Mozilla’s CEO Resignation and the Gay Lobby’s Double Standard

Gays are trying to portray traditional marriage as an alternative lifestyle and those who support it as evil. It’s beyond despicable that Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich, purveyor of Firefox, resigned from his newly appointed post last Thursday because the gay mob found out he had the nerve to . . .wait for it.  . . exercise his first amendment right and support traditional marriage. Oh, the heresy. The mob attacked Eich on Twitter for donating $1,000 to support California’s gay marriage ban in 2008.

When the proposal known as Proposition 8 was placed on the ballot in 2008, more than 52% of Californians voted in for it. In fact, black churches were instrumental in getting blacks, the majority of whom in California are Democrats, to vote in yes for Prop 8.

Apparently, in today’s 21st century America free speech is only reserved for gays and not straights or Christians. I won’t tolerate it anymore and I think it’s high time heterosexual, liberty loving Christians mobilize their traditional marriage lobby.

Everybody in America is not gay. About 3.4% of America’s population is gay. Nor does everyone support same sex marriage. Depending upon the poll, whom is being polled and where, findings can range from evenly split between those who oppose gay marriage and those who support it, to more Americans opposing it.

In statement, Mozilla Chairwoman Mitchell Baker said:

“Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.”

Freedom of speech doesn’t have to be qualified. It stands on its own and is our constitutional right under the first amendment. If Baker truly believed “you need free speech to fight for equality” in opinions, she wouldn’t have accepted Eich’s resignation. Eich didn’t donate money to the KKK or utter racial slurs. He simply supported traditional marriage.

Think about that for a moment. Traditional marriage or coupling between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation has been going on since the beginning of time. It’s normal and the mainstream lifestyle. Since when did traditional marriage become a dirty word and one’s support of it becomes a license for “a high-tech lynching” by America’s gay lobby?

During his Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas famously told the Senate Judiciary Committee he was a victim of “a high-tech lynching” because he was a black American who dared to be a Republican. In My Grandfather’s Son, Thomas recalls his testimony: “it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you, you will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured. .”

If any of the 97% of the rest of America, who isn’t gay, refuses to acquiesce to the gay mafia’s bullying, the message from the gay lobby is “we will destroy you.”

Brendan Eich isn’t the first and won’t be the last example. About two years ago, the president of Chick-fil-A said he supported traditional marriage and the gay lobby went ballistic, demanding boycotts and apologies. Neither happened. In fact, sales of the tasty sandwiches soared and lines wrapped around restaurants across the country.

Interestingly, Leslie Gabel-Brett, Lambda Legal’s director of education and public affairs declared Eich used “his money to try to oppress and harm same-sex couples and their children.” No, he donated $1,000 to preserve traditional marriage. How is this harming same sex couples?

Gabel-Brett takes her irrational argument further.  She wrote Eich can “freely donate his money” (thanks for the permission slip to democracy).

“Under our laws, he is entitled to promote such views or actions, and other people are entitled to be outraged by them,” added Gabel-Brett.

But the difference Dear Leslie is that gays don’t believe we Christians and straight people have the same right to be equally outraged by your views and actions. That’s the fundamental problem with today’s radical gay agenda being pushed by organizations like Lambda, it demands others be tolerant of their lifestyle choices but they refuse to TOLERATE ours.

I grew up with two loving, gay uncles who just wanted to live their lives. They didn’t push their homosexuality onto the world nor did they try to change the order of nature by fighting for marriage or trying to adopt children. What they wanted was to live openly in society rather than in silence. They died before they could  enjoy this freedom gays now have.  But if they were alive, they certainly would be shocked and appalled by the gay lobby’s effort to force all Americans into its vice. Live and let live is what they would say.




If you enjoyed this article, Get email updates (It’s Free)

21 Responses to “Mozilla’s CEO Resignation and the Gay Lobby’s Double Standard”

  1. Ian says:

    Reading this really makes me understand how moronic your argument is.
    You do realise that the “nature” you are talking about is coupled with evolution. As we grow and evolve as people, nature changes as well. You seem to be stuck in an age where we can’t all be equal or have the same rights as everyone else.

  2. Justin says:

    I am a gay male. First off, the percentage is far higher than 3.4%. That’s a low number for even “out” LGBT members, but you have to account for the large amount of closeted members. While I do disagree with the lynching of a 2008 support (especially considering Obama and Clinton have both “evolved” on the issue), but I still think anyone opposed to marriage equality is a bigot–plain and simple. But I am not a part of the “mafia,” but conservatives who think freedom of speech somehow “doesn’t apply” to Christians are absolutely silly. Conservative white Christians (hypocrisy in and of itself) are the most privileged group in this country.

  3. Bryan says:

    Pro-gay folks didn’t threaten violence or even demonstrations — a far cry from the gun wackos supporting Cliven Bundy. Nor did they threaten lawsuits, They merely said they won’t use Firefox anymore. Is that so threatening to you? If you don’t like the staff at a restaurant, surely you’d avoid that restaurant, right? How is that different from gays and their supporters refusing to use Firefox? In fact, the final straw came from within. Mozilla employees protested Eich’s hiring. Surely you support an employee’s ability to quit if s/he doesn’t like his/her superiors? With such an onslaught of threatened defections, Mozilla and Eich made the smart decision and he resigned.

    The First Amendment had nothing to do with it. No one was going to arrest Eich for his opposition to gay marriage. It wasn’t even an issue of Free Speech. He could have continued his opposition, and Mozilla could have kept him on — and protesters could have stopped using Firefox. All three entities would then be exercising their Free Speech. But Eich and Mozilla decided that it was bad for business so they gave in. It was Public Relations 101, pure and simple..

  4. Bryan says:

    “first amendment right”??!?! I’m really amaed by the way people throw that term around without knowing its meaning. In the end, it just discredits your argument about Free Speech. The First Amendment ONLY applies to the government, NOT private entities. Simply put, the government shall not limit the free speech of the people. And even then, the SCOTUS has ruled that there are limits. For example, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. wrote that the First Amendment does NOT protect “falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater.” (Schenck v. United States) Subsequent rulings allow the government to limit noise, punish libelous and slanderous speech, outlaw obscenity, etc.

    The First Amendment does NOT apply to organizations or private citizens. Companies have rules of civility, churches can forbid blasphemous speech, schools can have dress codes, and most importantly, we can limit speech in our homes. Surely you agree with those limits, right? Or are you saying that guests should be able to say whatever they want, and employees can curse out customers?

    At no time did the government get involved in the Firefox case so the First Amendment has NO application here. The fact that you used it just shows your ignorance. It was purely a business decision. Indeed, it was gays and their supporters exercising THEIR FREE SPEECH that forced Eich out. Surely you agree that boycotting is an expression of Free Speech. Did you complain Duck Dynasty supporters threatened to boycott A&E and Cracker Barrel?

  5. Aize says:

    You speak as if somehow gay marriage is more secure than traditional marriage. It isn’t. You’re passion and emotion appears strong. But it’s only strong because of the struggle you’re going through for equality or to be mainstreamed. There is a lot of emotion there. So you’re loving harder…..for now. However once the gay community is finally mainstreamed, the strength in it’s togetherness will weaken. Their divorces and custody fights will be just like everyone else’s. You don’t believe me…look at the black community. What appeared to keep the strong and together was just their common struggle for equality. Once we were mainstreamed, look at the result. The real dvision surfaced.

  6. Dusty says:

    Typical in today’s world. If you support traditional marriage because you believe in it, then you are labeled a homophobe. Pretty pathetic. Oh well, guess I’m a homophobe. Hope I don’t lose my job because of my beliefs.

  7. Michael says:

    The government needs to stay out of our lives. Every argument for gay marriage can be made without the government being involved. If you want the ‘benefits’ of marriage such as inheritance and insurance and visiting priveledges, then fight to change them. Dont fight to make the government redefine a word. The word ‘Marriage’ has always meant the union of a man and a woman. And for God’s sake if you force a popular vote and lose, twice, dont find somesympathetis judge who will overturn the will of millions of people. But every single issue concerning gay marriage can be reconciled without government intervention. Leave it to the states.

  8. tg says:

    I am a gay woman. I consider myself a libertarian. I have been in a relationship with the same woman for nearly 12 years. I live in Georgia, and I’m pretty sure same-sex marriage isn’t going to happen here for some time. I’m not sure I would want to be married even if I were straight, but my question is this: how would my desire to marry my female partner and acquire the benefits of marriage sanctioned by the state affect anyone’s “traditional” marriage? How does my marriage affect your marriage? If I marry a woman does that mean you can’t marry someone of the opposite sex? When I was a child the word divorce was almost a dirty word. It really was. People did not get divorced except under the most dire of circumstances. Today it seems some straight people get married and divorced almost as often as they change phones. It can be very hard on the people involved, especially if there are children, but there isn’t the same shame associated with as there was when I was a kid. If the people who want to protect traditional marriage REALLY want to protect traditional marriage why don’t they spend their seemingly endless time and money trying to change the divorce laws? Maybe make it much, much harder to get a divorce? Can you imagine what would happen if someone started a proposition in California that would keep people from getting married and divorced as many times as they wanted to?

  9. Malik says:

    “No, he donated $1,000 to preserve traditional marriage. How is this harming same sex couples?”

    By not allowing them to get married, and withholding benefits from them.

  10. Malik says:

    “Natural order”? You do realize that homosexuality occurs in nature?

    Finally, and conservatives always get this wrong, free speech does not shield you from criticism. He had every right to support discrimination, just as every one else. But that doesn’t mean people can’t oppose discriminatory people. Youre criticizing the exact form of protest that was the lifeblood of the Civil Rights Movement. Do likeLauryn said and come again.

  11. Amber says:

    Um… You guys know that the 1st amendment only applies to the -government-, right?
    Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism, and intolerance towards intolerance is not bigotry.

  12. Franklin says:

    Gays are just not very tolerant…..

  13. kg says:

    well said. the good news, its Mozzila, he did himself a favor by resigning. their software is terrible.

  14. Ragnar says:

    “Hear hear.” Well said!

  15. Aize says:

    I always wonder how aspects of people’s private, personal lives made it in to the public domain? Did the founders discuss private matters like these?The fact that sexual preferences are discussed in public is a disgrace and more dumming down of America. Just a distraction. This gay marriage stuff has been batted around the public the last 25-30 yrs; but we’re just starting to talk about the NSA and/or have no clue about the Federal Reserve never being audited. It’s amazing how they shape what we debate about. This keeps us from debating about what we should debate about. I have no opinion on issuses like this; you know why? It’s none of my damn business who or what a person has sex with. A crying shame!!!

  16. Raegus says:

    There’s a big difference between supporting traditional marriage and being against same sex marriage. Personally (I’m straight) I don’t support any form of marriage but that is my personal preference. When I start trying to control and dictate to others what their preferences towards marriage should be, I’ve crossed a boundary. I can’t see any particular reason to deny marriage to gay people and I can’t see how it cheapens or attacks traditional marriage by letting them get married. Why not just outlaw marriage entirely? Or at least remove tax benefits and any other form of government provided benefits and make marriage a purely ceremonial union?

    How can you infer he should be fired for supporting the KKK and be against his firing for this? Why even be against racism? Why draw an arbitrary line in the sand between different forms of bigotry and say “this one is bad, but this one is okay”? You are not supporting traditional marriage, you are denying gays the right to marry. I suppose segregation was just supporting “traditional white usage of water fountains”? Lol.

  17. Autonymous says:

    Oh, i just realized i accidentally used a phrase which will be conscrued differently! LOL! Go down in flames!! (It is an expression which i am now not taking back, on purpose!)

  18. Autonymous says:

    As an LGBT person, I am actually shaking my head over it… sadly, humans tend to enjoy delivering personal vendettas over other people and then using it as a “win” in public.

    I have been removed from positions before over the years, wrongfully. The good part about it is that within a short period of time afterwards, my ex-employees would lament on what a hell-house their departments had become since my leaving.

    LOL, somewhat avenged to know how companies ruin themselves through popular belief systems… the wisdom of mobs. Hahahahaha! I hope Mozilla goes down in flames for removing Brendan Eich!

  19. Pam says:

    On this blog, the author has been smeared with every foul name for a woman that has been created. Her intelligence, motives, ancestry, and goals have been sneered at with obscenity after obscenity. Yet this is the crowd that defends their action screaming “FREE SPEECH!” The hypocrisy of the Left is indefensible.

  20. Jeff says:

    Well said.

  21. Kalagenesis says:

    I have to agree with the Coonservative Black chick about the gays taking over.

Leave a Reply