Mozilla CEO resignation is another example of gay bullying

Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich

And here we go again with the oh-so-tolerant Left displaying its level of tolerance — just ask resigned Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich about that. As reported by, “Mozilla co-founder Brendan Eich is stepping down as CEO after protests of his support of a gay marriage ban in California. The Mountain View-based nonprofit maker of the Firefox browser had promoted him last week. At issue was Eich’s $1,000 donation in 2008 to the campaign to pass California’s Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment that outlawed same-sex marriages. The ban was overturned when the U.S. Supreme Court last year left in place a lower-court ruling striking down the ballot measure.”

Let’s not forget Proposition 8 was passed by the electorate who came out in force during the 2008 Obama-wave election, and said THEY wanted marriage defined as between one man and one woman. Subsequently a gay special interest lobby took the case to the courts, and activist judges overruled the electorate.

So not only is the radical gay Left intolerant of opposing opinions, they do not respect the decision of the voting electorate and will demand that their way be the law of the land. This is simply a case of bullying.

Of greater concern however, is the serious threat to the rule of law in America and the results of judicial activism and legislating from the bench by unelected black-robed judges who are forcing their values upon this Republic.

Spare me the histrionics and screeching about “homophobia.” It is a very serious problem when the majority of this country is being attacked by intimidation, force, and coercion. These are the tools that radical progressive socialists must use in order to enact their agenda because taken as it is, it is most often rejected.

When the referendum of the people, such as Proposition 8, can be dismissed based upon the whims and protests of a small minority, it is in danger of spiraling out of control. The Declaration of Independence states that every individual is endowed with certain unalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

If someone deems their pursuit of happiness must include loving someone of the same sex, that is their right. But their sexual behavior does not grant them any more rights than anyone else. Marriage is an issue decided at the state level, as the states issues marriage licenses. It should be decided by the electorate of the states, not by judges or attorneys general.

I want someone to explain to me what is a gay right? What additional rights does one have based upon sexual preference? And don’t give me the argument that gayness is a civil right, like race. Skin color is not a behavior.

Furthermore, Americans possess a First Amendment right to free speech and if one certain special interest group decides to punish someone based on his or her right to freedom of expression — we have a problem in America.

Mozilla Chairwoman Mitchell Baker apologized for the company’s actions in an open letter online Thursday. She says Eich is stepping down for the company’s sake. She says Mozilla believes in equality and freedom of speech. Her words ring hollow based upon acquiescing to these protests.

One thing is for certain, the black civil rights movement was not about intolerance and intimidation. It didn’t have to be because it was rooted in Judeo-Christian principles. Black leaders petitioned God to enable the cause, and it was just and right by the principles of liberty and freedom enshrined in the fundamental values of America. Because the radical gay Leftists are operating without moral conviction, coercion, force, intimidation, intolerance, and anger are their modus operandi to achieve their ends.

You can call me whatever you want, but I, like many Americans, refuse to be bullied.


  1. Allen, I tend to agree with you on just about everything. Truly. However, rigorous research has made clear that gay, in most cases, is as genetically driven as skin color; so, I do see it as a civil right. In the past, people used the difference in skin color to treat others as lesser and that was as wrong as treating someone with homosexual genetics as lesser. This is, perhaps, one of the only areas with which you and I disagree. I am hopeful that the GOP will continue to educate themselves on genetic research and realize they are cruelly stripping people of civil rights. It is easiest for our GOP to hide behind the cloak of religion; but, again, the ignorant slave owners of the past used God to justify their seeing people of color as lesser, and I believe they were wrong in their interpretation of God’s intent. Other than that, I fully agree that our activist courts are intolerant bullies, but then again so are most progressive liberals.

    • The human genome was completely mapped in the early 2000’s. There is no gay gene. Researchers have turned to epigenetics. Nothing as of yet as turned out to be conclusive, that’s why it’s important to read beyond headlines. “Studies suggest”, “may have”, “link” are not statements of absolute evidence.

      • A South Carolina college held a seminar on how to be a lesbian. My question is if you are born that way, why do you need a seminar to learn how to be one? That doesn’t make sense to me

      • lol…….. How to Be a Lesbian in 10 Days or Less…. If they are truly born that way, why another ______ for Dummies manual??????

    • “However, rigorous research has made clear that gay, in most cases, is as genetically driven as skin color;”….absolutely not true…the same ‘activists that bully… are behind claims, that there is anything valid, much less conclusive on this line. If you look around, at any gay person you know….they are 99.9 %, self admitted, cases of ‘learned behavior’ induced by either a child abuser that introduced them to this against their will (effecting/changing their outlook for life)…or they came to be extremely discouraged by bad experiences with the opposite sex, so they simply …decided the luck may be better on the other side…or 3.) they were heavily influenced by someone somewhere, to ‘try it’ experimentally, and they simply did…and got addicted, that is partially why so many are also bi. It is not the normal course of things, …and if God had meant it to be, he wouldn’t have spoken directly clearly and heavily against it. Discounting the Bible may be a start, for one pushing other ideologies, but after that, the facts and science and observation, and information gathered, both unofficial and official, do NOT support the notion that it is a born condition. Don’t u understand that the left is literally desperate to create such a study that they can conclude that way? not every ‘expert’ that appears in a court room for a defendant or plaintiff is telling the truth nor totally forthright. In fact both sides in many of these cases bring ‘experts’ with diametrically opposing ‘results’ to supposed valid ‘studies’. Unfortunately for the gay rights movement…this that they wish to solve through scientific proof, will never happen, cause its simply not there. But that will not keep various studies that cannot be and won’t be conclusive, from continuing to claim such…LOOK, they got you to believe it didn’t they? they figure it still works…on many people to keep ringing that bell.

    • Bull pucky Traci. The head of the LGBT organization admitted several years ago that the studies were cooked and that there is NO genetic gay gene.

      My cousin has admitted that he is homosexual and felt that way from childhood. He said, however, he was led into the lifestyle while looking for a “father” because his father (my Uncle) was not one for him. His mother ruled the household. A male friend who was like a “father” led him into the lifestyle. For the past 10 yrs, he has been celebate, happy and no longer suicidal.

  2. We should live above possible genetics. What of males who might have the extra X chromosome? Do they “get” to commit violence? That said, also not sure that recent research (which seems to confirm recent cultural shifts) should be accepted as “gospel”.

    . Noting that Dr. Pitts below has forgotten how and why the Republican party was founded (the democrat party…notably in the south…was the party of slavery.

    • Late 19th and early 20th century “science” seemed to confirm eugenics…the idea that some races are inferior to others. This was one of the quasi science barriers that the Tuskegee Airmen (black pilots) had to fight through.

      What quasi scientific ideas are we accepting too eagerly today.since they are fashionable now..which will throw up barriers for future generations???

  3. Does anyone know the percentage of gay people in the US is? Not including San Francisco…or Caliprunia! How does this PC stuff control who/what happens?

  4. It’s ironic that you call gays not wanting to be discriminated against an attack… and then further go on to say that the civil rights movement was different.

    History lesson…
    The bigots who wanted to stop blacks from having equal rights also felt they were being attacked and also felt God was on their side.

    • Please define “gay rights”, are you saying that homosexuals are being denied their right to vote, own property, get a driver’s license or exercise their first amendment rights – we know that’s not happening- or right to due process? Gays are protesting because they believe their needs entitle them to special privileges at the expense of someone else, just like every other group out there claiming to be victims. You don’t have a right to a job, income, money or to tell someone else they have to accept your lifestyle, and use the power of the state to force them to comply, which is happening right now. Business owners aren’t allowed to refuse service, they are being forced to comply, so boycotting isn’t even an option. So in a sense, they have more rights the heterosexuals, and please stop comparing this “gay rights” movement to what black americans actually went through, it’s not even comparable.

      • 1. Equal rights are not special rights.

        2. And the comparison of the black civil rights struggle and the gay civil rights struggle is reasonable.
        the most common thing they have is that the people who opposed them used the same arguments of being persecuted and protecting morals.

        the thing about bigots is that they genuinely don’t believe they’re bigots… they believed that not being allowed to repress someone else is an attack against them.

      • “2. And the comparison of the black civil rights struggle and the gay civil rights struggle is reasonable.”
        Are gays being forced to pay a poll tax? Were they denied access to public schools, are they forced to sit at separate booths at restaurants. Unlike blacks historically, gays are afforded special legal protections. Don’t tell me the comparison is reasonable, it’s not.
        “he thing about bigots is that they genuinely don’t believe they’re bigots…”
        Are you saying I’m the bigot, because me and people like me believe in equal protection before the law and not in special legal protections and quotas. It’s the Gay lobby that believe in co-ersion, not in freedom of association or voluntary transactions because like I said, people are not getting a chance to boycott businesses, they are being forced to comply. They are the bigots.

    • But cannot refuse to service a homosexual wedding without being bullied and bankrupt for their beliefs. Who are the bigots when anyone who disagrees with them are called homophobes?

  5. It’s so sad that so many people throughout the political spectrum have entirely tossed out the notion of a Constitution. Rights are protected equally; Gays have equal rights to straights, blacks have equal rights to whites. As to “passed by the electorate” you’ve entirely forgotten that the Constitution provides for negating the ignorance of the voters. Perhaps you should review the Constitution in general and the enumerated duties of the Judicial Branch.

    • Ignorance is a 2 way street Eric. the minority should not be able to dictate at the majority, in a democratic republic. Activist Judges can and should be fired by act of congress. No one said life is fair. Where all this “fairness” comes from is beyond me. It is not natural.

      • That’s not how the Founders laid it out.
        We are a nation of laws designed to protect individual rights from what Thomas Jefferson called “the tyranny of the majority.”

        Your neighbors can not vote away your rights or decide, for you, what your rights are.
        The system was designed so that individuals (or groups of individuals) can use the courts to challenge laws.

        It seems that whether you call them activist judges or judges upholding the Constitution depends on whether you like their ruling or not.

      • Just because a judge votes in favor of a minority doesn’t make it a validation of minority rule. It just means that the judge decided to favor what he thinks it should. According to precedent, not so much according to the constitution

      • A minority cannot vote or legislate away our bill of rights either. That would be tyranny, which our forefathers abhored.There is a reason the 2nd amendment comes right after the 1st.

  6. Perfect response to this ridiculous nonsense from the leftists. How can this be stopped? Get them out of office and stand up for the rights we know are a core of our nation.

    • I agree. If they keep it up, it will not end well for them. This is clearly an agenda against Christianity and Jesus said an eye for an eye.

      • ummm… you should read the rest of that passage to see what Jesus actually said.
        He was opposing taking an eye for an eye.

        “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’
        But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.”

      • We don’t legislate based on religion in this country.
        I was simply correcting the previous poster’s misinterpretation of a partial quote.

      • Then don’t bring it up.

        “you should read the rest of that passage to see what Jesus actually said.”

      • You have resding comprehension issues and clearly, based on your previous posts, hate the Constitution.

      • LOL … fail much? Learn how to spell, maybe you should finish the third grade before posting again.

  7. Homophobia- Irrational fear of homosexuality. We are NOT afraid of homosexuality. We ARE in fact, afraid FOR the homosexual when repentance is scoffed at.

    • Your user name is interesting.
      Ayn Rand opposed government discrimination against gays.
      And Ayn Rand was an atheist who didn’t believe in repentance.

  8. The real problem is that people like Brendan Eich submit to this nonsense. I suspect he was offered a goodly amount in financial recompense to just “go away.” He did and thus took the coward’s way out. People will put up with this nonsense only so long. I don’t think this is going to end well.

  9. After reading this article by Allen West, I am very relieved to know he no longer holds any political office.
    I don’t care whether you like gays or not.

    But if you think individuals don’t have the right to use the courts to challenge whether a law is Constitutional or not, regardless of whether it was approved by voters, then you have little understanding of how this great nation was designed by our Founders and should not be holding office.

    • LOL, they founded the nation so as to create a lie? Twist words to find new meaning?

      Where is the word marriage found within the text of the Constitution?

      • You are either deliberately diverting or just don’t understand.

        Marriage is not in the Constitution… many things are not in the Constitution… but whether certain rights or privileges are protected by the Constitution are matters for the courts to decide. That is laid in the Constitution.

      • Very good, marriage isn’t in the Constitution, thanks for restating what is blindingly obvious.

        Since it’s not in the Constitution, marriage is left to the states.

        Get It?

    • This attack of yours is irrelevant. Allen, along with the majority of his readers, do know and believe that individuals have the right to use the courts to challenge laws. He never said that anyone should not have that right. However, when one group goes from challenging a law they don’t like to forcing anyone who supported it to submit to their will or resign from their job – which I’m sure is another issue in and of itself – then things start to get out of hand.

      Let’s say you were part of the majority of people that voted for or supported a law that a lot of people liked, but a few didn’t. Do those few who do not like it have the right to challenge the law? ABSOLUTELY! However, do they, or should they have the right to make you step down from your job just because you supported it? No. That would be bullying. That is what this article is about. How gays are bullying their way around.

      I’m fine with gays. I have several gay friends. Most of them are self-admitted, and only two claim it’s genetic. You should see the argument they have with each other about that issue. But all of them do agree on something: that the gays you see in the media, the gays that do this kind of thing, are NOT how they want to be seen, compared to or who they support. One of them even told me that the “Gay Party” is nothing but a political movement to see how much they can get away with and who they can turn against each other.

  10. The point is , the California voters spoke. Why have an election if some liberal Judge is going to rule from the bench. !!!!! The right way is to put it on the ballot again and then vote on it, If the same results apply then the gay’s need to get over it. If the gay’s win then let God be the judge. Live and let live.!!!!!! NO ONE HAS TO PARTICIPATE !!

    • Because this is the United States of America and we are a nation of laws, designed by our Founders to protect the rights of the individual from what Thomas Jefferson called “the tyranny of the majority.”

      individuals (or groups of individuals) have the right to challenge, through the courts, laws they feel are unConstitutional.

      We do not legislate by mob rule.
      If the people of your state vote to enact a law to restrict your rights… you, thanks to the Constitution, have the right to go to court and challenge that law.

      • Mob rule? You’re a comedian, one judge overruled a majority of California’s citizens. That judge just happened to have a conflict of interest.

        You’d prefer a despotism, eh?

      • yes… mob rule… that would be if all decisions were made by majority vote and individuals had no recourse to challenge whether that majority decision was legal or not.
        That is mob rule… and that is not what we have in the republic, this nation of laws.
        Majority decisions must be withing the law and the courts are a recourse to challenge those decisions.

        Please do not refer to abiding by the Constitution as despotism.

      • No. I don’t prefer Obama.
        but clearly, you hate the Constitution since you oppose it.
        If you think that courts protecting individual rights is despotism, you must hate this country and its Founders

      • Not it is fools like you who hate the Constitution. You and liberals like you fail to respect the actual words contained within the BOR, e.g.,

        The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

      • Read the rest junior.
        The only thing worse than someone who doesn’t understand the Constitution is some clown who thinks he does.

      • Read the rest of the 10th?

        LOL, you’re a joke. Why do you believe you have the right to redefine words? Are you Humpty Dumpty?

      • twisting words of people and putting words in that weren’t there does not become you. Just because he does not agree with you, makes him a hater of the Constitution. There is suppose to separation of powers. JUdges decide whether laws are constitutional or not, Yet This judge decided the the Majority of the people had no idea about what they voted on, which by definition is Running the government from the bench. The Judge being appointed to the bench didn’t decide on the morality of it but the politics of it. The Decision should be impartial and it is obvious to me that it wasn’t

      • No. Repeating that the judge went against the opinion of the majority of voters does not change anything. In fact, it only reenforces the point that the courts serve as a check to protect the rights of the individual against the majority.

        And the only people that believe the judge wasn’t impartial are those who already have their own bias.

      • I am sorry but you are wrong. it is not protecting the individual right. It can appear to be that way. When in fact the judges decision is based no by the Constitution, but by precedent in earlier cases.

        It is very rare that a judge makes a ruling based on a circumstance without precedent.

        On August 4, 2010, Walker ruled that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional “under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses” and prohibited its enforcement.

        On April 25, 2011, supporters of Proposition 8 filed a motion in district court to vacate Walker’s decision, citing Walker’s own post-trial statement that he has been in a long-term relationship with another man. They argued he should have recused himself or disclosed his relationship status, and unless Walker “disavowed any interest in marrying his partner”, he had “a direct personal interest in the outcome of the case.

        So the Judge made the decision based on his circumstance which was a “conflict of interest”. Which is against the law

      • So, if the “Majority” vote on an issue and it passes, then it is okay for the “Minority” to fight it and its okay for a (1) Liberal Judge to cancel what the “Majority” voted for? For as long as I can remember, the “Minority” has trumped what the “Majority” have voted for, but that is okay to you? It’s okay for our Government to dictate to “The People” what we can and can’t do, decides our Health Care, Run Businesses into the ground, not follow our Laws and anything else they desire?

      • Yes… it is absolutely legal for a law to be challenged in the courts and for a judge to determine it is unConstitutional.
        But you seem to be missing the point and you are confusing the rights of individuals to challenge a law with government dictating to the people.

        If the people of your state all vote a bill into law that prevents christians from building new churches… any individual or group can go to court and sue to challenge that law and a judge can rule it unConstitutional, regardless of whether it was passed by popular vote or not.

        Our history is filled with examples of government over reach supported by popular vote being overturned in the court.

      • Sure, anyone can take anything to court. The problem is Judges and Government passing Laws that are against the Constitution (such as gun rights). Our Government is constantly overreaching, especially this administration.

      • I agree. Going after gun rights is an excellent example of government over reach.

        And the ruling in Heller v DC is an example of an individual winning a suit against the government over an unConstitutional new gun law.

        In that case, the courts overturned a restrictive anti-gun law.

  11. People seem to have a complete lack of knowledge about how this works. Just because a majority of voters vote for something does not mean it must be. Thank GOD that’s not how it is! A majority was in favor of Jim Crow laws in the South when they were in place. Were they right? More to the point, was it Constitutional? We’re not a Democracy. If we were, then the majority’s whims would trample your rights and there would be no recourse for you. We’re a Constitutional Republic – again, Thank GOD! The core purpose of our govt is to defend individual rights from the tyranny of the majority. Whether you agree with gay marriage or not, the point is that just because enough voters approve of a referendum, it does not automatically make the thing Constitutional. You’re lucky to live where this is true.

      • LOL @ such a lame attempt. You must not know what “conflate” means. You seem to think it means “create a straw man.” He has every right to say whatever he wants about this. Just as I have every right to call out the nonsense of suggesting that just because a majority votes for something, that somehow makes it legally justifiable. I was commenting on the content of his argument, not the legal merits of gay marriage. Sorry you missed that point. He’s 100% wrong to suggest that Prop 8 was necessarily justified (legally) just because it represented the will of the voters.

      • LOL, you must not know what marriage means. Why not address the issue? Marriage is not a federal issue, get it?

        As for conflate, you’re the one lamely attempting to call marriage the equivalent to Jim Crow.

        “Republic” … meaning those things not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, ARE LEFT TO THE STATES.

      • Where do I begin? Marriage isn’t a federal issue? Tell that to your tax preparer and get laughed out of the room. You’re required to tell the feds if you’re married, single, married but filing separately, etc. Still think it’s not a federal issue, Einstein? That was easy.

        Only someone who can’t quite grasp logic would think I was equating Jim Crow with marriage. Hilarious! I was using another example of a case where the will of the majority does not, as West was arguing, make something right or legal. Did you really not get that? Wow.

        Finally, you went 3 of 3 and got the last one wrong, too. Well, half-right. I’ll be generous. Read the Bill Of Right again. It’s left to the States OR the people. You don’t lose your individual rights just because a State makes a law trying to overrule them. Duh… again, this is basic stuff.

        Sorry to so thoroughly abuse you, but you did ask for it.

      • I see you believe that the IRS is the arbiter of every law within the USA. That same IRS which divulged privileged information, leaking Eich’s donation to the group who has made the private information public.

        Here’s your failure, why’d you mention Jim Crow at all, if not to conflate marriage to the same status? Fail Much?

        Duh? Where is the right to redefine words to suit a leftist agenda? The state or the people?

        You couldn’t abuse tissue paper.

      • You’re wasting your time arguing with a troll who is deliberately disregarding any facts that contradict his beliefs.

      • I’m trying to make sure I understand what you are saying. You are saying the majority vote does not make something right or legal? When “The People” vote on an issue, whether you agree or not, “The People” have spoken. No Judge or the Government have a right to overturn “The People” vote, unless there is Proven “Fraud”.

      • What you’re describing (the people voting and that’s that) is the definition of Democracy. We’re not a Democracy. We’re a Constitutional Republic. You won’t find the word “democracy” anywhere in the Constitution or other founding documents. The Founders detested it because the will of the majority equals tyranny by mob rule. Whatever a majority wants becomes the law in such a system. How scary is that? In our form of govt, the minority (and the smallest one of those is you as an individual) is protected against the will of the majority by the Constitution. Thank GOD!

      • I think we are misunderstanding each other. In our State just like other States, the people follow a process to add Bills and the Elected Officials vote to add it during the Elections. The People vote on these Bills. Sure people take them to court if they don’t agree to them. My problem is who we have in Courts today are becoming more and more Liberal and are not following our Laws. It’s a group of people that are turning our World upside down and the Judges are helping them. In “Our Country” all the people have the rights, but anymore a certain group has more rights than other’s. Not supposed to be that way.

      • I 100% agree with you that no group should have more rights than anyone else. In fact, the notion of “group rights” is a complete falsehood. No such thing. Rights are always individual. Groups are just bands of individuals. You can’t give them more rights (or remove any) just because they chose to associate together. Where would that end? With mob rule, yet again. But my point is that just because a state has machinery in place to pass state laws, the Constitution is very clear. No state law can infringe on an individual’s rights, just like the federal govt can’t do that. So, just because a majority (following the rules set out the by that state) votes to do something (or remove something), that in no way means it’s necessarily OK. And I’m glad of that. Where you live should not have any bearing at all on what rights you hold.

      • That is what going on in “Our Country”; (individuals, groups) however you want to describe it, are gaining more rights than others and our Government is doing it. This is a prime example of it being in the work force as well as everywhere else. I think Individual’s rights, are being trampled on, especially if you’re a Christian. Saying that, I don’t have a problem with Civil Union for Gays, but I still believe marriage is between a Man and a Woman.

      • Tell that to the uneducated Rafael X! It isn’t about justification as many laws that we have on the “books”, now or in the past. BUT if the majority vote then why not..or is the majority through voting does not count then we need to see an overhall on whole lot of stuff! Can not have it both ways!

    • Therefore you approve of this bullying by the LGBT groups ?? Strange view of the Constitution. Equating Prop 8 with Jim Crow laws is ridiculous.

  12. While I find the idea of homosexuality distasteful, I also hate carrots. The Constitution and Bill of Rights guarantees us the Right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” and NO ONE has the right to define what happiness is or is not for another person.

    I do not want to see ANY laws passed defining what marriage is or is not. Because once government takes power and control over ANYTHING it never lets go. And if government defines marriage as being between one man and one woman this year, there’s nothing to stop it from reversing that and denying that a man and a woman can be married at all.

    Think very long and very hard about getting government involved in this.

    On a related issue; this whole argument of the defining of marriage is nothing but a distraction from bigger issues. You might as well be arguing over the color of the wall paper. The financial structure and well being of this country is under attack and nearly destroyed. The Dollar is nearly worthless on the world market. The healthcare industry is being taken over by our own government and it can hardly even run the Post Office. Don’t be distracted by something so irrelevant to the structure and stability of the country.

    • “NO ONE has the right to define what happiness”

      And no one has the “right” to redefine words to suit a leftist agenda.

      “defines marriage as being between one man and one woman this year,”

      Comical, the definition since before the USA existed, no longer suffices.

      • Homosexuality existed way before America before the Constitution and even the Bible. Who said conservatives get to define what marriage is for other people. All that indignation is about vain self-righteousness. Live and let live.

      • So, who is denying homosexuals didn’t exist? LOL, nice straw man.

        Now, who is stopping you from marrying your boyfriend? Be specific.

      • Sure did and look what happened to Rome and other empires who lost their moral standards and Saddam and Gomorrah. Did you do a pole in California and see how many were democrats that voted for Prop 8? You see, California is a majority Democratic state so I doubt very seriously that it was the conservatives alone who voted for it.

      • Here again,the president WHO defined “marriage” was Bill Clinton,before that there was not a “definition!” Get educated!

      • “Live and let live” is not what happened to Mr. Eich. No, it was “you disagree with me and you must go!”

  13. Elected bodies of government passed Obamacare and the President signed it into law. That didn’t stop conservatives to challenge it all the way to the Supreme Court. Was that bullying?

    • The lunatic fringe on the right only believe in the right to challenge laws in the court that they don’t like.
      According to their definition…
      A judge who shares their feelings is a patriot and a judge who does not is an activist.

    • Not the same Rafael. Obamacare was passed not by anyone but the democrats. It was not a bill that was what the majority wanted but since Obama had the house and senate for a few months they crammed it down our throats. And if you recall they screamed that we would be penalized for not purchasing Ocare the supreme court called it a TAX. California had voted and majority said marriage was between a man and a woman and besides his beliefs are his to have and the company should not have him resign because of what his MORAL beliefs are.

      • Obamacare was passed by elected democrats in both House and Senate and the elected democrat President signed it. Elected means sent by a majority of voters. If it’s a tax so be it. I’d rather my taxes subsidise healthcare rather then private schools. The courts are there to protect the rights of the minority against mob rule. The court decided that congress has power of taxation and the majority in California cannot decide what’s the rights of the LGBT citizen. You like the constitution right?

      • ONCE again YOU missed the point, you said that Republicans were bullying because it was a signed law, then how is it not bullying the California law voted in by the people not bullying? You are not very intelligent, and your points make no sense!

      • The Supreme Court is there to protect the rights of ALL UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS. Where in the bill of rights does it say same sex marriage is a right. It is nothing like the color of our skin. or religious beliefs. Furthermore the company says they believe in free speech yet they are gagging his. That was his money and his to do what he wanted with. I love our Constitution but don’t read things into it that are not there.

      • That includes the man who wants to marry his daughter, too, or the woman who wants to marry her brother. Or the polygamist who wants five wives, yes?

    • No, it was not bullying. Government has no business in the people’s business and they definitely have no right to dictate our Health Insurance.

  14. You’re kidding, right? CEO of a major company, Brendon Eich couldn’t stand up to the Godless gay loving liberal demos. Instead of standing up for himself, he turned tail and ran. I guess he didn’t realize options are protected by free speech.

    Eich, if I may, here’s a quick list of people who did stand up to pressure. Pay attention, you may learn something
    Miss CA Carrie Prejean, who during the live question period, was asked her opinion on gay marriage. She gave her “personal opinion” and said she didn’t approve.

    Million Moms, who go after companies and people who they claim don’t represent the American family. (JC Penny’s, Ellen, Nabisco ). The liberal media loves going after these women, but they keep standing up for what they believe in.
    And of course, comedian Natasha Leggero, who on live national TV made a terrible joke about WW2 vet. She didn’t back down after internet threats. (check your archives)

    Eich, I think your backbone needs an infusion of female spunk..

    Eich, I’m not going to feel complete sad for your wishy washy attention. After all, I know you left with a couple million in your pocket.

  15. Interesting that West says being gay is a choice.

    Today Glenn Beck said being gay is not a choice.

    One of them is right, and one is wrong.

    • being gay is a choice. Everybody has a choice to make in life! God granted us the choice. Whether we make the right choice is up to us. One is good and one is bad. Your choice!

      • You really need to get educated..God explained that AS well if anyone would ever read what happens after that CHOICE! He stated quit clearly that HE did not make man for man nor woman for woman. You can look up all references to the same verses that pertain to homosexuality. BUT..that is why the LGBT community “hates Christians” because they can not stand the idea that God very clearly all through the Bible states it is an abomination! He also states, he will turn them over to a reprobate mind as well, if they continued!

      • Again homosexuality existed before the Bible. And it’s not a book a look to to get “educated”. LGBT community don’t “hate Christians”, they just hate being lectured by self-righteous Bible thumpers.

      • That’s debatable though; I just made a post on another Liberty Alliance site explaining why it may be—check my posting timeline if you want to see that post, but it has to do with random gene methylation that is not DNA encoded.

    • Where does it say in Colonel West’s column it was a choice? He said it was a “behavior” as opposed to skin color, which obviously isn’t.

    • I don’t think it’s the gays that men are complaining about. Rather, it’s the power and force of the federal government behind the gays doing the “bullying”.

      • Yes. But homosexuality enjoys a federally protected status. On top of that the HR department at Mozilla could easily launch all sorts of investigations against Eich and require him to take Sensitivity courses and make his life difficult in general.

        On the surface of it, you make a pretty funny point, but in reality I think that Eich may have seen the writing on the wall and chose to avoid all of the ugly confrontation.

      • When homosexuals can sue you fir refusing to serve them and cause you to go bankrupt defending yourself, it has gone to far. I lost a business because I had something else going the same day as a gay marriage. They took everything from me and never even bothered to get their own marriage license. The individuals in question were never married and did this to several people in my area.

      • You’re right. And as “The Patriot” says above, that the Constitution and Bill of Rights already guarantees equal protection under the law so to be granted special rights and protections in addition is unconscionable.

      • Too many people refuse to acknowledge the actual wording of the Constitution. We all have equal protection under the Constitution exactly as it’s written. But this is also why people are trying to pass such laws as the Defense of Marriage Act to try and undermine the Constitution.

      • It’s called marriage between a Man and a Woman. I don’t have a problem with Civil Union for Gays, but I do have a problem that they force laws for marriages and also the laws don’t even cover individuals living together for years.

      • A consequence of their decision that their LGBT clientele is more important may also be that their client base as a whole is much smaller than before. I used to often hear people say something like, ‘I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.’ I don’t necessarily agree with that 100%, but enough people in our country still do that this could have a major earnings impact on Mozilla.

  16. Mozilla believes in “equality and free speech”? Then why is Eich stepping down. You lie about as well as Obama!!

    • Perfect answer! It’s not even the fact that Mozilla supports equal rights as much as it’s intolerance to someone who doesn’t. One mans opinion is NOT the opinion of the entire corporation. Him being ousted shows intolerance at it’s best.

  17. Yep. Just uninstalled Mozilla firefox and thunderbird and will not be using any Mozilla programs ever again. What he believes and donates to had nothing to do with Mozilla and as such they should not have caved to the few who thought it did.

      • I just loaded Thunderbird on my Desktop with Windows 7, so I could transfer/download my emails from my Laptop that was crashing (Microsoft Office Outlook Email 2003). Now what the heck can I use that is free and like Microsoft?

  18. Whether gay is a choice or not is NOT the point here for me, The point is why should gays wants special rights because of the desires for sex with the same gender.
    They are men and women and as such are already guaranteed rights by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. To want special rights just for them is unconscionable.

    • I agree with this 100%.. What you do in private is your business and the Constitution protects each and every ONE of you.. It does not however give you the right to FORCE your beliefs on others!!!

  19. Turns out, there is a biological basis for being gay (1). The part of genetics that regulates how other genes work is the cause (2). The name for this newly identified biological phenomenon is “epigenetics” (3).

    Disliking extreme behavior (4) resulting from irrational hatred (5) is one thing. Fair-minded critics of the result should also be critical of the cause for such behavior, namely hatred and intolerance. Not all homosexuals adore sequins and lip-synching (6). Blaming an unfairly targeted minority for how they respond to persecution is
    like calling Rosa Parks a troublemaker. Choosing not to do business with an
    oppressor was good enough during the fifties and sixties; it ought to be good
    enough now. So bullying a bully seems reasonable. Is there a problem with this

    Haters please keep responses among yourselves, and respect the Lieutenant Colonel’s website posting rules as stated.







  20. I don’t care what they do to or sleep with if they are adults. But Marriage should be one man and one woman. As for there insurance and other stuff let them sign it over to there partner. As for tax the same thing. But Marriage should be reserved for man and woman to legally live together.

    • Agree 99%…government has no right to say who lives with who LEGALLY. BUT>>>”MARRIAGE” is the Cadillac of unions, can not be duplicated by changing the definition. You can’t marry two same ends of connections.
      Call it anything else…get all the benefits but leave Marriage definition alone.

  21. This BS is just exemplary of the “tolerance” hypocrisy. “We’re tolerant of all you say, think and do…as long as it’s in line with our beliefs.
    And then the thought police hypocrites wonder why they get grief from their detractors. Worse, this is no longer only about sexual preferences. It’s about control and burying those who don’t think like they do.

  22. Why do people not stand up for what they believe. They just wimp out and let these protesters have their way. No wonder they do this…it works! Stand up wimp

  23. The real question though is: was that donation the reason he was forced out, or was there something else in play that no one is saying? There are rumblings that there may have been an employee revolt over Eich’s appointment as CEO—the problem being if they were critical employees. I suspect that there is more to this story than is being let on, but most of the country has already made up its mind about what happened.

    This article was written before TruthRevolt blocked access to Firefox users (I am making this post on the Firefox browser), but what did the users of the Firefox browser do to deserve being denied access to the site? (This is not the first time a company has done this though; for many years, Warner Brothers blocked access to anyone using a browser other than Internet Explorer.)

    • They really need no other reason..that is good enough in this PC generation in our country! Intolerance is at an all time high!

    • It seems to me to be the real issue and now that he was forced to resign because of the backlash Mozilla doesn’t want the bad rep of it because it will affect them in the stock market… bad rep means huge points loss… who do you think buys most stocks? Its usually big business and big business means the rich … the very people Obama is attacking and trying to equalize….

      • All we know is what’s been reported in the media, and I’m not understanding what you’re suggesting. Can you give a little more detail?

  24. Quote: “It is a very serious problem when the majority of this country is being attacked by intimidation, force, and coercion. These are the tools that radical progressive socialists must use in order to enact their agenda because taken as it is, it is most often rejected.”

    They know hta they can push until the guns would come out…so this is why they are looking to take away guns

    Ronald Regn said you can lose Freedom an Liberty in a generation – Regan did not know about Hi-Speed internet – we are losing it in less than a generation.

      • My point is that at the time Mr. Eich gave the money, Obama was saying the same thing, and believed that marriage was between a man and a woman. The MSM nor the gay community had any problem with Obamas stance on marriage.

      • The question is, why did Obama change his stance? Did he feel intimidated? Do you think he felt it would cost him his political career; his livelyhood? Isn’t that the point of this article? If one disagrees with the gay community it will cost them their job?

  25. I hate this whole thing because I am now forced to use IE instead of Firefox. Their cowardice disgust me.

  26. I am very concerned that anyone who doesn’t agree with what the minority believes to be true, is either a racist and a hater, and that that individual should not be allowed to maintain a career. I’m disgusted at how we’re heading down a deep, seedy road, where the only tolerance remains in those of us are conservative. I don’t care what other people think or believe in. I believe we all have our choices on how to live. One of the greatest freedoms we have is freedom of speech. Don’t give up !! Keep speaking out, and pray for those that are trying to destroy our country !! If God is on our side, who can be against us ?!?!?

  27. It goes beyond this issue. Apparently you are not allowed to voice your own opinion anymore. Those who preach “tolerance” are the most intolerant tyrants of all. Makes me sick.

  28. What in the world is going on in this country when a small percentage of people in this country can over-rule everyone else with their thuggery – yes, I am calling it what it is. LBGT, Muslims, atheists and pro-abortion factions bulldoze their way across America until people are afraid to call them what they are – intolerant, rude, self-centered THUGS!

  29. In 2008, Brendan Eich mad a $1,000 donation to Prop 8 in CA. This proposition stated that in the state of CA, marriage would be defined as between one man and one woman. This was precisely the stated opinion of Barack Hussein Obama in 2008. When are the gay mafia going to bully Obama out of office for having spent nearly a billion dollars to get elected while holding the same view as Eich? Answer: NEVER. Because like all “progressives,” gays seek to push their own agenda, truth be d*mned.

      • Yes he did. Rob Portman was also criticized and not chosen as Romenys mate because Rob’s son is gay. It works both ways

      • Receiving “a lot of criticism from the gay community” is not the same as being forced out of your job.

      • I never said it was.
        I was simply responding to your previous assertion that they didn’t criticize him.

      • I never “asserted” that gays did not criticize Obama for publically stating he supported traditional marriage in 2008. I asked when are the gay mafia going to bully Obama out of office for having spend nearly a billion dollars to get elected while holding the same view as Eich. My answer was correct. NEVER. Because like all “progressives,” gays seek to push their own agenda, truth be d*mned.

  30. I can easily define gay rights, they are the exact same right straight people enjoy. Currently there are special rights in this country, they belong to straight people.

    I offer you a interesting study, please re-read this article and replace the word gay with the word Christian. I mean no disrespect but religion is also a choice and religion is what many people base their opinion on, regarding this matter. So if you really want to believe being gay is a choice, that is your right. But if you are of an open mind, the type of person who can try to understand the perspectives of another person, you may understand how these are not special rights, these are the same rights that most of you now have.

    So, ask yourself how upset you would be if non-Christians said you could not get married if you were a Christian. You could stop being Christian, then you could get married but that’s an absolutely ridiculous thing, isn’t it? It’s absolutely absurd! So now read this article again, and replace gay with Christian (and any other applicable terminology).

    With respect, in hopes of a reasonable discussion.

    • I certainly understand your point and its a very good example to use. However, no one should be bullied over this to lose their jobs and go against their own beliefs. Such as the couple who owned the bakery in Arizona and had to quit the business they loved because they don’t want to be forced to do something against their belief… Thats where the difference is. There were other places gays could use that would do what they asked, so why force someone to go against their beliefs?

      As far as “choice”, I am in the belief that it is a choice and that a person is not born “gay”. There has been no concrete proof that there is a “gay” gene to my knowledge though there has been research there isn’t anything definitive yet.

      • Now if there were a gay gene, according to Darwin’s theory of evolution, it would not survive for the long term. Without reproduction, the genes can’t replicate themselves and hence that gene variant would eventually die out! If there were one, the only reason it would have survived for millennia, is only because gays probably suppressed this instinct and had heterosexual partners and had kids. So by evolutionary theory itself, the genes either wouldn’t exist or if it did, it is not meant to be expressed!

      • Is there a Christian gene? Without the gene for Christianity, how has this religion continued?

        What do genes have to do with anything? Who cares if it’s a choice or not? If a person choose to be Christian, that is their right, is it not? If a person choose to be gay, that is their right, is it not? None of us have the right to tell another person they can’t choose the lifestyle that works right for them. For some, the Christian lifestyle choice is not the right option. For some, the gay lifestyle choice is not the right option.

        Christianity is not a gene, it is a choice. So what’s the point on gene or choice?

      • Exactly the point I was trying to make. It’s not a gene, it’s a CHOICE. No more to be said. It might not make a difference to you, but to some it would.

      • That’s not quite how natural selection works.
        First, a recessive genetic predisposition can be carried and passed on without everyone carrying it being effected by it.

        Also… if it weren’t a recessive trait, and everyone who carried the genetic predisposition was effected by it… throughout human history, the majority of people (especially women) had little say in who they were going to mate with.

      • I do agree with recessive traits being carried on. But for the recessive alleles to express itself, it needs to be in the absence of the dominant alleles. In cases where the recessive alleles came together, it can only ensure reproductive propagation if it “reproduced”. Otherwise, both the recessive alleles from the parent lineages would cease to exist with that organism.

        Well, the lack of say in who they were going to mate with was probably the only thing which kept it being propagated down until now. Now that we do have a say, all the paired lineages will extinguish. Unless, they choose to have kids based on other scientific methods that are currently available.

        After all, it may not be in the genes, as another person pointed out below, it could most likely be a choice. That’s my point.

      • Thank you for the reply Rena 🙂

        What does it matter if there is a gay gene or not? There is not a Christian, or Muslim, or Buddhist, or Atheist gene but people are still allowed to choose their own faith, or lack thereof. If you get to choose what God you worship, why can’t another person get to choose who they want to have sex with? Is choosing a religion of your own accord something that should be allowed? I would say yes. But choosing a sexual partner of your own accord is something that shouldn’t be allowed? Who has the right to say who you can sleep with and love and who has the right to say which God you must worship?

        No one is saying that anyone has to like what two people do in the privacy of their own bedroom. A person can find another person’s sexual relationship as icky or immoral and that is their right to have that view. No one is saying you can’t feel that way, especially if that is your belief. What people are saying is that you can’t use these feelings to deny someone else the same rights you currently have. Again, these aren’t special rights being fought for, they are the exact same rights as other people currently have. Nothing extra. No cherries on top.

        What was the service that the Arizona couple offered? They offered the service of baking wonderful cakes for people. That is the service that the engaged couple wanted to pay them for. The Arizona couple decided that the *reason* for the cake was against their beliefs but the couple purchasing the cake, was only looking to purchase a cake.

        If I ran a cake shop and a Christian couple came to me and wanted a cake for their child’s baptism, would I have the right to say no? If I said, I don’t believe in baptism so since I think you’re ceremony is wrong, I choose not to serve you, based on religious differences. Is that ok? To deny someone a service based on the fact that they were Christian? No, that would be wrong of me because their religion is none of my business. I’m in the business to make cakes. Why people want to buy cakes is really is none of my business. Does that make sense? If I choose to quit the business because I am forced to serve Christians, then that is my choice to quit. No one forced me. I CHOOSE that outcome.

        So many people think that since they have a certain belief that all others must follow the rules of their belief. But that’s not what we, as a country, are about. This isn’t a Christian nation, this is a nation with a large population of Christians, there is a big difference.

      • I agree, but the reason for bringing up the point about gene’s is that many claim that a gay’s do not chose to become gay, but rather that they are born that way.

        As far as choices, you are again correct, we choose to believe what religion, political ideology, or way of living just as I believe that gays choose to be gay, that is their preference. I’m not saying that gays can’t choose to be gay if that is their preference, but what I’m saying is that they shouldn’t be allowed to force their lifestyle on us no more than we should force ours on them.

        One gay man and several others agreed with him that “He didn’t come out of the closet to force others into the closet”, but this is whats happening when the bullies start their whining about their lifestyle being accepted by everyone and its not then people, such as Christians and probably more are forced into the closet now because our views don’t count or jobs are lost, businesses are closed etc.

        About the Arizona couple who were asked to make a cake for the union of the gay couple, it is more than just “making” of a cake but one to celebrate a union that, to the couple, is a sin and against their belief. They felt that it would be wrong to “memorialize” this event, as this is what is done during unions such as weddings and baptisms as you brought up. I feel that it is their business who they want to serve and if they don’t want to recognize this union then they should not be forced to. Just the same as you asked about the baptism, if they felt it is a sin in their eyes, and Im sure as far as some who are of Islamic faith would say, would be the same. Its not just Christians who refuse to cater to gays, such as the incident in Canada where a lesbian wanted a mans haircut and went to a Muslim barber to get it done. He refused.

        I don’t think the Christian in that matter would run to a lawyer and cry their rights have been denied because the baker didn’t want to make them a cake, they would just go to the next person and ask. What right of theirs was denied? Life, no they are still living, liberty, no they are still free to be gay, or the pursuit of happiness, no, no one is taking away their being together as that should be what their relationship is about not about a cake that someone didn’t want to make for them. They were just denied a cake where they could have had one made most anywhere else, even Wal-Mart.

        Not everyone and not all Christians feel that everyone has to believe the same as them, its their choice to do as they please, but as a Christian we would like it if everyone did. I dont think we all expect that everyone live by our rules of our beliefs, but we do expect that our rights be respected as well and we not be forced to go against what we believe or else lose our jobs and our security.

        I agree this isn’t a Christian nation, not anymore, but as you said it is a nation with a very large population of Christians so why are our rights being taken away for a very few? Why are the rights of these other groups more important than my rights as a Christian?

        I don’t care if Joe blow wants to marry Jack Splat, I don’t think it should be called marriage as that is an institution created to unite a man and woman. I do believe that if gays want to form a similar union then they should have the right to do so and receive the same benefits as those who are joined in marriage in the traditional sense. I should not be penalized for my belief and denied a job or be forced to accept their lifestyles… that again is freeing one group from the closet but forcing another into the closet.

      • No one is saying that anyone has to like what two people do in the privacy of their own bedroom.///

        then KEEP it there. homosexuals are DEMANDING special rights for a behavior. they have “pride” parades where they run about in the nude and simulate sexual behaviors in public and demand the rest of the world accept this as normal. If I ran around naked I would be thrown in jail.

        homosexuals have the same rights as anyone else. homosexuality is a choice, just like adultery, stealing, lying and pedophilia are choices.

        I have the CHOICE to serve whomever i wish, if you dont like it go elsewhere, why force me to serve you? why would you want to? except to force your deviance on me

        tolerant….yeah right

      • I was talking to my older (openly gay) brother one day about gay marriage. He said, “What, why would they want to get married? One of the reasons I chose to be gay was so that I wouldn’t have to get married.”

      • Either your older brother isn’t gay or he was completely trolling you and you naively believed it.

      • Okay, I don’t know my own brother whom I lived with for fourteen years? Presumtuous aren’t you? My brother by the way, has no reason to lie to me; there are five of us siblings and we are all very open about our individual beliefs. That being said, though we differ in views; we still love and support one another.
        I assure you my brother is gay; he just knows that he made a choice. He just doesn’t try to justify his lifestyle by using scientific theory as a crutch.
        You see, we were raised in the real America where people could have different views without seeking to destroy one another. Sure, we had fist fights sometimes, but this more often than not brought about a mutual respect and once in a while; a new friendship. Who wouldn’t respect someone for standing for their beliefs? But to seek to destroy someone’s life because they have a different point of view is not American; that is a third world ideology.
        By the way, you accused me of being naive. We are often guilty of the very things of which we accuse others. This is what is meant by, “Judge not, lest you be judged.” ~Jesus

      • Being gay just simply isn’t a choice. We aren’t second graders here. The only choice he made was to come out and be open about it, which is good on him.

        I’m not going to get into a pissing match with you over “Who’s more American.”

        Also, I don’t care “what Jesus said.” If you’d like to get into a theological debate, please join the one a few panels above this.

      • Well, I disagree. Sexual preference is not like being born black or white or even being born selfish (like we all are). And I didn’t say that you were not American, but I said that to seek to destroy someone’s life because they disagree with one’s point of view is not American, because it denies the fundamental right we all have guaranteed in the first amendment.

        My argument is that sexual preference is a choice. It can be influenced through training; through indoctrination, and through culture. You know this because this is why the LGBT community is pushing so hard to teach elementary aged children sex education; so that it will be accepted as normal. If that were not the case, then let the cards fall where they will. I mean, if they truly believe that people are actually born one way or the other; then why worry about those who aren’t? So you see, the actions contradict the words.
        Furthermore, it’s not as though the heterosexual community were lobbying to push the schools to teach that homosexuality isn’t normal. It wasn’t even a subject. No wonder our schools suffer academically. Everyone is so focused on sexuality, bullies, and minorities that no one is learning basic reading, writing, and arithmetic.

      • The bare bones fact that people ARE born with it.. It’s just that simple.. It’s the same as being black or white. Being gay is a genetic defect, I’ll agree with that. The first amendment also allows me to completely refute your whole argument with my own. I’m not attempting to seek and destroy your life.. But I can only give out proven fact. Yes being born gay is a real thing, yes people who are born gay can be nurtured into being open about it. There are plenty of “straight men” who are married to women and are gay.

        Being gay isnt a new concept, there have been LGBT people since the dawn of man’s recorded history.. Hell, the Greeks and Romans would engage in homosexual sexual acts regularly. I feel that it’s important in school to teach not that being gay is a good thing, but to teach acceptance of people who are unlike one’s self. Ignorance breeds fear, fear breeds hate.

    • If you think about it, its a very good weapon. Words cut deeper than any sword just when they use the “r” word against us. Calling us intolerant or racist works every time and gets the majority to either back down or crying like babies. Its a good weapon as we spend the majority of the time having to refute these labels instead of working on the issues.. seems to work for them if you ask me. We just have to harden up and ignore their pettiness and move forward and let our actions prove who we are.

  31. Exactly the same tactic used to pass ACA….bully, lie, intimidated, punish.. is how this administration rolls>over we the people

  32. After reading the comment section I noticed nobody mentioned the IRS. The government agency that leaked unlawfully, ILLEGALLY, tax returns that revealed the donation. It’s a circle of corruption determined to undermine the Constitution and the values most Americans stand for. The gay agenda is what all the hate crime and bullying legislation has been about since the beginning. This is thought police in action.

  33. I don’t understand the CEO of the company step down because of what? is because the Gay people want to take over the Mozila company

  34. First, bullies act as they do because they ARE the least tolerable.
    Second, the reason we see the division and polarization in this country is exactly because of divisive issues like this. The harder the gay lobby pushes this issue the harder the Christian lobby will push back. Is their a compromise? Is it a matter of calling it “marriage” or something else? Just as we ask they not force their will on us, we cannot force our will on them. We must respect that gay people want to coexist in loving relationships and they must respect our reverence of the institution of marriage. One issue is that allowing “gay marriage” will invite other forms of marriage. So, is the answer to define a specific civil union or enter a legal contract similar to a will? I guess that depends on the ulterior motives of the gay lobby that wants to infringe on Christian values.

      • Not the sinister plot you may be fishing for, but perhaps the annoying poke in the eye, not willing to find a compromise type of motive, knowing the Christian view of marriage.
        You know, the same ulterior motive that may annoy you – given your profile pic indicates you may be, or may have been, in the service – when someone desecrates the flag.

    • But I think the point is that the “gay lobby” just want the same rights that others have. Look back at the history of marriage and you will see that religion only became a part of the institution of marriage in the 1200s. They don’t want to infringe on Christian values, they want to have the same rights as Christians have regarding the legal protections of marriage. Why is that so terrible?

      • I might be wrong, but I thought the Bible was written before 1200 and spoke of marriage in terms of one man lying with one woman, etc. Also, I did not know marriage was a right. They can, however, have the same legal protections with a similar license or other legal document. I am not opposed to that, I just question the antagonistic approach.

      • But what does the bible have to do with anything. What I stated is that while marriage was around at the time of the bible (and for a lot longer than the bible has been around), marriages were not religious ceremonies. Marriages weren’t even about love until this past century or two. They cannot have the same legal protections with a civil union. Marriage (as we define it being two people married) is protected by federal laws whereas civil unions are not. Gays aren’t asking to take over your conception of marriage, you can believe it means whatever you want it to mean. They just want the same legal protections. It’s not about taking anything away from anyone else. They aren’t trying to take over your religion, they just want the same treatment and protections under the law. If civil unions guaranteed those same protections, it wouldn’t be an issue. Look at some of the straight celebrity marriages over the last few decades, getting married and divorced like its nothing, no big deal. If you want to protect the sanctity of marriage, shouldn’t you’re real opponent be those who make divorce so easy? Two adults in love should be able to commit to each other and have the same legal protections regardless of what hides under the clothing.

      • God, in the beginning made marriage between one man and one woman. long before anyone else “came up with the concept”

        a civil union is a contract anything can be stipulated in a contract. so, yes, they can have equal protections. the laws and rulings may need modification.

        divorce has nothing to do with homosexual unions, so it is not an excuse or reason to accept it as marriage.

        marriage has always been understood as between one man and one woman. wanna be married? find an opposite sex spouse and get married. dont want that? then make a contract

      • (God doesn’t exist in any form, you’ve been lied to your entire life and the sad part is that you still believe it)

      • Define good? Do you think that the world is so so black and white, good and evil? Hint, no one is good, no one is bad, we all exist to our own devices.

      • Yeah, funny, your black n white subjection leaves you believing theres only gray.
        There have and are in fact people in history that have been major forces for good and evil living their lives virtuous to their beliefs….made them good or evil.
        No one person is all good or all evil, you’ve got the context wrong. Good n evil is a black n white scenario with certain amounts residing in each of us.
        And no, speak for yourself buddy…we do not all exist to our own devices.
        You believe that as much as I believe in existing to higher existence.

        See how easy it is to turn that garbage of yours around on you ?

      • ever lied, with intent to hide truth?
        ever stolen, even a paperclip that was not yours?

        ever hated anyone for something they did?
        ever lusted after someone you were not married too?

        there is black and white. there is absolute truth

        the world is not as subjective as you would like it to be

        there is a judge and if you fail His law………..

      • I have lied, I have stolen, I have cheated, I ave lusted.
        I never said I was a squeaky clean person. But you need to understand that this world is not a beautiful place that was created for our pleasure. We are animals, just like every other creature on this planet and we are only accountable to ourselves and the people around us.

        I don’t think you and Micky understood me when I was talking about black and white. I am saying that no one in the world is 100% good, 100% evil, 100% gray. People are people and they do what they want, good, bad or otherwise, just some choose to live by the laws/expectations of others.

      • The only one who can forgive me are myself, my family and the people who I choose to surround myself with and those people I trust with my life, which is the greatest gift anyone can receive.

      • did any of them die for your sin? do any of them define what sin is?

        the greatest gift is the one Who Is

      • Sorry.. but sin doesn’t exist.. if you’re talking about biblical original sin, no. Because no one ate a restricted apple, no one was tossed out of the garden of Eden.

        Tbhe only real “Sin” is when you break the law and get caught and you’re forced to pay for it either by fine or jail time.

      • No one, laws exist like money does.. Who gives money power? People do. People decide on their own to be good people.. I’m a good person by my own merit, without having to think that I’m only being good because I want a ticket to heaven.

      • You cease you exist When you die, you’re dead. There is no where to go, you are over.

        I know whats coming next; “Well if I’m right, I will go to heaven *enter cliche here*.”

        I am perfectly equipped to die, Everything on this planet is born and starts dieing, it’s a cycle. I’ve always thought of all religion as a type of “Insurance.” Like if you get car insurance..if you never get into a car accident, who really knows if the insurance was worth it? So you drive around all safe and sound hoping that driving safe will reduce your bill eventually and when you finally get into that accident, you really never know but *hope* that the insurance company will side with you and pay out for you.

        Sounds like a fun, flowery concept.. but I don’t buy into it.. Because there is no insurance in real life.. You live your life, you pass on and your children/grandchildren keep you in their memory. That is everlasting life right there.

      • not really. you will have been forgotten within 2 generations unless a family member down the line is into genealogy, and even at that they just know what they read, as they do not know you.

        we were made with everlasting bodies but because of sin death entered into the world. when we are resurrected we will have our permanent bodies originally intended for us and live for eternity. the choice of where you live is up to you.

        if all you are going to do is die and rot, why do anything? why have kids? why build up wealth? what is the purpose if but to die?

      • Ahh, now I agree with you on the the 2 generation notion, I only care really about my grandchildren knowing who I am to be honest, or atleast the people who were alive during the time that I was..

        But the thing with people is that since were one of the few sentient beings on this planet (we can pass the “mirror test”), we tend to think of ourselves as more important that we actually “deserve” to have an eternal life and that we have a purpose.. I mean, why shouldn’t we? Look how smart we are.. Surely we can’t just die and that be the complete end of it right?

        As Ive said before.. Humans are animals. We exist to be born, have sex, eat and die of old age. That’s simply it. We as a species and every creature on this planet have no purpose for being here.. We weren’t sent here to fulfill a mission. I am not a pawn of some man who’s always looking down on me making note that what I do is either naughty or nice. I was born to live.. I have one life and damn, I’m going to make sure it was worth it. I have no problem “returning to the earth” after I pass on.

      • Humans are animals. We exist to be born, have sex, eat and die of old age. That’s simply it.

        so why gather wealth, why care for others? why build things? why care if its hot or cold, do most animals do that? why care about right and wrong? what animal does that?

        and other animals do pass the mirror test

        having faith in Jesus Christ is not worrying whether or not I’m doing wrong, thats a forgone conclusion, we are all liars and thieves, adulterers and murderers (hate).

        you do have an eternal soul and it will matter where you spend it. and you cannot buy your way in by being self defined as good. would you let a child molester live in your house and why or why not? how about a serial murderer? or someone who was a remorseless thief?

      • These rules of heaven do not apply to me, same as how they wouldn’t apply to anyone that isn’t affiliated to a Christian based religion.. Of course I would never let someone who kills or someone who rapes live with me.

        In our day in age, it isn’t how many buffalo we can kill and how fat we can get and trying to be top of the tribe.. Humans, being smart actually figured out how to not have to hunt for food every day out in the cold.. We work inside for money. We have replaced hunting/gathering/tribe making prowess for money and comfort as a status symbol.

        I think that accepting life as it is (life being not fair) is the best way to logically put things into perspective. I’n not trying to convert you to being an Atheist (I don’t use the term Atheism, because that implies that it’s a religion of it’s own). I’m just saying that in my own opinion, life is actually a lot more simple then people make it out to be… Sometimes you don’t need to read the writing on the wall.

      • whether you believe or not, matters not. the truth is you will face God at the moment you die, and then it is too late for regret. the decision must be made on this side.

        we are all sinners in need of Gods grace and forgiveness, do you see any one walking on water? I dont, but by accepting Jesus Christ as my advocate, the payment for my sin (past present and future) I am saved and will live eternally.

        those who do not accept on this side will be in eternal death. the bible calls it wailing and gnashing of teeth. not really sounding like a party. (its called hell for a reason)

        the fact you have taken this conversation this far shows there is a quickening of the heart. keep searching and asking, God wants you with Him more than anything. He is faithful and will answer when you least expect it

      • Question.. What if youre wrong? What if the god that you’re following doesn’t exist and lets say that Hindu, Buddhism, Islam were right?

        What if what you were told to believe were completely wrong since your birth? This is the “Insurance Theory” that I spoke of yesterday.. You believe in God because you fear that if you do not, you wont go to “Heaven,” so by default you feel like you have to.

        What if you’re wrong?

      • there is only ONE truth. two or more opposing views cannot all be true. one is the others are not.

        who made the truth claims? Jesus…has anyone ever proved Jesus wrong?

        no insurance needed. there is life and death, eternally

        so if belief in God is wrong because I might go to heaven why bring up the others? the result is the same

      • No one can prove Jesus was wrong simply because no one can prove he actually ever existed or if he did exist, there’s no proof he was the son of god. Just because you can’t prove that something never happened, doesn’t make it true. The burden of truth lies with all of religion.

        I was saying, what if you believed in the wrong god? What is the Muslims were right and you were tossed into their own verson of hell for worshiping Jesus instead of Allah this whole time? Same with Judaism, Daoism.. Hell, what if the Greeks, Romans or Vikings were right?

        I’m perfectly content with passing on into nothingness.. I don’t, as well as every other living thing on this planet, deserve to have an “Afterlife” where I can watch from the clouds unto the world for all of eternity.

      • actually the proof of His existence is undeniable, apparently you have not studied this.

        //where I can watch from the clouds unto the world for all of eternity.//____not how it works

        there is a truth. how can two or more opposing views all be true at the same time?

        allah says to kill infidels and those who do not convert to islam

        Jesus says to pray for your enemy, feed them, cloth them

        which one is true?

        did any of the greek or roman gods die for you? do they desire you to be with them?

      • Now this is where burden of truth comes in.
        You can’t take proof of God/religion from a book where the character just says that they are. You need to understand that it just isn’t logical to base your entire faith (believing in something without evidence) on one source, especially a source that hasn’t even been proven to be non-fiction.

        This is like me walking up to you and telling you that Harry Potter is real and that in real life he’s a wizard. Simply because in his book it’s set in real life and he says that he’s a wizard. I wouldn’t even dare insult your intelligence like that.

        You fail to grasp islam as a religion.. Believe it or not, Islam is a peaceful religion with MILLIONS of followers.. A very small sect of this religion are extremists. There are LARGE amounts of extremist christian groups that kill in the name of the christian god as well.

        Do you honestly require someone to die for YOU in order to follow their religion? Like I said.. what makes YOU so intitled? I can create a religion based on a Hero(real or fake) that died in the process of “saving humanity.” I honestly bet people would actually believe that crap. Believe it or not, people ACTUALLY believe in the Jedi(starwars) religion. What makes Christianity any more valid? There only two books in Christianity whilst starwars has six movies and an entire book series.

        People like me who take a step back and refuse to be BS’ed and look at things in a logical manner are the future of this world. We’ve learned to explain things that happen in everyday life and things that happened thousand of years ago, we don’t need a book with outlandish stories “explaining” how things are. The natural skeptic will pull this world out of the dark ages and into the true 21st century.

        You can’t spit in the face of proven scientific fact, that’s just completely backward and quite frankly, whats holding us as a species back.

      • what proven scientific fact, what absolute objective proof do you have?

        islam did start out somewhat peaceful, but progressed to a our way or we kill you way. do you understand the suras? later suras take precedent over earlier suras. so when you read the koran it does have peaceful sayings but later sayings take precedent.

        one of the suras says to lie to gain the advantage at all times.

        if you say you are a “moderate” musilm then you are lying to everyone or you are an infidel to other muslims, which is a death sentence

        hardly a religion of peace. in fact it is the only “religion” that calls for so much death and destruction. no other religion does this.

        as to proving the veracity of the Bible that has been done to exhaustion. the only one who doesnt believe it is the one who loves himself and his sin too much……

      • Islam as well as Christianity all have extremely violent scenes such as:

        Allowing murder and capital punishment for anything:

        Allowing rape:

        Permitting slavery and ownership of slave:

        And my very favorite, since you brought up the Koran telling Muslims to kill anyone who isn’t Muslim, here is some Biblical Christian intolerance.

        Have you forgotten of the mass killings over the past 1000 years all the way up to this century that people have done in the name of the Bible? You’d probably say “those people aren’t true Christians,” but the Muslim extremist are often regarded as not true Muslims either. There are PLENTY of modern, moderate Muslims that want to go to work and have a modest living.

        The bible has NEVER been proven true. In-fact it’s been proven completely false in terms of Noah’s Arc, Moses setting the Jews free, creationism, amongst many other stories within the book. Sin doesn’t exist, hell doesn’t exist, heaven doesn’t exist, jesus, God, angels… The only thing that does exist is the Bible.. and it’s completely fiction. I don’t believe everything I read on the internet.. Why should you base your entire life off of a book?

      • We’ve gone off on a tangent speaking of the semantics of marriage. My original points call into question the tactics, not specifically the issue of whether rights should be extended. In fact, if you reread my comment, I suggest we should respect each other. I presume you can appreciate that. Col. West’s article points out that the Mozilla CEO was targeted and bullied out of his post due to his support of Prop 8. That has nothing to do with attempting to obtain civil protections and rights. That is targeting a high profile person in order to make others afraid of opposition. I also agree that has nothing to do with them taking over a religion, but it is taking away something else from others – free speech. Should I have to be afraid to vote my conscience because a minority group may be able to intimidate my employer into taking my livelihood? That has nothing to do with marital rights. Instead of destroying a man’s livelihood, they could put their energies into working to find the common ground. It’s out there in the Christian community, by the way. Working to obtain the rights they seek through intimidation will make the opposition fight harder, and will recruit social moderates like myself to stand up and fight because they have moved away from the realm of eroding just Christian beliefs, but have stepped into the arena of infringing free speech. That is what I see as the larger issue here, not whether you call it marriage or have certain marital protections.

      • “But I think the point is that the “gay lobby” just want the same rights that others have. ”

        They have the same rights the others, in fact everyone else, has. They can marry anyone they choose as long as it’s the opposite gender. Just because they enjoy engaging in a peculiar sexual activity does not mean we need to have that included in the definition of marriage any more than we need to have two people who enjoy playing basketball (or name your recreational behavior here) be included in the definition of marriage.

  35. So now we can not follow our own beliefs? No freedom of standing up for what we believe is right our thoughts will be monitored next. You can not force people to believe same sex marriage is right or wrong! Our so called Freedom of Speech depends on if you say what is deemed “politically correct” at any given moment time!

    • You are right, what is politically correct, and it determining what is right and what is wrong, shifts with the wind.

  36. How can Mozilla Chairwoman Mitchell Baker and Mozilla as a corporation believe in Freedom of Speech and equality when the only equality they let exist is what “they” think is equal, and the only Freedom of Speech allowed is the type of speech they believe in. He is forced to step down because he exercised his freedom to speak out by making a donation. Mitchell Baker, you are a Hypocrite…

  37. Speak out against homosexuality, then you’ll be labeled a biggot or an “old head” or a crazy holy roller. The real minority in this world isn’t the homosexuals or the blacks what have you. The true minority is real men, the men who hold fast to the word of God, all the way from the first verse of Genesis to the last verse of Revelation. Men who have true honor and integrity and who will stand for what is right no matter what the cost. Men who stand upon principle and are steadfast. Men who are tough minded and have true discipline and aren’t effeminate or a weak vessel. These are the kind of men the world no longer wants or tolerates. And this I will tell you, homosexuality is an abomination to God. Marriage is between one man and one woman, and God will not recognize anything else. And if you support anything other the union of a man and woman, then the spirit of God is not in you.

    • What if you died tonight and found out “God” doesn’t exist? Oh wait, you wouldn’t find out.. Because you’d be dead. Sorry to tell you fella, but “God” is a creation of man, not the other way around.

      • Yeah well you cant prove God doesnt exist and I dont have to prove to you he does.
        Science can only explain creation so far back and logic with design dictates purpose set by intelligent architecture past anything yours or my mind could fathom.
        Have a little humility because you dont have anymore credibility in telling us whats true than we do telling you.
        The difference is guys like Capt. America and myself are giving you reason to be a happier camper than you are.
        You’re simply telling us were just a glob of matter by happenstance with no purpose in life but to eat, sht, screw, and die.
        If God doesnt exist I’ve nothing to lose.
        If he does, you’re screwed.

      • The non-existence of evidence is not the proof of existence. In order to prove something exists, you must have intangible evidence that it does. I don’t even want you to prove to me that god exists because honestly, it would be impossible. Science can actually explain creation all the way up until the dawn of the universe and before that.

        What I’m telling you is that Human beings are animals.. Nothing more than dogs, cats, bugs, mold, etc. We exist to be born, consume, enjoy our time and die. It’s unfortunate that it’s like that, but it makes you appreciate life that much more. Wouldn’t it be more sane to worship a fellow man that betters our species as a whole?

        I promise you, I am a very happy man. I’ve accomplished more then I’ve ever set myself out for and I have only myself and the people that have helped me along the way to thank for that.

        Back in ancient times when man had no other way of explaining things, they looked to stories to help themselve better understand. The Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Greeks, romans, etc all had their own stories on how the world worked and we(or if) anything happened after death. I’m not scared to die, I know that when I die, it will be the end of my cycle and I will return to the earth from where I came originally.

        I appreciate you gentlemen for not jumping down my throat for my views like most people on this site would have.

      • You don’t have to be a Christian to be a good man. I’m of no religious affiliation and if someone wants to have a civil conversation with me, I’m all for it. I’ll admit my initial comment was harsh and for that, I apologize.

      • It takes a great man to apologize. Good job. It’s true that you don’t have to be a Christian to be a good person. the problem is, when people are left to their own devices, whatever seems right to them, it opens the door for them to believe in things like the ends justify the means, such as what happened during the Communist/Socialist revolutions, whose state religion is Atheism. Millions were slaughtered in the name of creating a man made utopia. Since there is no God, therefore they appointed themselves as God. That clearly failed. That is what Socialism is all about, a religion that says that people can create a perfect world where nobody is supposed to be better off than anyone else and someone will always eventually abuse their authority and decide that they are qualified to rule over everyone else.

      • Well when socialism was the government in Soviet Russia, the state religion was atheism, but the thing is that it didnt fail because of Atheism.. It failed because Socialism works like using a credit card when you don’t have a job.. Sooner or later you’re going to have to pay the debt.

        Now, we can’t forget that religion has caused its more than fair share of wars and mass slaughter… Lest we not forget all of the christian crusades, Islamist Jihad, Armenian genocide, the holocaust.. Hell, even 9/11 at it’s root was caused by religious intolerance.

        I have a belief that by nature, humans are animals. Humans are no more intelligent then mice.. We just know how to kill each other more efficiently. The world isn’t a pretty place unfortunately and I’ve learned to accept that. That’s not to say that I’m unhappy, I’m quite the opposite, it’s made me appreciate the one life that I have even more.

      • Yeah, but thru context or subjectivity you’re missing the point.

        Its a given from the start that theres no proof of existence.

        The real question is “the credibility that there is”.

        Belief is a faith based matter as much as its your belief theres no evidence of intelligent intention or design.

        If you choose to believe that your existence is of no purpose other than what you say then you’re obviously ignoring the fact that humans are not just sanother animal.

        We as a species have progressed and evolved to generation upon generation bringing an improved generation each time. This cannot be said for any other animal as all species have pretty much remained the same for hundreds of thousands if not millions of years.

        No other species has gained the intellectual/emotional and dynamic thought like humans have.

        So, your comparison/relation of humans to bugs and dogs and cats is rather dumb to say it plainly.

        ” Science can actually explain creation all the way up until the dawn of the universe and before that.”

        No it cant.

        Thats a huge line of crap.

        Creation defines a beginning thru process.

        And there is no definite scientific explanation for what took place before any given time.

        There is no explanation for the creation of matter, first light or the elements and processes previous to a so called “big bang” theory.

        “Back in ancient times when man had no other way of explaining things, they looked to stories to help themselve better understand. The Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Greeks, romans, etc all had their own stories on how the world worked”

        They all also happened to be very spiritual believing in higer powers and Gods

        The difference between you and I is that you spew your opinion on these matters as fact by telling folks “Sorry to tell you fella, but “God” is a creation of man, not the other way around.”

        Whereas I tell folks that their creation has an ultimate reason and purpose.

        “The non-existence of evidence is not the proof of existence”

        Thats pretty weak.

        With that logic we’d of never known the Earth was round.

        By the same token, you have not much right to run around telling people they created God and he doesnt exist. Because you simply cannot prove it.

        Once again…

        You cant prove to me God doesnt exist, and I dont have to prove to you he does.
        Try to absorb that without trying to explain “non-existence”.

      • I pray God opens your eyes. It’s a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. Pick up a KJV Bible and give his Word a try. That precious Word is God, so those pages are where you’ll find Him. Peace be to you.

  38. The LGBT “community” is showing itself to not only be a fascist group, but also sore
    winners because gay marriage is on the way to being the norm. To hunt
    down and hound people because they don’t believe as you do; so much for
    freedom of speech and individual rights.

    • You think the LGBT community are fascist because they protested against a company whose CEO actively opposed their beliefs.
      Do you also think other groups (like Christians) are fascist when they protest against a company that opposes their beliefs?

      • That’s not quite accurate. This was a private citizen making a private donation to express his private beliefs. He didn’t shove his opinion out into the street, they were dragged there.

        And I don’t know of many christians who protest against companies. Most I know protest *practices*, which is yet another matter.

      • Please allow me to untwist your twisted restatement of my words.
        The LGBT didn’t just protest. The LGBT DEMANDED the firing of a person who had donated his own money 6 YEARS previous to his going to work for Mozilla. This man had never had any complaint lodged against him either on the job or in his private life as to ANY discrimination against ANY other person, group, or organization.

        The ONLY thing this man was guilty of was giving his own money to a purpose that he agreed with.

        For the LGBT to pursue a private individual for a 6 year old financial donation to a legitimately IRS approved organization is a fascist behavior. This was NOT a protest, as you describe it. This was a personal attack on a particular person and that attack cost the man his job. His income. Stop to consider how this would impact you had some organization of tens of thousands of people demanding your termination because they didn’t like how you had donated money to something they disagreed with. This was NOT a few hundred people carrying signs and chanting slogans in front of a building.

        The back-lash against both Mozilla and the LGBT is not going to be pretty. I’ve read a blog post from a member of the LGBT that is also a reporter and he made a LARGE effort to not only distance himself from what was done to Eich but also to blast the LGBT for this very stupid action on their part.

      • elevator.

        As long as you are just writing random one word replies that have nothing to do with what you are replying to… I chose the word “elevator” as my absurd reply to your absurd reply.

      • Sorry, the premise of your comment is comparing apples to oranges. NO ONE is fired when Christians protest a company, which NONE of the protest called for the firing of anybody, and it’s their RIGHT to protest the company. In this case SOMEONE GOT FIRED, was told UNLESS YOU AGREE WITH US, YOU CANNOT WORK HERE, INTERNALLY, INDEPENDENT of customers. If they listened to their customers, they would not have fired Eich because after they fired Eich, they got MORE, MANY MORE, as in 100 to 1, complaints for firing Eich than they did for keeping him. I thought the left were good at nuance, but that you can’t see the difference here shows you are not as good as YOU CLAIM, just like most of everything else the left claims.

        And are you saying that CUSTOMERS, Christian or not, cannot COMPLAIN to companies? And Greenpeace can be interchanged for Christians in your example, and are WORSE than Christians. But that is OK right? More leftist hypocrisy.

      • Nope… you completely misunderstood my post or are deliberately twisting it around.
        I never said Christians don’t have a right to protest.
        You are having an imaginary argument with me, trying to counter things i never said.

        All I am saying is that calling people who protest a company fascists is ridiculous.

      • I was asking you. “All I am saying is that calling people who protest a company fascists is ridiculous.” No it isn’t. Because you don’t like it, doesn’t make it fascism. It’s more like you are being a fascist by saying it is fascist because you are saying people don’t have the right to express their opinion to a company if that differs from yours, or even at all, CONTRARY to freedom of speech rights. And I find it hard to believe that you have never complained about how a company does it’s business or altered how you dealt with that business because it did something you didn’t like. If you have, you are being a hypocrite.

      • Wow… you still don’t understand what i wrote.
        Anyone has the right to say what they want and anyone has the right to protest it.
        Freedom of speech is for everyone.
        I am not calling anyone a fascist.
        I was just pointing out to a previous poster that free speech is NOT fascism.

        Also, are you also suggesting that Christians never protest or boycott?

      • Ok, let’s clarify then. “Also, are you also suggesting that Christians never protest or boycott?” No, I’m not. But you said in your first comment, this question which is the main focus of my reply to your comment:

        “Do you also think other groups (like Christians) are fascist when they protest against a company that opposes their beliefs?”

        The answer is no. Can you answer that question? Do you think they are? I don’t think they are. That is the market place at work. But firing an employee who doesn’t agree politically with others in the company should not be fired because they don’t. Now your turn to answer the question.

      • “NO Christian is saying to someone, under penalty of employment, it’s my way or the highway”

        Christians fire people for being gay frequently, Kristen Ostendorf was a teacher at a catholic school who was fired for being gay. That is only one of the many examples.


        This is not true, Eich resigned.


        Also not true, the board at Mozilla offered Eich another job at a C-level position, but he chose not to accept.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here