Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If anti-gay folks are going to go out of their way to keep gay people from getting married, why shouldn't pro-gay people go out of their way to make anti-gay folks lose their jobs?
It's both just forms of activism, trying to force your beliefs on others.
Is losing your job worse than not being able to marry the person you love?
The Anti-gay folks are actively attacking the rights of ALL gay people. The pro-gay people are only attacking the few who want to engage in the fight. It seems to me the pro gays have the moral high ground.
The pro-SSM people are attacking the very institution of marriage and all those who hold a different view from them. That is NOT the moral high ground.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamencoFreak
Obama not only claimed his belief in traditional marriage, he affirmed it before the congregation of Rick Warren's Saddleback Church, and affirmed it's grounding in the bible, saying: “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it’s also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”
The we should all call for Obama's resignation!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmqueen
"Respect" for a word? What on earth is that? Are your religious beliefs so weak that they're only supported by a word? As you yourself just said, why does it matter what a gay couple's relationship is called?
That argument is just silly, which is why I'm addressing it, even though it's not the issue.
Then why are you and the rest of the left so fixated on the word "marriage"? Gays won't accept anything but that word, even if they did have all the benefits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
Of course they all didn't donate to the proposition, did they? Because he went further than just voting.
Would it seem more fair if the gay community passed a proposition to deny marriage to anyone that donated for prop 8?
Maybe anyone who donates to a political cause that the left disagrees with should lose their jobs. Maybe everyone who donates to a political party that the left opposes should lose their jobs. Doesn't the left see what a dangerous slope this is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
What the gay community tried to do to Eich is not nearly as bad as what he tried to do to them.
Fair's fair.
Most gays, if the handful here is representative of them, have no sense of what "fair" is. Same goes for the gays who agitated to demand Eich's resignation. They also don't know what "fair" is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
So what, is is spouting off about it publicly? Then why does it bother anyone....
I wonder how hard these people had to dig to find this....
I read that it was someone at the IRS who tipped off the gays about the donation...No one at the IRS would do such a thing to target anyone, would they? That's just so difficult to believe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7
... and for donating money to a campaign that sought to strip existing marriages of their validity and further prevent his fellow citizens from having equal rights. But, ya know, he was just "exercising free speech."
That is more than "having an opinion." Just like the Chick-Fil-A guy did more than "have an opinion." He sent money to causes that have very real adverse effects on LGBT people.
There's a thin line between speech and action.
Ah, as long as a person doesn't act on his beliefs and principles, it's OK and he'll be allowed to live, and work, and enjoy the benefits of your definition of "free society"?
Since so many of you are so insistent that ANYONE who donated to Proposition 8 deserves to be pilloried on the alter of public perception, I'm proving a link to a Slate article that contains the link to L A Times list of all 35,000 of those who donated to Proposition 8. Now that you've checked Eich off the list, do let us know who your next target will be.
As you keep posting this idiocy over and over again, you clearly need to be reminded yet again that 99.03% of Intel's employees did NOT contribute to Prop 8 and that Intel is a company that supports same-sex marriage.
What does it matter that "99.03%" of employees did NOT contribute to Prop 8 (how do you know that nobody else there did?). So what if the company supports same-sex marriage. Does that mean that all employees have to go along with your cited majority? What about all the donors in other companies that contributed to Prop 8? Does the left REALLY believe that denying the opposition the opportunity to support and work for their principles in all areas of life is a good precedent to set?
What if YOU were made CEO of Mozilla? And something you wrote, some donation you made, something you said, years ago, were brought up, was made hugely public, and people started boycotting the company you worked for, all to make sure you lost your employment, and were no longer employable? I'm sure you have a belief or an opinion that isn't shared by the world. We all do.
What's your point? There is always potential consequences for speech.
And, compare the following situations:
1) Saying you do not believe in eating meat;
2) Giving money to campaign to pass an amendment to make meat eating illegal.
If you think 1 is the same as 2, then there is a problem.
Answer the question: If Fred Phelps was named CEO of Mozilla, would you have had such a problem with some people deciding to boycott?
What does it matter that "99.03%" of employees did NOT contribute to Prop 8 (how do you know that nobody else there did?). So what if the company supports same-sex marriage. Does that mean that all employees have to go along with your cited majority?
If you stopped hitting your head, you might realise that you completely missed the point.
Ah, as long as a person doesn't act on his beliefs and principles, it's OK and he'll be allowed to live, and work, and enjoy the benefits of your definition of "free society"?
Like I said: Mighty ironic that many of the same characters who find it "fascistic" or "problematic" that this guy succumbed to the court of public opinion are the same ones who actually believe that people have the ability to vote to literally restrict gay people from their rights as citizens in this country.
Them crocodile tears you shed don't work on anyone but yourselves.
What's your point? There is always potential consequences for speech.
And, compare the following situations:
1) Saying you do not believe in eating meat;
2) Giving money to campaign to pass an amendment to make meat eating illegal.
If you think 1 is the same as 2, then there is a problem.
Answer the question: If Fred Phelps was named CEO of Mozilla, would you have had such a problem with some people deciding to boycott?
Fred Phelps is dead. More than that, Mr Phelps conducted a very public vendetta against homosexuality. Mr Eich is not similar in any way to Mr Phelps. The fact that you equate the two is a sign that your viewpoint has skewed to extremism.
If you stopped hitting your head, you might realise that you completely missed the point.
I've given you the links to the list of Proposition 8 donors. So all you have to do is let us know which person from that list is the next target, and deserves to be figuratively stoned for his or her opinion. Who's it gonna be?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
