Why boycotting Mozilla was a bad idea

Dear gay rights activists,

I applaud your efforts to make this world a more loving, tolerant place. I don't oppose gay marriage, and I wish you luck in your attempts.

However, I think that far too often your efforts are counterproductive.

(Note that when I say "you," I'm speaking of the LGBT activism in general, not of individuals, because I know there are many diverging opinions within the community.)

What are these counterproductive activities? They are the--shall I call them attacks? Yes, for that's what they are--against people who disagree with you.

The most recent event was this week against Brendan Eich, the new CEO of Mozilla, who was pressured into stepping down because he donated to Proposition 8 back in 2008. However, there have been other victims as well, including the Chic-Fil-A guy and bakers and florists who decline to cater to gay weddings.

If anyone opposes gay marriage, you automatically characterize them as bigots and homophobes. And I'm sure there are lots of these kinds of people among those who oppose gay marriage.

However, if you would actually listen to people's concerns, you would learn that they have other worries about gay marriage. Many of them have personal and/or religious beliefs that such marriage is morally wrong. Whether or not you agree with that, they are entitled to their beliefs. But one of the biggest worries of same-sex marriage opponents is that the legalization of gay marriage will infringe on the rights of those who disagree with it.

You ensure them that they will not lose any of their rights, and that the only thing that will happen is that gay people will marry each other.

But then you go and make these attacks, and people see their concerns realized. In your attempts to quash homophobia, you actually give people a reason to fear homosexuals!

Take the New Mexico florist. As a private business owner, she should have the right to decline catering to a gay wedding. Regardless of what you think of that, she has her personal beliefs and should be able to follow them. But instead, she was fined.

And it wasn't even as bigoted as you might think. She would be willing to photograph people who are gay. She is not bigoted against gay people themselves; she just disagrees with the marriage. And as I said earlier, there are reasons to oppose gay marriage that aren't based in prejudice.

I'm not condoning her refusal; I just think she should have the freedom to do so.

One of the side effects of the LGBT movement that I really appreciate is the increased focus on bullying. I feel like they were largely responsible for bringing new-found attention to the problem.

But let's consider the Brendan Eich incident. A new CEO of a company--who, by the way, developed JavaScript--happened to donate some money half a decade ago, before he was the CEO, to a cause that you disagree with. He did so not as a representative of the company but as an individual. He did nothing to force his employees to agree with him. But because he did that, he should no longer be able to hold a job for which he is very well qualified.

If that's not bullying, I don't know what is.

I think if you were to do a little research, you would find that the CEO of every company has at least one personal idea that you disagree with. If we only did business with those we agreed with, we would be doing very limited business indeed!

Also, as far as things to boycott, Firefox is a very good service and not one to boycott. Although there are some things I prefer about Chrome, Firefox is my browser of choice. Not to mention that boycotting Mozilla because of the CEO doesn't take into account the other employees who agree with you.

Basically, my point is, if you want to gain sympathy for your cause, (1) don't label people bigots just because they disagree with you, and (2) don't try to destroy the lives of those who disagree with you.

You want them to let you live as you want. Be courteous enough to allow them the same thing.