If Eich had explained himself, maybe even said, hey, I have these views about the definition of "marriage" as a word and as an institution, but I support treating civil partnerships as equivalent to man/woman "marriage"- I don't think I'd have as much of an issue with him being CEO.
Or, heck, for all I know the donation was a complete accident. Maybe he just slipped and his checkbook fell out of his pocket onto a pen in juuust such a way that it signed a check to that organization. Somebody could have even stolen his identity to make the donation!
But when he refused to explain that donation, it's a lot harder to assume good faith, that he totally supports my rights but just has a problem with calling it "marriage", or that it was just a tragic checkbook-related trip-and-fall accident. Maybe he made public statements explaining his views that I haven't seen- links appreciated.
I myself wish he’d explained his views in more detail. However, I am not sure if his doing so would have helped much. Whatever he said, some people likely would have tried to twist his words in to making them sound as unreasonable as possible, and it would not surprise me if his PR team were advising him that explaining and defending his views in detail would only add fuel to the fire. Also, if one views it in terms of the principle that employees (CEOs included) should be allowed to privately express their political views by donation, then demanding a public explanation is undermining that principle and turning private views into public ones. It is possible that respect for that principle is one of the reasons behind Eich’s refusal to publicly elaborate his views on the issue.
Or, heck, for all I know the donation was a complete accident. Maybe he just slipped and his checkbook fell out of his pocket onto a pen in juuust such a way that it signed a check to that organization. Somebody could have even stolen his identity to make the donation!
But when he refused to explain that donation, it's a lot harder to assume good faith, that he totally supports my rights but just has a problem with calling it "marriage", or that it was just a tragic checkbook-related trip-and-fall accident. Maybe he made public statements explaining his views that I haven't seen- links appreciated.