Absolutely not. Everyone else has the right to believe what they want with no strings attached. I don't think everything they believe is relevant to making business decisions, though, and because businesses do have moral and ethical dimensions, I think it's perfectly acceptable for me to say that a business decision is wrong. In this case, the decision was to boycott Mozilla for promoting somebody who, 8 years ago, expressed a political opinion in his own time and with his own money. I think that decision was wrong. Given that it was made, resigning was the correct choice, because failure to do so would've been making a business decision, costing other employees their own livelihood, because of his own beliefs that aren't relevant to the business. I don't know where you were going with the rest of the paragraph, though, so I can't respond to it. It sounds like a response to some caricature who isn't me.
If he made the right decision, his board made the wrong decision, why is the public wrong for having an opinion or a reaction to all of it? Note: I did not call for him to be fired personally. I see the legitimacy of saying "it's not fair to say someone shouldn't have a job period based on their beliefs." But I was seriously considering which browser I'd use now since I wouldn't be using Mozilla products or Chrome.
You indicated that it would be unreasonable to give the neighbor "the same pass" for being a neo-nazi. The pass in question is remaining employed despite holding beliefs I can't stand. Chances are, the neo-nazi requires a job in order to have an income. Chances are, the neo-nazi requires an income in order to pay the bills. Chances are, the neo-nazi needs to pay the bills in order to keep a home. That's why I picked that particular analogy, since you picked home ownership as the relevant identity, and I wanted to link the situations more firmly. I agree that, as a private individual, you have a right to boycott people for whatever the hell you want.
Then we're not in disagreement here, actually. But again, you're coming from the position he was "forced out" and that his livelihood was threatened. And I think that's a crock.
A business is not, in any way, neutral. The actions they take have implications. If absolutely nothing else, they have financial implications for the employees of a business. When you make a business decision, you're responsible for that. But that doesn't mean that literally every decision you make in your life should be a business decision, just as every decision a school teacher makes shouldn't be an educational one. I strongly disagree with your conclusion about conviction - he made the correct choice in the face of an unfair decision. He put his employees' welfare above his own beliefs, which is absolutely the correct way to run a business.
He put dollars over his professed, deeply held beliefs. Responsible to his employees? Sure. Does it earn any respect from me? No. People were ready to walk away from the job as it is.
And what about when said business uses its wealth and power to push a social agenda?
But that isn't what happened.
But that is the ultimate point of all this. It's why people were alarmed. It's the reality of the world we live in
right now. Coming right on the heels of the most recent SCOTUS decision, it should not surprise you people had this reaction. And I think it's the
right reaction given the world we're living in. I believe that given a long enough timeline, your personal beliefs eventually come to affect your business decisions and how you chose to leverage your business's influence. So start at the beginning: reveal yourself for who you are and let me decide whether or not I want to give you my business. And I believe this man did that. Do I want businesses to be judged on their beliefs as well as their performance? You're damn right I do; it's the only way we can make business accountable for something other than their damn stock price.
If this guy's CEO position of Mozilla was sacrificed on the altar of making businesses accountable for their beliefs, I'm ok with that.
What I would call in question is the rationale behind attributing a political view of a single person to an entire corporation and its products.
The mail guy? Sure. The CEO? Speaking of not being able to put things into perspective...............................