keep his audience interested….

    • ARJ127

      All these “pundits” are hucksters who thrive on hyperbole. Don’t look to them for any reasoned analysis. Preachers are the worst of the lot.

      • legal eagle

        Well said….

        • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

          Well said? You do exactly what they do, legal. You just don’t have your own television show.

          • ARJ127

            John Daly:

            Newsflash for you. People aren’t gay by choice. It’s innate. Why should this group of people have their right to marry taken away from them. If Eich had contributed to a segregationist cause, would you feel differently? African Americans aren’t black by choice, either. Mozilla made a business decision with regard to this executive.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            ARJ127:

            What on earth are you talking about? I know people aren’t gay by choice, and I’m pro gay marriage. You must be confusing me with legal eagle, who is the resident homophobe on this website.

          • ARJ127

            Dear John:
            If legal eagle is a homophobe, why is he debating the George Williamses of this world in this forum?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Dear ARJ127. Legal eagle’s one of those people who routinely uses “gay” as an insult to disparage those he doesn’t like. He has a very low opinion of homosexuals.

          • George Williams

            How about the ARJ127’s of this world, who are so insecure and afraid that someone might make a judgment about them that they hide behind avatars? You are a coward, afraid that someone might expose you as one who has an opinion.

          • George Williams

            That’s a dumb question. Legal eagle can hold hostile, epithet wielding hostile towards gays and still be a Democrat. After all their support of gays is only a matter of political opportunism, not one of humanity. It’s what made them move from their racist dogma of old school Lyndon Baines Johnson’s days to becoming the false champions of civil rights. Democrats will take any position that assures them a vote. Like Obama who was once against gay marriage and now for it, they lack a moral compass, preferring a Gallop Poll to show them the “light”. Actually, Legal eagle is a conglomeration of personalities who take turns wasting their time making challenges to supporters of Bernard Goldberg. Sadly, they make a pathetic argument time after time, often infantile, sometime as incoherent as a grunt. At least one of them isn’t averse to using Gay slurs in his postings, no doubt to the consternation of the rest of his progressive ranters. One has to question the rationality of the membership of a group that has nothing better to do then participate in such antics. I am not a homophobe, whatever that means. That’s just a form of demagoguery, bullying and intimidation meant to demean others. I hold no personal animosity towards people who are gay, only towards their militant efforts to force Americans into accepting their life style as though it was as normal as that of heterosexuals, when it is manifestly not. I won’t be bullied by someone as sanctimonious as you appear to be.

          • George Williams

            They never had the right to marry in the first place. No one will ever convince me that the Founding Fathers ever intended for homosexual unions be recognized as marriage. That’s a contrivance of the Left and the Democrats who could really care less for homosexuals, except to demagogue against their opposition to gain votes.

          • ARJ127

            Let’s not make the intentions of the Founding Fathers sacrosanct. After all, they were not opposed to slavery. Many of them were slave owners themselves. Should slavery remain unchallenged, too?
            With regard to same sex marriage, it isn’t a left-right issue as you would like to believe. It’s a human rights issue. There’s a religious undercurrent in the argments opposing same sex marriage rights. The Catholic Church and the various other so-called Christian churches, are generally opposed to the recognition of same sex unions. Therefore, I could say that this is a religion vs. secularism arguement. The Founding Fathers wouldn’t be siding with the religious groups because they made the separation of religion and the state the First Amendment of the Constitution.

          • George Williams

            The SCOTUS has never ruled that same sex marriage is a COTUS right, so your argument is moot. And how is marriage a human right, anymore than driving a car is a human right? You make things up here. There is no international convention signed by the U.S. establishing same sex marriage as a human right.

          • George Williams

            Do you really think that revulsion with homosexuality exists just because of religious grounds? I suggest that atheist heterosexuals would respond in the same fashion as heterosexual protestant evangelists. Are you so open to such ideas that your would welcome it? And just what is marriage? In the religious sense it is an act consecrated by God. In the secular sense it’s just piece of paper with a government stamp, having legal ramifications. Homosexuals can expect the latter but not necessarily the former. Religious people rightly object to religious sanctification, as they have support from Biblical documentation.

          • ARJ127

            George
            I am a heterosexual who is a devout atheist. I wouldn’t ever consider a homosexual relationship for myself. The thought revolts me. However, I would never want to deny a gay person the right to get married to another gay person.

          • George Williams

            There’s no such thing as a devout atheist, just faithless men.

          • ARJ127

            The term “devout athiest” was meant as a sardonic quip. At the risk of going off-topic, what is faith? Faith, to me, is the belief in something for which one has no tangible evidence. I prefer to believe in things for which there is evidence and logic to support that belief.

        • George Williams

          Well said that you said well said as well as you said it. I couldn’t have said “well said” any better than that.

      • George Williams

        Nothing like liberal open mindedness to incite a blanket condemnation of a social class. This stereotyping is absolute proof of your bigotry.

    • Integrity

      He actually made a point whereas all you have done is toss a gratuitous barb, which, as usual, lacks substance, wit and originality. QED

    • George Williams

      And Mozilla’s response to the man who was fired wasn’t over the top? I don’t think it hyperbole to say that Mozilla lost millions of users because of a pointless stand.

      • legal eagle

        It’s hyperbole unless you can show me some proof of your ridiculous opinion…

        • George Williams

          You have no proof otherwise. My assertion is based upon the idea that 7 million people agreed with the fired employee on Proposition 8, and that many of those people won’t take it with equanimity. You’re dreaming if you believe that it won’t have significant damage to Mozilla in California. And California is an extraordinarily liberal state, so it’s reasonable to believe that even higher percentages of voters in other states will side with a boycott of their search engine. The idea that most of the country believes in homosexual marriage is caused by the delusion that judges that enact their own law declaring it legal are actually representing the overall view of the citizenry. Nothing could be father from the truth. You can’t change national opinion by top down court rulings, just as a king can’t make himself beloved by his people by declaring that it be so.

          • legal eagle

            Let me know when you have some facts…I’ll be holding my breath awaiting your response….

          • George Williams

            Keep holding your breath. I’m hoping for a positive outcome.

  • Wheels55

    The left has become the most powerful union in the USA. PC issues can make sane people do crazy things.

  • ARJ127

    As usual, Prager has it all wrong. Firefox has as much right to fire its CEO if it deems it necessary. Did Firefox handle this well? No. Should the CEO’s views be the determining factor in the decision to fire him? No, again. However, this is a decision that has no bearing on the product or its use to me as a consumer.

    Finally, I am mighty tired of Prager’s rant that anyone who is sociall liberal is a “leftist”. Left and right pertain mostly to fiscal viewpoints. I am a fiscal conservative who would love to see this country taken back from the religious crowd who would turn it into a theocracy.

    • andy_the_bear

      A man was black-listed for opposing a dogmatic orthodoxy. Is this ok with you because the particular orthodoxy that persecuted him was not theological in the sense that it did not have to do with any particular god or gods? You seem to dislike the “religious crowd” and “theocracy” after all, and fear them persecuting others. But you seem to not care much if someone in the “religious crowd” gets persecuted by people with a narrow dogmatic belief as long as that belief is godless???

      • ARJ127

        Andy
        Please read my post again. I didn’t say that Firefox handled this well. Nor did I say it was right to fire him, even though it has the right to fire anyone it pleases. I said that the decision to fire or not has no bearing on this product or its usefulness to me as a consumer.
        The religious crowd is might quick to complain when someone like Eich gets canned. Where was their outrage when another business owner threatened his employees with dismissal if they were to vote for Obama or support the Affordable Health Care Act? The silence was deafening.

        • andy_the_bear

          Ok so you think Firefox can fire anyone it pleases or hire anyone it pleases for any reason–whether it be a morally good one or morally bad one. Specifically you seem to be saying that Firefox did something morally bad here. But then you object to it as morally wrong to be outraged and boycott Firefox for doing something that is morally wrong?

          • ARJ127

            Again, you misunderstood the response. Where was the moral outrage when right-wing CEO’s tried to impose their will on their employees? Go back and read the post again.
            As for morality – morality isn’t the determining factor in business decisions. The determining factor is the bottom line and maximizing the wealth of the share holders.

          • andy_the_bear

            I am afraid I may have read what you said more closely than you have. “CEOs imposing their will on their employees” could simply mean business related things they ought be imposing such as getting to work and doing their job. Or it could be inappropriate things such as demanding to date their daughters or demanding that they change their views on a personal matter. You say “morality isnt the determining factor in business decisions”–this assertion seems to be divorced from the reality of Eich. The guy was super qualified and brilliant and forced out for non-business reasons. He not only helped found the company but help invent java script. Definitely a brilliant asset. But discarded for inappropriate reasons which are more likely to hurt the quality of Firefox in the future rather than help it. The motivation of his firing was in fact not the maximization of wealth.

            Twice you have also implied that there is a case of selective outrage of conservatives over the Eich case. I take it you are not arguing that there should be outrage in either case but are claiming conservatives in general are engaging in a special pleading fallacy. To determine if a particular person is guilty of such a fallacy requires you to be more specific, so I have not commented on it since you have not given enough of an argument to even evaluate. For example you ought cite an example of such unfair treatment, show there ought be no moral distinction, and show that those who are outraged by the one were not in fact outraged at the other. You have done none of this, so what is there to comment on?

          • ARJ127

            Andy I was referring to political will. I thought that this was patently obvious to anyone following this thread. Apparently not, for you. Remember the stuff about CEOs attempting to coerce their employees into voting for Romney in November 2012? They threatened them with “consequences” if Obama won. Where was your civil libertarian outrage then?

          • andy_the_bear

            I am aware of some CEOs making the point they may have to downsize due to policies on their business if Obama won re-election. I do not know if you mean such cases or something different. If you did mean such cases, I can understand your unwillingness to be specific since its so easy to draw a moral distinction between the cases. Please make a real case, and maybe we can evaluate if it is comparable and if some outrage is due there as well.

          • George Williams

            Yes, imposing is what every level of management does. Management imposes the conditions of employment, place of employment, wages of employment, all within the boundaries of the law.

          • andy_the_bear

            George I hope we can agree impositions made by management may be outside the boundaries of law, and some outside the boundaries of ethics. Thus the set of all such impositions could be divided into the following categories: 1) legal and ethical 2) legal but unethical 3) illegal but ethical and 4) illegal and unethical. The reason I belabor this seemingly obvious point in this discussion is to call out the apparent equivocation of such unlike cases of management action as if they should all be either considered justifiable or not justifiable simply because they are all impositions of management. Meanwhile, I wait for ARJ’s example of a management that conservatives . should also be outraged at….after all I do not want him to have to suffer through the deafening silence of my lack of outrage against something he will not specifically define. But he seems very good at being vague and shifting his ground, and then accusing me of misunderstanding when I have been doing my patient best to simply get him to clarify his position without the evasions and equivocations.

          • George Williams

            Mozilla can fire anyone they so choose. However, political stands are risky. A prudent management would weight the costs of doing so. I assume that Mozilla came to the conclusion that alienating millions of customers who were inclined to side with Proposition 8 and losing them as customers was worth it. A profit making corporation that had to answer to its stockholders would likely fire its management if it took such a brash stand. Management has a fiduciary responsibility under the law to do nothing imprudent hat would reduce the value of the shareholder’s interest. The shareholders would also likely sue the CEO who made the decision.

    • legal eagle

      First, Eich was not fired …..and Prager makes a living making hyperbolic generalizations in order to get his audience to react…..He’s in the political showbiz game…

      • andy_the_bear

        Eich was targeted and willfully punished for disagreeing with a dogmatic orthodoxy. Your slap seems at Prager seems purely ad hominem.

    • legal eagle

      Prager is a clown who will say anything to incite the old folks who buy his nonsense…..

  • Maestrissimo

    Boycott firefox.

  • gold7406

    grandstanding against intolerance,while being intolerant. I think a dog starts to shake when faced with the same dilemma.