look at the headlines at this hour. "inside story" is next. we have the latest from fort hood and the peace talks between israel and palestine. just go to www.aljazeera.com. >> people may use and like the product, quarter revenues, profit, investment, all may look good. but mr. ceo, if the board does not like your opinions you may be packing up the office to spend more time with your family. the boss' politics are the inside story.

>> i'm ray suarez. the co-founder and ceo of the tech company mozilla is out as he said taking some time off. his company didn't botch an important product roll out. mozilla did not miss key product or force an massive layoff. what he did was make a donation spearheading the vote against gay marriage. when it became public some of mozilla's public and board and staff started to question his future as ceo and now he's gone. does ike's view of gay rights make retaining him a personal

decision for members of the board. >> brendan ike resigned. ike made a donation of $1,000 to support prop 8, california's valid proposition to ban same-sex marriage. >> they called it the mozilla project. >> ike was there at mozilla's birth, to become the embodiment of cutting edge technology medal with the wide reach of the internet. in the end the web that ike loved so much may have contributed to his departure. gay marriage is legal in

california where mozilla has its headquarters, still when ike's support of the proposition became public, there were boycotts of mozilla's powe webs. do the personal beliefs of a ceo need to match the public face of the company? ben dan ike himself said that for mozilla to succeed, employees needed to leave their politics at the door when they walked in. in a posting on the company's website executive chair woman mitchell baker, who helped found mozilla with ike, stood with the

company's stated mission. we welcome contributions from everyone regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, race, sexual orientation, gee graph location and religious views. mozilla supports equality for all. ike is not the first high-profile boss to come under question for his beliefs. in 2012 owner of chick-fil-a dan cathey said that he stood in form support of the family. he later admitted to regretting making the stand as it led to a boycott.

john mackey once described the affordable care act as fascist and socialist. both snyder and mckay have retracted comments because of customer backlash. others are unapologetic. the makers of honey made graham crackers faced openly hostile criticism after putting a male couple on the front of its ads. they doubled down and did another ad and turned it into the word love. so if you're sitting in the corner office making business decisions, how you react when social values and politics mix may depend as much on what you sell as what you think. >> joining me to discuss the departure of branden ike, law professor of nyu law school, and

jonathan rousch, senior fel felw at the brookings instituters and professor waledman no one would doubt that the board of directors is legally within its rights to do what it did. was it a good idea? >> first, thank you for having me on. second, just to clarify i'm a new york law school, not nyu, just a shout out to my colleagues. >> sorry. >> what the board did to its ceo was a standard business decision. the board decided that for a particular community like the mozilla community, which is a tight-knit group of technologists and programmers who believe in an open internet that is safe and open for all, that a ceo that does not share of the values of that community is inconsistent with those business decisions. i think this is just the way that we teach our opportunities

that this is how corporations are supposed to be run. >> does it matter that the company itself as policy gave same-sex couples the same benefits as any couples even if they weren't in states that required that, does it matter that there was open employment and no discrimination, and it was contrary to stated company policy to be discriminatory? are we talking about thoughts or acts? >> well, we're not talking about thoughts here. anyone, any ceo, any employee, anyone is free to have whatever welcome they feel or he or she feels is comfortable. and that's the nature, that's the basis for our democracy. we encourage that. we want everyone to feel comfortable expressing their beliefs. however just because you have a particular belief does not mean that you can take actions on that belief specifically use those actions to hurt other people, and then assume that there are going to be no

consequences. here the board of directors realized that the ceo's conduct in contributing to not just one anti-gay organization, but previous anti-gay politicians and other groups would have a negative impact, not just on the bottom line of mozilla, but on the community of all mozilla employees. it's not just a matter of opinions. this ceo took actions and thinks actions absolutely have consequences. >> jonathan rausch is there a difference between private behavior of a business executive, and what they do as part of carrying out their work as a fiduciary of a company? >> here i mostly agree with ari. the ceo is the spokesperson and public face of a company. if the company is uncomfortable that that person does not represent the values and priorities of a company, they're entitled and many even obliged

to drop that person. the complaint i have is that the folks who went after mr. ike i think they did so in the wrong spirit. they did it in the spirit of punishment, of intolerance saying you can't have these views and be ceo of the company. that has given gay people the reputation of intolerance and it forgets what this movement is about, which is making america a country where all of us are free to live life according to the dictate of our conscience, to speak out, and not live in the closet. it would have been so much better if the protesters had tried to educate this guy instead of punish. send photos of your spouse to mozilla. anything would have been better than saying you can't be a ceo in america if you disagree with us, which is unfortunately the message they seem to send. >> you put your finger right on it, the idea that you can't be

ceo if you fort discriminatio st discrimination, the notion that times have changed in such a way just as are other forms of common life. if you're an open racist, you simply cannot act in that public sphere, in that same way any longer. there is just no room for it any more. >> you know, ray, 45% of the public opposes gay marriage. we've got a long, long way to reach the consensus that this country has reached on ray simple. to get thersimple--raceism. we've got to persuade them not frighten them. >> did mr. ike g get a chance to talk about what he did in 2008, and whether he would do it today? >> my understanding is what

mr. ike did was he had a chance to talk about what did he in 2008, and whether or not he would do it again. he did not take that chance. i firmly believe we should allow people to evolve. that being said i'm not going to second guess the actions of the board. that is essentially, i agree, i hate to totally agree with jonathan and ari here, you by think they're right. there are market forces at work. that is the board saying what are the optics here and how is that going to play for us. they didn't think it would play well. the interesting thing is that everyone spends time worrying about their optics, whether it's businesses or people needing to get jobs. am i dressed appropriately. do i have the right clothes on. anything like that for years gay people had to consider whether or not they would be able to be out. could they tell their peers that

they were gay? could someone tell their peays that they were transgender? would they suffer a consequence because of that? it's an interesting sort of turning of the tables to see other people have to consider whether or not their opinions or their approaches to life or whatever might come under scrutiny. that's something that lesbian, gay, by sexual and transgender people have been doing for years and years. by the way, the statistics on the discrimination in the workplace for lgbt people are just off the charts. i mean, there is no protections nationwide at the federal level for lgbt people. and the center for american progress put out a report in 2011 saying between 15% and 43% of gay people experience some sort of discrimination or harassment, and about 90% of

transgender people reported experiencing harassment. that is a whooping number. >> kerry, when we come back after this short break i want to come back to what you mentioned about optics, and whether a move of this kind is good optics for the gay community. this is inside story.

>> welcome back to inside story. i'm ray suarez. when it comes to running a successful business, do the personal politics of the ceo matter? it depends on the politics and the business we're discussing the resignation of mozil la could you founder branden ike. he's out because of supporting

the banning of same-sex marriage. is this a question of being able to do something perhaps even having the arguments on your side, but not necessarily being the right thing to do just because you can. >> well, i think that's right. both sides need to be thinking about the optics of the situation, and it looks really bad if gay people starts to look like we're treating other people the way we were once treating ourselves. it not only looks bad, it not only sets up the story of gay bullies which the religious right are trying to develop, but it is also the wrong thing we did. we have lived in the closet for decades. we know how painful that is. we want to let them explain why they're wrong. >> professor, i want to go back whether there is a difference between these ideas and deeds.

you noted and correctly so that it's a different thing once brendan ike gives money to an organization that is actively working for the passage of this bill. but there may be haters in board rooms across the country. if they simply are that and don't do anything are they left in peace? if there are people who privately hold the convictions that gay people are worthy of hate and marginalization but don't make a big deal out of it, are they to be left alone? >> i think this brings up one of my disagreements with jonathan's comments. i agree with the substance. no one should--we shouldn't be in the business of attacking people just like we have been attacked. however, i disagree with the language that jonathan is using, and i disagree with what we're thinking about with this question.

the gay community is not monolithic movement. not everyone got together and started, quote/unquote started bullying this gentleman into submission. the terms that we have been using has been insulting. i don't want to suggest that that might be the case or lead us along the lines that this would suggest that we're, in fact, bullying. but we are not bullies no matter what our opinions are there is no one out here who is saying that you can't hold whatever opinion you want to hold. there is no movement. there is no central figure in the community that says you cannot have a job while disagreeing with us. no one is saying that. to suggest that we are is to

oversimplify the situation. what we are saying is that in this unique situation where you have a business community that is dedicated not just to an open internet, but to an internet that is open to all, and it's employees, and members of the board of director and other members of the mozilla community felt that what brendan ike did, his conduct, his actions were inconsistent with the values of the community, then then action also have consequences. no one is talking about suggesting just because we disagree with someone that they have to lose their jobs or they have to disappear. >> a quick response. >> well, he's right. the gay movement is not monolithic, and in fact, mainstream gay organizations did not support this. most gay people believe in

tolerance and believe in educating people. what happened here was a small group of freelancers started to make a statement about this. that's what drove this. i think most ordinary gay people want to live and let live and go with the values of persuasion rather than punishment. >> kerry, what about that, perhaps the better move was to leave brendan ike be, especially since he was working with a company that was pretty much of equality in its actions as a company and it's policies as a company. >> yes, many companies are on the side of equality. corporate america was far ahead of the federal government on starting to enact pro lgbt policies, healthcare policies that were inclusive somewhere on the order of 90% of fortune 500 companies now have

non-discrimination policies that protect people in sexual orientation. i want to say a word. i'm not a very good activist. i'm a juniorist by nature. i like to push things around, explore them, talk to a few people. i do my best writing that way. but we have a group of activists and jonathan referred to them as freelancers. you can call them what you want, but without the activists we would be nowhere as a movement. nowhere. these are people who are far more sort of staunch in their ideas than i am, but i dare say proposition 8 would not be overturned yet. i dare say that don't ask/don't tell appeal would not have gone

through without as some people say shouting in the streets, protesting. the activists, the less part of this movement are a very important part of this movement. without them i don't think that jonathan or ari or i would be able to exist because we would be seen as leftest, well, maybe not jonathan. >> when we come back after a short break we'll talk about where it call goes from here. is this an experience that's going to be repeated? this is inside story.

>> welcome back to inside story. i'm ray suarez. this week we did a program on the supreme court's mccutcheon decision. it reaffirmed that political donations are free speech. as ceo is it free speech to express a political opinion, and can it, should it cost you your job?

for mozilla co-founder branden ike, the answer may be yes. joining us, ari, a law professor at new york law school. in our washington studio, jonathan, a senior fellow at brookings institution. and inber inberg in berkeley, k. >> can hobby lobby protect out to its employees their political police, and papa john and mr. mackey from whole foods. phil robinson from duck dynasty, spunkesuspended and off the airr expressing his views.

should a thoughtful consumer be examining the beliefs the corporations. >> first directly to your question, absolutely. if you're going to be giving your money to someone, you better be sure that the organization or person you're giving your money to is worthy of your patronage. there is no reason t to patronie someone who is going to take your dollar and donate to an organization that will take away your rights. with you we could go further. the supreme court is also look--and other courts, are looking at private companies to deny service to gay persons. arizona looked at doing that. mississippi is looking at doing that just because they don't

like gay marriage. it highlights the problem with simply saying that we should just let brandon ike live and let live because there are other options, or because mozilla itself is a pro-equality company. when someone denies you service. or when someone takes your money and turns around and tried to hurt you with it, that is not treating you with the equal dignity that you deserve as an equal member of american society. just because you are allowed or you have the opportunity to go down the street to the next florist, the next baker, or to the next internet service platform does not mean that that company should be allowed to discriminate against you, nor should it mean that there should be no consequences for someone

who is trying to hurt the gay community in that way. this is what the principles of free market and dignity are supposed to uphold. >> kerry, you cover politics, have we crossed the threshold here? >> i do think that we crossed a threshold embracing the fact that gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgender people should be allowed to be open about who they are. we continue to have a discussion about gay marriage that continues to go on, but in general we have hit the breaking point here or the tipping point where, you know, it is no longer considered a liability everywhere in the country to be lgbt. i personally support that. we're tax-paying americans, and we should have the same rights as every other american and be able to live. >> jonathan, is this a shot that will give a lot of people both

in bored rooms and at home something to think about? >> no, i think it's a minor event in a long unfolding story about how we're going to draw lines in society. public lines are changing about gay people and marriage in america. there is a process of adjustment going on as we figure out how to get along with each other. this is just one small part of it. most gay people in this country want to and i know they can get along with people who disagree with them, and we're figuring out how to do that. >> it is happening quickly. >> it is happening very quickly, and there is a lot of adjustment shocks going on. >> jonathan, professor waledman and kerry, thank you for being with us. the program may be over but the conversation continues. we want to here what you think about this or any day's shows. you can send us your thoughts on twitter or reach me directly

@ray suarez news. we'll see you for the next "inside story." in washington, i'm ray suarez. >> richard trumka president of the afl coy, representing 12,000 workers, a long time low. trumka says the workers need a better deal. >> we've given with our wages, we've given with our jobs, we've given with our homes. >> you can't look and say it's the president's fault. he's tried. now would i have don