While I didn't down vote you I would assume it's because your remark was both snide and dismissive and didn't add anything concrete to the conversation.

Edit: after rereading your comment I chose to down vote it after all. It really is the sort of comment that doesn't belong on HN.

While OP's comment was snide (and perhaps not as cleverly worded as it could have been) I think his point was still valid: the assumption is that Mr. Beard, unlike Mr. Eich, has not donated to a cause unpopular with one or more vocal groups that have assumed the mantle of determining what is "fair" or "right".

Simplistic reasoning like "the elite" (what elite?) isn't usually encouraged here.

Since noone is explaining it to you honestly, I'll tell you.

By implying that supporting gay marriage (which is the opposite of what Brendan Eich did in his active campaign against it) is a "campaign by the elite" you are revealing yourself as an anti-progressive dinosaur who is on the wrong side of history when it comes to LGBT human rights.

> wrong side of history when it comes to LGBT human rights.

But as long as the majority of Californians agree(d) with him, does he really deserve down-votes or being called an anti-progressive dinosaur?

Yes? How is majority opinion relevant? Storm Thurmond was a hateful and bigoted anti-progressive dinosaur in the 50s. That the majority of South Carolina agreed with him does not change that.

What he said isn't wrong though.

The ex-Mozilla CEO had personal opinions that the Internet masses didn't like and used mob mentality to get him to step down. They actually wanted him fired.

Not everyone is going to agree with you and getting someone fired because they don't agree with you isn't progressive, tolerant, or civil. It's just plain wrong.

What if it had been the reverse? Christians got together and got a ceo to step down because they donated to a pro-gay marriage proposal. Those same people would be outraged.

This is why I know that it has nothing to do with being progressive or free..and everything to do with having power over other people. It's sick.

We really do not need a page of snarky asshole comments about the gay agenda.

Exactly. Can we have a discussion about Chris Beard and Mozilla rather than a repeat of an argument about Brendan Eich?

Apparently not, and it seems that question was settled long ago. I'd say every "side" of this story definitely agrees that Brendan, and the reasons he was removed from the position, are VERY relevant to who can and will hold the position of CEO at Mozilla.

So, while it's a bit sad, I don't think there can be discussion of Mozilla's CEO for some time into the future without the related discussion of Brendan Eich.

a) snarky one liners don't contribute to the conversation, especially when several other people have already said the same thing. b) framing lgbt rights as an agenda cooked up by "the elite" is laughable.