The Liberal Bigots Strike Again
April 11, 2014 by Chip Wood
If you support the traditional view that marriage should be between a man and a woman, could that cost you your job? The intolerant left says the answer to that question is a loud and emphatic â€śYes!â€ť
Recently, when Eich was named CEO of Mozilla, the company that oversees Firefox, that 6-year-old contribution cost him his job. Weâ€™re told that half of Mozillaâ€™s board of directors resigned to protest Eichâ€™s appointment. But that leads to a question: If half the board opposed him, how the heck did he get the job?
The wireless company Credo Mobile launched an online petition demanding that Eich either renounce his beliefs or resign. The petition quickly acquired nearly 75,000 signatures.
OKCupid, a popular online dating service, urged its followers to boycott Firefox to protest Eichâ€™s selection. The company posted a letter denouncing the CEO, stating: â€śThose who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame and frustration are our enemies and we wish them nothing but failure.â€ť
Those are pretty harsh words against a person who, in 15 years at Mozilla, had never been accused of demonstrating any prejudice against gay employees — or anyone, for that matter. In one of his few statements on the subject, Eich said: â€śI donâ€™t want to talk about my personal beliefs because I kept them out of Mozilla all these 15 years weâ€™ve been going. I donâ€™t believe theyâ€™re relevant.â€ť
How he performed on the job didnâ€™t matter to the gay and lesbian brigade. They wanted his scalp. And they got it.
After Eich agreed to resign, Mozilla Executive Chairwoman Mitchell Baker issued a statement that said in part, â€śWe know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: itâ€™s because we havenâ€™t stayed true to ourselves.â€ť
So forcing someone to resign because of a private donation made more than six years ago is how you demonstrate that youâ€™ve â€śstayed true toâ€ť yourself? Remember, not a single person claims that Eich did anything on the job to demonstrate any kind of anti-gay bias. By all accounts, he was scrupulously fair to everyone.
And bear in mind that, at the time, most of the public said they agreed with him that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Proposition 8 passed easily in California, one of the most liberal States in the Nation, although it was later overturned by the courts. It won the support of a substantial majority of blacks and Hispanics.
In fact, let me mention two prominent Americans who also opposed same-sex marriage back in 2008: Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama. Of course, both now claim that theyâ€™ve had a change of heart.
More than 35,000 people donated to the campaign for Proposition 8. Thanks to a court ruling, the names of all the contributors — and in some cases, their addresses and the name of their employers — have been made public. I wonder how many more will become targets of angry and intolerant gays.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas warned of this possibility four years ago. In a 2010 dissent to a court decision requiring such disclosure, he wrote:
I cannot endorse a view of the First Amendment that subjects citizens of this Nation to death threats, ruined careers, damaged or defaced property, or pre-emptive and threatening warning letters as the price for engaging in â€ścore political speech,â€ť the â€śprimary object of First Amendment protection.â€ť
Not every gay person agrees with the angry intolerance Eich witnessed. Andrew Sullivan, a well-known gay-rights activist, wrote:
If we cannot live and work alongside people with whom we deeply disagree, we are finished as a liberal society.
What we have here is a social pressure to keep your beliefs deeply private for fear of retribution. We are enforcing another sort of closet on others. I canâ€™t believe the fanaticism.
Just how bad will could this latest form of bigotry get? On Sunday, during an appearance on ABC Newsâ€™ â€śThis Week,â€ť former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said what weâ€™re witnessing is the leftâ€™s â€śnew fascism.â€ť He warned:
This is just the most open and blatant example of the new fascism, which says, â€śIf you donâ€™t agree with us 100 percent, we have the right to punish you unless youâ€™re like Hillary and Barack Obama and you recant.
I think the question Iâ€™d ask yourself is: Are you willing to live in an open and tolerant society, or do you have to impose your views at the cost of peopleâ€™s jobs?
One of the most ironic statements on the controversy came from the gay-rights organization GLAAD. President and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis said: â€śMozillaâ€™s strong statement in favor of equality today reflects where corporate America is: inclusive, safe and welcoming to all.â€ť
Yes, the GLAADâ€™s leader actually said â€śwelcoming to all.â€ť What she meant, of course, was welcoming to everyone who will march in lockstep with GLAAD. If you dare to disagree with the gay rights brigade and they find out about it, watch out. Theyâ€™ll go after you, your family, your job and your employer.
If youâ€™re a Christian photographer whoâ€™d prefer to not to cover a gay wedding, theyâ€™ll go to court and force you to do so. If youâ€™re a baker who has religious objections to a gay marriage, youâ€™d better not decline to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple or you might get sued.
It seems that it is only traditionalists who must demonstrate â€śtoleranceâ€ť these days. Apparently, the gay-rights activists can be as bigoted and intolerant as they want.
Welcome to the Brave New World of America in 2014. If you donâ€™t like it, youâ€™d better do something about it.
Until next time, keep some powder dry.
Note from the Editor: Under the Obama Administration, the NSA, the IRS, and the State and Justice departments are blatantly stepping on Americansâ€™ privacyâ€”and these are just the breaches weâ€™re aware of. Iâ€™ve arranged for readers to get a free copy of The Ultimate Privacy Guide so you can be protected from any form of surveillance by anyoneâ€”government, corporate or criminal. Click here for your free copy.