Gay Patriot Header Image

Another Brill Tweet

 

Share

70 Comments

  1. Give that male homosexual a cigar and brandy on me.

    Comment by Richard Bell — April 5, 2014 @ 12:05 pm - April 5, 2014

  2. He’ll want to be careful: not toeing the progressive line is a hanging offense in the Castro.

    Comment by Sean L — April 5, 2014 @ 12:57 pm - April 5, 2014

  3. I agree with the sentiment expressed. As Dick Cheney once said, “Freedom means freedom for everybody.” I may not agree with everything said by every last conservative Christian, but I have defended (and will keep defending) their right to say it.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 5, 2014 @ 1:19 pm - April 5, 2014

  4. There are actually a great number of Christians who believe in gay marriage and have to problem with Mozilla’s actions. So, American Elephant (anyone remember his comments towards the end of his tenure at GP?) is incorrectly using the “Christians” label as an umbrella term.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — April 5, 2014 @ 1:45 pm - April 5, 2014

  5. Don’t play dumb, Cinesnatch. You know exactly what he meant.

    Comment by Sean L — April 5, 2014 @ 1:52 pm - April 5, 2014

  6. I ask that you don’t make this about me and stay on discussion. Thanks.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — April 5, 2014 @ 2:07 pm - April 5, 2014

  7. The only people who have “no problem with Mozillas actions” are fascists.

    Comment by V the K — April 5, 2014 @ 2:52 pm - April 5, 2014

  8. V+1

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 5, 2014 @ 3:06 pm - April 5, 2014

  9. This is why lists of donors should remain private. Other than law enforcement, the only person wanting access to such information is probably a thug.

    Whether the curtain at a voting booth or the right to privacy might be called a closet door doesn’t matter to me — at times it may be the only protection available to a citizen with the temerity to speak his mind.

    Comment by Ignatius — April 5, 2014 @ 3:12 pm - April 5, 2014

  10. There are actually a great number of Christians who believe in gay marriage and have to problem with Mozilla’s actions. So, American Elephant (anyone remember his comments towards the end of his tenure at GP?) is incorrectly using the “Christians” label as an umbrella term.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — April 5, 2014 @ 1:45 pm – April 5, 2014

    Isn’t it funny how Snatchy and its ilk scream and point to Christians who supposedly support gay marriage when they need support, but then demonize and attack gays who don’t as self-loathing and damaged people that no one should listen to?

    Why, it’s almost as if they have no moral consistency and are just saying anything, no matter how contradictory, to get their way.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 5, 2014 @ 3:24 pm - April 5, 2014

  11. From wikipedia (I tried to pare this down as much as possible):

    During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, Dixie Chicks performed in [a London] concert … During the introduction to [a] song … Natalie Maines, who along with [her other bandmates were] … native[s] of Texas, said: “Just so you know, we’re on the good side with y’all. We do not want this war, this violence, and we’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas.” The comment about … [President Bush] … [former Texas] Governor … from 1995 to 2000 … was reported in The Guardian’s review of the … concert …

    Maines’ remark sparked intense criticism; media commentators claimed that she should not criticize President Bush on foreign soil. Maines responded, “I said it there ’cause that’s where I was.”

    The comment by Maines angered many country music fans and was financially damaging … Dixie Chicks’ cover of … “Landslide” [fell] sharply from No. 10 down to 43 on the Billboard Hot 100 in a single week. It dropped out of the entire chart the following week …

    … Maines issued an apology”… I apologize to President Bush because my remark was disrespectful … We are currently in Europe and witnessing a huge anti-American sentiment as a result of the perceived rush to war …”

    … many supporters of the Dixie Chicks dropped their support (including their sponsor Lipton) … former fans were encouraged to bring their CDs to a demonstration at which they would be crushed by a bulldozer … One exception to the list of Dixie Chicks opponents was … Merle Haggard, who in the summer of 2003 released a song critical of US media coverage of the Iraq War … “I don’t even know the Dixie Chicks, but I find it an insult for all the men and women who fought and died in past wars when almost the majority of America jumped down their throats for voicing an opinion. It was like a verbal witch-hunt and lynching” …

    Meanwhile, Dixie Chicks were preparing for their nationwide … Tour … some general death threats led them to install metal detectors at the shows … The degree of hatred directed toward the Chicks included a specific death threat against Maines in Dallas that led to a police escort to the July 6 show and from the show directly to the airport.

    A Colorado radio station suspended two of its disc jockeys on May 6 for playing music by Dixie Chicks.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — April 5, 2014 @ 3:36 pm - April 5, 2014

  12. #2- “not toeing the progressive line is a hanging offense in the Castro.”

    So’kay, the mob will have to hang me with him, if they can.

    *enjoys another puff of cigar and taste of brandy and invites, Sean L, to join us.*

    Comment by Richard Bell — April 5, 2014 @ 3:44 pm - April 5, 2014

  13. I’ll take you up on that offer, Richard! 🙂

    Comment by Sean L — April 5, 2014 @ 3:50 pm - April 5, 2014

  14. Come sit with us my bruthur from anuthur muthur. 😉

    *gives cigar, pours brandy, click glass with Sean.*

    Comment by Richard Bell — April 5, 2014 @ 3:53 pm - April 5, 2014

  15. So what is Cinesnatch arguing — that conservatives are evil for allegedly doing to the Dixie Chicks what Cinesnatch and his fellow liberals did to Eich, the Mormon Church, and anyone else who supported Prop 8?

    This is why conservatives have to keep in mind that liberals see our morals and values as a means to destroy us. Any time a liberal like Cinesnatch screams that you are not living up to your morals and values, they are simply trying to manipulate and hurt you. They don’t care about inconsistency; they merely care about hurting you, and if it advances their cause, they’ll break the very rules they are screaming that you have to follow.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 5, 2014 @ 4:25 pm - April 5, 2014

  16. Come sit with us, NDT.

    *Hands cigar, pours brandy.*

    They can’t hang us all, they don’t have enough rope. 🙂

    Comment by Richard Bell — April 5, 2014 @ 4:36 pm - April 5, 2014

  17. The Dixie Chicks “said” something and their livelihood and physical lives were threatened as a result thanks to a national witch hunt spearheaded by talk show personalities. The others in your example (Eich, El Coyote, etc) did more than “said” something. They backed themselves up with money.

    IMO, where you spend your money says more about you than what you say. You can say what you want until the cows come home, but money will always have a greater influence.

    “Follow the money.” All the President’s Men.

    But, I don’t support Mozilla employees negatively affecting a CEO’s livelihood anymore than I support talk show radio hosts affecting the livelihood (and physical lives) of musical artists.

    I’m not privy to the exact circumstances regarding Mozilla. Perhaps the whole impetus for this matter is as dull as it sounds. Initially, I suspected something else was at play (the employees just didn’t like Eich and were looking for an excuse to nail him), but, if we’re going by what’s reported, it is as it sounds. And, based on what has been reported, I don’t support the witch hunt. But, Eich’s money also would have been better spent on those who needed it like disadvantaged children.

    But, my main point is that these Mozilla employees are no different the national voices who targeted the Dixie Chicks. The target and microphone to annihilate him were just smaller.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — April 5, 2014 @ 4:44 pm - April 5, 2014

  18. *Hands cigar, pours brandy.

    Just a head’s up, you might want to make sure your bar is stocked with vodka. Have no idea what brand, but Peter H. loves his martinis.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — April 5, 2014 @ 4:45 pm - April 5, 2014

  19. And, for what it’s worth, I’ve eaten at El Coyote since the Prop 8 hullabaloo.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — April 5, 2014 @ 4:47 pm - April 5, 2014

  20. #17 – “Eich’s money also would have been better spent on those who needed it like disadvantaged children.”

    Sorry, Cinesnatch, your “disadvantaged children’s card” has a zero balance.

    Comment by Richard Bell — April 5, 2014 @ 4:50 pm - April 5, 2014

  21. Sorry, Cinesnatch, your “disadvantaged children’s card” has a zero balance.

    The money spent on passing Prop 8 could have been utilized for so much more worthwhile causes. Same with the money used for getting all the other “defining marriage as one man/woman” laws across this nation which will all one day wither away with little point to ever having existed in the first place. Oh well. The heart wants what it wants.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — April 5, 2014 @ 4:55 pm - April 5, 2014

  22. The money the Obamas spend on vacations could give private vouchers to about 60,000 disadvantaged children; but you don’t see any lefties complaining about them.

    Comment by V the K — April 5, 2014 @ 5:21 pm - April 5, 2014

  23. “If libtards had no double standards, then they’d have no standards at all. But of course, I’m being redundant.

    Regards,
    Peter H.”

    Comment by Richard Bell — April 5, 2014 @ 5:25 pm - April 5, 2014

  24. We need more chairs, and lets pull another table over to this one so we have room for Peter and VTK.

    Comment by Richard Bell — April 5, 2014 @ 5:27 pm - April 5, 2014

  25. The money the Obamas spend on vacations could give private vouchers to about 60,000 disadvantaged children; but you don’t see any lefties complaining about them.

    If the Obamas spend disproportionately on vacations to previous presidents, then I disagree with this 100%. But, I’m not a lefty either.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — April 5, 2014 @ 5:29 pm - April 5, 2014

  26. “Disagree” meaning the Obamas should be taken to task for outspending other administrations on personal vacations.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — April 5, 2014 @ 5:31 pm - April 5, 2014

  27. Hmmm, haven’t I seen this somewhere before?

    You know something? I have!
    I HAVE seen it before. I’ve seen it here. Many times.
    Too many times.

    Not very entertaining.
    Truth be told, the act is old.
    Very old.

    Comment by Jman1961 — April 5, 2014 @ 5:45 pm - April 5, 2014

  28. Hmmm, haven’t I seen this somewhere before?

    You know something? I have!
    I HAVE seen it before. I’ve seen it here. Many times.
    Too many times.

    Not very entertaining.
    Truth be told, the act is old.
    Very old.

    What do you mean?

    Comment by Cinesnatch — April 5, 2014 @ 5:48 pm - April 5, 2014

  29. Why would anyone argue that the Obamas should have a bigger vacation budget than any previous administration?

    And, where is the proof that I would support something like this?

    What would I gain from supporting something like this?

    As many times as the label “lefty” has been ascribed to me (whether rightly or wrongly, though, I’d argue the latter), the previous arguments just make zero sense. And, considering the level of intellect of GP (which can be quite high at times), I expect more. If you’re going to outlandishly accuse commenters of supporting a bigger vacation budget for an administration because they’re liberal, then you’re going to have to step up and prove yourself. But, I can’t even think of true lefties who believe this. I mean, really?

    And, going back to VtheK’s original comment: has it even been proven that the Obamas have a higher vacation budget than previous administrations?

    I did find this article, which sounded interesting. And, if it’s true, I could care less that the Bushes spent more on vacations than the Obamas.

    The point isn’t: who spent more? The point is: who cares? And, if it were the Bushes, do you still care?

    Comment by Cinesnatch — April 5, 2014 @ 7:08 pm - April 5, 2014

  30. Cine, YOU obviously care. All money that is spent on anything other than the necessities of life is spent wrongly, as it should have been spent feeding hungry children or any other necessary endeavor, as defined by you. Clinton was wrong, Bush was wrong, Obama is wrong, etc.

    A major difference between the Dixie Chicks and what Brendan Eich did is that they went to a foreign country and loudly and rudely denounced America’s president and her policies. Eich quietly donated to a cause he supported. The Gay Mafia had to search for evidence of Eich’s offense, which was, essentially, “being like Barack Obama” at the time.

    At the time of the Dixie Chicks’ denunciations, many Americans were feeling quite patriotic. At the time of Eich’s offense, he was in line with the position of approximately 7,001,084 other Californians.

    One does not have to be a bigot or anti-gay to resist redefining the term “marriage.”

    Comment by Polly — April 5, 2014 @ 7:45 pm - April 5, 2014

  31. P.S. I presume the Gay Mafia has sought out and sought to harass the other 7,000,000 Prop 8 supporters. Hopefully, every last one of them has lost his/her job and has been forced into hiding.

    Comment by Polly — April 5, 2014 @ 7:57 pm - April 5, 2014

  32. Clinton was wrong, Bush was wrong, Obama is wrong, etc.

    Which made VtheK’s Obama Vacation comment all the more bewildering.

    At the time of Eich’s offense, he was in line with the position of approximately 7,001,084 other Californians.

    I would argue Eich was in line with number of those who actually donated towards Prop 8, which included hefty amounts from non-Californians.

    My advice to them: Keep gay-marriage illegal and your politics in your own state!

    Comment by Cinesnatch — April 5, 2014 @ 8:00 pm - April 5, 2014

  33. Cine*,

    Your Dixie Chicks argument is beyond flawed. It is inane. Quit while you still have a behind to hide behind.

    Airhead Natalie Maines decided to mix politics with twangin’ and singin’. Her choice. It bit her in the butt. Then some of her fans decided there were other entertainers to support and she went all victim weepy. At least Babs Streisand has the courage of her convictions.

    Poor little Natalie sucker-punched herself in the pocketbook and got a wake-up call. Unfortunately for her and the Dixie Chicks, it was too little too late. If you Progressives were worth a damn, you would buy all their albums and pump up their numbers. But you would rather whine than pay the price of carrying dead meat.

    Oh, well.

    Comment by heliotrope — April 5, 2014 @ 8:24 pm - April 5, 2014

  34. If the Dixie Chicks had come out against gay marriage, the career retributions they suffered would be justified is, I think, the message here.

    And those who set themselves up as the arbiters of how money may be righteously spent open themselves to criticism if they don’t apply their criteria uniformly.

    Comment by V the K — April 5, 2014 @ 8:43 pm - April 5, 2014

  35. …those who set themselves up as the arbiters of how money may be righteously spent open themselves to criticism if they don’t apply their criteria uniformly.

    No, they open themselves up to criticism because how a person spends the money (read: PROPERTY) that they have earned is no one else’s friggin’ business.
    But then you’d expect nothing better from a juvenile leftist, would you?

    Comment by Jman1961 — April 5, 2014 @ 10:00 pm - April 5, 2014

  36. Snatchy, if you and your fellow gay liberals care so much about “disadvantaged children”, then why are you screaming and demanding those childrens’ parents be taxed more and have to pay higher insurance premiums to pay for AIDS drugs and disability checks for single gay people who didn’t want to wear condoms?

    Why are you demanding these childrens’ parents be taxed more to provide food stamps to single able-bodied hipsters to spend on gourmet food?

    Why are you demanding these childrens’ parents be taxed more so that Pelosi and Reid’s constitutents can quit their jobs and be artists with free health insurance?

    Do you want to see the bill your multimillionaire Pelosi ran up for her own private airliner while John Boehner flies commercial? Do you think the multimillionaire Pelosi has any credibility shrieking about “starving children” when she was demanding taxpayer-funded chocolate-dipped strawberries and grilled chicken salads on her liquor-stocked 757 filled with her family and cronies?

    You don’t say a WORD about any of this, and then you shriek bloody murder when a private individual spends their own money on a political donation.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 5, 2014 @ 10:42 pm - April 5, 2014

  37. NDT, you obviously don’t understand. The amount of money any individual has is finite, making his use of that money subject to scrutiny. The amount of money available to The Government is almost infinite; they may waste it as they wish, under the theory, “There’s more whar thet come from,” as I’m sure Nancy would say.

    Comment by Polly — April 5, 2014 @ 11:54 pm - April 5, 2014

  38. “The money spent on defeating Prop 8 could have been utilized for so much more worthwhile causes. Same with the money used for defeating all the other “defining marriage as one man/woman” laws across this nation which will all one day wither away with little point to ever having existed in the first place.”

    Comment by The_Livewire — April 6, 2014 @ 12:21 am - April 6, 2014

  39. Polly, the gay mafia didn’t hunt for those that donated to Prop 8. The confidential donor list was illegally given to them by Obama’s IRS. It is a felony and Obama’s DoJ has not prosecuted those involved.

    Comment by Annie — April 6, 2014 @ 12:52 am - April 6, 2014

  40. Under CA law, whether right or wrong, donations made toward state ballot measures greater than $100 are subject to public knowledge.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — April 6, 2014 @ 1:11 am - April 6, 2014

  41. To compare the offensive words of the ‘Chicks’, which turned their own fans off, to those privately donating to a cause that supports time honored traditional marriage, just does not make sense. It is not about hate, it is about recognizing it’s historical, religious, and societal significance.

    Nowhere, that I am aware, in the history of humanity, until the past decade, has anyone thought ‘gay marriage’ a good idea. What makes it so alluring now and not in our past….and no, saying because gays have always been oppressed won’t fly. There are plenty of cultures who accepted or tolerated homosexuality…and yet none saw a value in ‘marriage’ for those relationships.
    Heck, it wasn’t that long ago that gay activists screaming the loudest now, wanted nothing to do with it.

    Comment by Annie — April 6, 2014 @ 1:43 am - April 6, 2014

  42. Under CA law, whether right or wrong, donations made toward state ballot measures greater than $100 are subject to public knowledge

    Which is violating federal law as regards to civil rights.

    I’m sure you would have no problem if a similar list of those who contributed to defeat Prop 8 was released and those people were targets of intimidation, bullying, resulting in the loss of jobs.

    But since most Christians are not assholes like bully gay activists and the left in general, you’re cool with the end justifying the means, eh comrade?

    Comment by Annie — April 6, 2014 @ 2:00 am - April 6, 2014

  43. Annie, I think it’s interesting how I replied to your last comment with a fact, and your response was to ignore it. Just an observation. Do with it what you will.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — April 6, 2014 @ 2:03 am - April 6, 2014

  44. Oh, I see that you responded twice, Annie (Comments #41 and #42)

    Which is violating federal law as regards to civil rights.

    Really?

    Comment by Cinesnatch — April 6, 2014 @ 2:10 am - April 6, 2014

  45. P.S. I presume the Gay Mafia has sought out and sought to harass the other 7,000,000 Prop 8 supporters. Hopefully, every last one of them has lost his/her job and has been forced into hiding.

    Comment by Polly — April 5, 2014 @ 7:57 pm – April 5, 2014

    That is precisely how “Terrorism” works:

    When you have the resources, you carpet bomb every structure over an inch high, slaughter every man, woman and child minus what you need for slaves, and salt the earth.

    When you’re a tiny, radical splinter group, you use hit-and-run style guerrilla attacks to inflict fear far beyond your individual targets.

    So, Yes, the “Gay Mafia” has indeed “harass”ed the other 7m Prop 8 supporters.

    Comment by Sathar — April 6, 2014 @ 10:13 am - April 6, 2014

  46. Good point, Sathar, but terrorism committed 5 or 6 years later does nothing retroactive, only prospective. Therefore it only makes sense to seek out and harass all of the hateful and bigoted ’08 contributors, not just because it will deter such hate crimes in the future but also because it is just SO much fun to show how powerful the Gay Mafia is.

    Hasn’t it been said that “Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac”? ‘Nuff said!

    Comment by Polly — April 6, 2014 @ 11:27 am - April 6, 2014

  47. Were all of you anti-Firefox-fascism freedom fighters even 1 percent this worked up about World Vision caving to christian bullies cancelling their sponsorships because they would rather a child starve than pay a person who was openly in a same sex marriage?

    Please do direct me where there was anything but crickets from the right wing web-o-sphere and twitter-o-sphere on this matter, thanks 🙂

    Comment by Luke — April 6, 2014 @ 12:17 pm - April 6, 2014

  48. If I had heard about it, Luke, and if I had had time between family, dayjob, church, and suchlike, I would have commented on it.

    Comment by V the K — April 6, 2014 @ 12:55 pm - April 6, 2014

  49. Thanks V the K. While it’s understandable that you have other commitments in life and need to pick your battles, does it tell you something that whatever news sources you frequent (right wing, mainstream, blogs etc) did not bother to present a story or stories to you about World Vision but have been all a flutter for a few days now about Mozilla. While I think more dialogue about gay rights and gay marriage could have been achieved had Eich stayed in his post, I find what happened with World Vision to be way more disgusting than what happened to Eich, and the fact that people who are so fast and eager to throw around melodrama about “fascism”, the “gaystapo” and the “gay mafia” had nothing of value to say about World Vision.

    Comment by Luke — April 6, 2014 @ 1:05 pm - April 6, 2014

  50. Nice deflection there, Luke.

    Comment by Juan — April 6, 2014 @ 1:28 pm - April 6, 2014

  51. Fascinating observation Luke. Thank you for sharing.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — April 6, 2014 @ 2:19 pm - April 6, 2014

  52. So what do you have to say about World Vision, Juan? Did they bow to pressure from “Christofascists”? You don’t consider what happened there to be worse than what happened with Eich?

    Comment by Luke — April 6, 2014 @ 2:40 pm - April 6, 2014

  53. Luke : I see World vision and Mozilla as two completely different issues. Mozilla was over a donation made years ago to an organization that had nothing to do with the mission of Mozilla. However, World Vision is current and the decision does have an effect on the basic core of World Vision’s mission.

    I also take exception to your comment about Christians would rather see children starve. Who are you to say that those same dollars were not redirected to another organization?

    As I have asked other Mozilla supporters : If Eich is not qualified to be CEO for his views on same gender marriage in 2008, is Obama equally unqualified to be POTUS for having the exact same stance on this issue at the exact same time? Does it disqualify Mrs. Clinton?

    Comment by TnnsNe1 — April 6, 2014 @ 3:09 pm - April 6, 2014

  54. Luke, Thanks for bringing this to light. I educated myself on the matter and found this article.

    I guess one can argue that Eich was still a private individual targeted by other employees and is being held accountable for actions he made six years ago that were perfectly legal (his “anti” stance on gay marriage being the focal point). The company Mozilla came under public scrutiny and chose to sacrifice the individual for the bottom-line and/or integrity. As a result, an private individual resigned from his job.

    With World Vision, the charity made a decision that its very donors were not happy with (their newly “pro” stance on gay marriage being the focal point). They pulled funds, which resulted World Vision doing a reversal in a compromised manner. As a result, 10,000 children have still lost their sponsor.

    In one instance, you have a private individual singled out for his beliefs. In another, you have a charity having to answer to their donor’s beliefs.

    Their is obviously a great disparity in the results: one man losing his job verses 10,000 children who suffer. But, from a logical point of view, you have persecuted private individual verses a charity who has always and will always be at mercy to the beliefs of its donor base.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — April 6, 2014 @ 3:16 pm - April 6, 2014

  55. Now that I have read up on the World Vision thing, I see it was not quite the way Luke depicted it. It looks to me like teh gheys were doing more bullying than Teh Christians.

    Comment by V the K — April 6, 2014 @ 3:23 pm - April 6, 2014

  56. Now that I have read up on the World Vision thing, I see it was not quite the way Luke depicted it.

    You mean to say that a leftists misrepresented the facts?

    Say it ain’t so.

    Comment by Jman1961 — April 6, 2014 @ 3:26 pm - April 6, 2014

  57. TnnsNe1: First of all, I am not a Mozilla “supporter”, I just see this as 1% as disgusting of an issue as WV, but gets 100 times more attention. I start seeing tweets and comments from people about how they are tired of gay rights issues and warning the gay community that they will start losing sympathy and support, well guess what, I’m rather tired and losing patience with people spewing words like “gaystapo” and “fascism” every time gay liberals say they will boycott a particular company. Seriously people, Orwell said it over fifty years ago and it wouldn’t hurt to try reading it again, “The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies something not desirable”.

    Your first paragraph. How would hiring a person known to be in a same sex marriage hurt your core mission, when your core mission (which I copy pasted from the About us page of world vision International): World Vision is a Christian humanitarian organization dedicated to working with children, families, and their communities worldwide to reach their full potential by tackling the root causes of poverty and injustice.

    I get that they do have the word “Christian” in there, but so long as the gay married person working for them is not trying to talk about and promoter his gay marriage to World Vision donors, colleagues or aid recipients how does it go against the organization’s Christianity. More importantly what does gay marriage have to do with “tackling root causes of poverty and injustice”.

    Second paragraph, well if the dollars are redirected to another org, then great, and “rather see children starve” might be overblown. <aking a commitment to sponsor a child such that WV budgets for particular projects and then pulling the carpet out from under them is still pretty lowball in my view. I do have at least one quote from you from someone who did in fact acknowledge that children WILL suffer because of this, but naturally blamed WV and not the anti-gay Christians:

    "Children will suffer as Evangelicals lose trust in and withdraw support from World Vision in the future. It will take time for evangelicals to start new organizations that maintain historic Christian concepts of sin, faith and repentance." http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-leaders-shocked-grieved-by-world-visions-decision-to-hire-employees-in-same-sex-marriages-116730/

    Third paragraph: Well, again not so much a "Mozilla supporter" as I am Mozilla-apathetic in this context but why I see people saying they will boycott Mozilla because they hired a prop 8 supporter as CEO is more reasonable than saying Obama is unqualified as president for because of this position, do kindly show me any evidence that Obama donated to Prop 8 in 2008 or any similar marriage ballot initiative?? Obama did at least give a very very weak criticism of Prop 8 as "unnecessary" in 2008, that is a heck of a lot better than donating in its favor.

    Comment by Luke — April 6, 2014 @ 3:34 pm - April 6, 2014

  58. V the K, please show me where “teh gays” were bullying in the World Vision thing. I looked at stories about this even on websites like OneNewsNow and the Christian Post who surely would have seized any opportunity to mention that certain gay groups or individuals were being “bullies” and saw nothing, so please educate me about how this is proof once again that gay left are bigger bullies (fascists, gestapo, Stalinists, nazis, whatever other hyperbole laden word you care to sling around) than the Christian right.

    Comment by Luke — April 6, 2014 @ 3:41 pm - April 6, 2014

  59. So Luke shows up to chide me for not being outraged about a story I’ve never read/heard about and whose substance is unrelated, non-analogous, and is being misrepresented by Luke, all in an attempt to highlight my supposed inconsistency. Got it.

    Comment by Ignatius — April 6, 2014 @ 3:49 pm - April 6, 2014

  60. Go pound sand Ignatius. It’s fine if you had a busy week and didn’t have the chance to read about the WV case, but it’s not my fault if you never read/heard about this story. Maybe you should actually think about why whatever news sources you choose decided not to mention it? The world vision fiasco was covered both on gay and Christian blogs and news sites, as well as both the Huff. Post and Fox News. I did also enjoy hearing some Christian perspectives supporting WV’s decision to hire gay married individuals and critical of the reversal on Patheos. I’m sure you can Google search it in your Chrome browser, or Bing search it in your Opera browser, or whatever search engine / browser combination you are still willing to use, so knock yourself out.

    It is related in that it relates to organizations bowing to pressure from particular groups because of a policy or decision related to gay marriage, where the job at hand was not in any way affected by a person’s stance on, or membership in, a same sex marriage. In one case it is limited to a high profile CEO in another case faceless nameless employees/potential hires at any level are affected. As for where I misrepresent this World Vision story you have never read or heard about before today, please enlighten me with what I said was wrong, so I can avoid the same mistake. Thanks.

    Comment by Luke — April 6, 2014 @ 4:31 pm - April 6, 2014

  61. Luke shows up to chide me for not being outraged about a story I’ve never read/heard about and whose substance is unrelated, non-analogous, and is being misrepresented by Luke, all in an attempt to highlight my supposed inconsistency. Got it.

    Yup.

    I also note World Vision didn’t engage in any of the “We Believe In Openness & That No One Should Be Persecuted For The Beliefs They Hold, No Matter What They Are” hypocritical BS that Mozilla did.

    And, as an economic Libertarian, I respect the right of employers to employ whomever they choose, and to do business with those whom they choose.

    Comment by V the K — April 6, 2014 @ 4:45 pm - April 6, 2014

  62. ” Obama donated to Prop 8 in 2008 or any similar marriage ballot initiative?? ”

    You won’t find it. Obama didn’t/doesn’t have the conviction of his morals to actually donate.

    Of course, you split hairs on a $1000 donation. Of course, you do. Doing otherwise would be racist. IMHO, holding people to a lower standard based on skin color is racist.

    There are already several Christian based organization all over the world that help impoverished children. I am sure that any funds that were diverted from WV will be made up by all the liberal left people donating to WV now that WV has become “enlightened”.

    Comment by TnnsNe1 — April 6, 2014 @ 4:46 pm - April 6, 2014

  63. I would simply put it this way, Luke: given that the gay and lesbian community is overwhelmingly hostile toward Christianity and that gay and lesbian leaders like Joe Jervis, Dan Savage, Michelangelo Signorile, and others regularly berate and bash and demand attacks on Christians, that for World Vision to even employ gays in the first place runs counter to their mission as a Christian organization.

    And there is zero reason for Christians to fund people who are openly hostile to them, especially since bigots like Signorile, Savage, and Jervis call for the death of Christians, conservatives, and anyone who disagrees with them.

    Your gay and lesbian leadership has stated that being gay is incompatible with being a Christian or supporting anything Christians do, Luke. Why should Christians not take that seriously?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 6, 2014 @ 5:23 pm - April 6, 2014

  64. Good Point, TnnsNE1. There are a multitude of Christian charities helping disadvantaged kids. Not so many gay and atheist ones.

    Comment by V the K — April 6, 2014 @ 7:26 pm - April 6, 2014

  65. “There are a multitude of Christian charities helping disadvantaged kids.” When we were looking to adopt our second son, the most “open” organizations we spoke with where Christian based.

    Comment by TnnsNe1 — April 6, 2014 @ 8:25 pm - April 6, 2014

  66. Democrats, like Andrew Sullivan, pretend to be dismayed and take the pose that they are walking away from the Brendan Eich lynching but we all know in private they wear smiles of satisfaction that ideological revenge has been exacted.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHyx6vqU8Nc#t=10

    After all, this leaves a much better taste in their mouths than the botched attempt to exact ideological revenge on Chik-fil-a but instead providing the company with a record $3billion in sales for one day.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO-msplukrw

    Comment by Richard Bell — April 6, 2014 @ 10:16 pm - April 6, 2014

  67. #44 Cinesnatch

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_for_the_Advancement_of_Colored_People_v._Alabama

    …the Supreme Court decided in favor of the petitioners, holding that “Immunity from state scrutiny of petitioner’s membership lists is here so related to the right of petitioner’s members to pursue their lawful private interests privately and to associate freely with others in doing so as to come within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment” and, further, that freedom to associate with organizations dedicated to the “advancement of beliefs and ideas” is an inseparable part of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The action of the state’s obtaining the names of the Association’s membership would likely interfere with the free association of its members, so the state’s interest in obtaining the records was superseded by the constitutional rights of the petitioners.

    I don’t believe CA can trump federal law.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

    Comment by Annie — April 6, 2014 @ 11:42 pm - April 6, 2014

  68. Now don’t forget that DoJ Holder of the pick and choose which law to enforce, Obama administration, has been telling attorney generals that they don’t have to enforce any SSM bans in their states if they don’t want to.

    Which tells me he doesn’t care if CA makes crap up and violates peoples rights so long as it’s people he doesn’t agree with.

    ..”The judge (in the case) ….. said they (plaintiffs) had not proven that they would suffer “irreparable injury” if he did not grant the preliminary injunction (taking down the list of donors).

    State attorneys said the plaintiffs did not qualify for a narrow exception to campaign-donation disclosure laws that the U.S. Supreme Court carved out in 1982. That ruling was designed to protect tiny groups such as the Ohio Socialist Workers Party, which had a history of being harassed by both government officials and individuals, the state said.“…..

    Um. Right. Fellow travelers are protected but not the general public who don’t toe the party line. They are ignoring federal law that protects everyone from retribution by donating to controversial things.

    The list contains the names, addresses, places of employment of the donors, overlayed on google maps.

    Comment by Annie — April 7, 2014 @ 12:05 am - April 7, 2014

  69. So, basically, like pot, you can smoke pot in CA with med. marijuana card, just don’t get caught by the Feds?

    So, you’re quoting a decision that involved minorities fighting for their rights, while we’re discussing an issue involving people wanting to take rights away from a minority group?

    Comment by Cinesnatch — April 7, 2014 @ 3:00 am - April 7, 2014

  70. So, you’re quoting a decision that involved minorities fighting for their rights, while we’re discussing an issue involving people wanting to take rights away from a minority group?

    Comment by Cinesnatch — April 7, 2014 @ 3:00 am – April 7, 2014

    What impeccable liberal logic: “I can violate your rights with impunity because I’m ‘fighting for’ mine.”

    What you are making clear, Cinesnatch, is that your “right” to marry is fundamentally incompatible with established and written Constitutional guidelines making it clear that peoples’ rights of freedom of speech, religious belief, association, and equal protection may not be violated.

    That means gay-sex marriage is flatly unconstitutional. It leads to the violation of rights of freedom of speech, religious belief, association, and equal protection; therefore, the government may not do it or in any way endorse it or support it. Your fake “right” to marry does not trump the First or Fourteenth Amendments.

    The problem is, Cinesnatch, that gay bigots like yourself never intended to have marriage for the sake of marriage. You originally and have always intended to use marriage as a cudgel to discriminate against, deny the rights of, and abuse people whose religious beliefs you dislike. You are opposed because, not only are you fascists, but you are profaning a socially-valuable and critical institution to the foundation of and maintenance of society to advance your fascism and hatred.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 7, 2014 @ 11:43 am - April 7, 2014

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.